Talk:Radomir Lazović/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 04:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

OK ... this has been sitting here for seven months, and I still IMO owe some GA reviews as QPQs from my own flurry of noms over the last couple of years, so I'll take this one.

I will print it out, do a light copy edit because I don't think any GAN should fail or risk failure for that reason, and then hopefully within a week get back with my thoughts. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Thank you for picking this GAN up. Vacant0 (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

OK ... having finished with the copy edit, which had to deal at some length with what seemed like a couple of issues reflecting the nominator's likely not being a first-language English speaker, which I will deal with below, I am ready to post my review. I have dispensed with the rubric template the software now defaults to as I have been reviewing GAs for a long time and I much prefer the sort of punch list format I've always used.

As usual I start off with things the article does well:

• No one could possibly accuse it of being underinformative. We learn a great deal about Lazović's artistic and political career. It is thorough enough that, if anything's missing, I can't imagine what it would be.

• Appropriately enough, it is fully cited. This is the first time in quite a while (if ever, possibly) reviewing GANs that I did not have to drop a single {{fact}} template. That is no small feat, believe me.

• And following from that, the references themselves were impeccably done. All of them in the same, proper format. Almost all of them containing all of the required information. The only thing I had to do was add a couple of "lang" tags where they had been missed (or, in one case, mistaken). Again, in most of the GANs I review this is something conspicuous by its absence. Far too few editors pay anything near the right attention to this aspect of their articles.

This is an excellent start to this review and gets you, as we say here in the US, ahead in the count. But, of course, there are things I'd like to see addressed.

• First of all, the paragraph-splitting issue, which we clashed on during my copy edit. I want you to go read WP:PARAGRAPH, particularly this passage:

Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Paragraphs should deal with a particular point or idea. All the sentences within a paragraph should revolve around the same topic. When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus."

and then consider whether the long paragraphs you have indicated look better to you are consistent with that advice.

I will also add that, as challenging as they are for readers (especially native English speakers for whom many of the Serb names used in the article involve unusual (to us) combinations of letters and unfamiliar diacritical marks), those long, long paragraphs are an absolute nightmare for editors, giving how source-dense they are.

• I was able to overcome a lot of the Serbian-inflected English (did you use machine translation? The preference for perfect forms of the past tense where English uses the simple form ("had done" vs. "did" something), and the use of verb phrases like "is supportive of" where "supports" would be enough suggests that to me). But I am mystified by "private objects". Is "private property" meant?

• There are places in the article where some things should be explained in a bit more detail:
  • It seems that Lazović and the other activists who founded NDB have some sort of complaint regarding the role of the lex specialis doctrine in the waterfront-redevelopment project that is serious enough they chose to symbolize it with a rubber duck. But the article never explains what this is despite two mentions of both in separate sections.
  • Likewise the significance of the Stefan Nemanja statue and its location is unclear to those of us who live outside Serbia and don't speak the language (It might be a good idea to start an English article about it).
  • As I said, we should make clear whether Lazović and NDB are opposed to any waterfront redevelopment or just the proposal in question at the time.

• My one issue with the sourcing: If we are going to describe those Srpski telegraf articles as "disinformative", it would be a good idea, given how loaded that term can be, to cite a source calling them as much and make it clear inline that this is not in Wikipedia's voice (we would not necessarily need to state the source inline).

• The "personal life" section, minimal though it is, includes some information that should really be elsewhere in the article: "Mika", his nickname, should be in the lede (especially seeing as it uses the very first source cited), and his past employment for the newspaper should also go in that section.

• My last issue (maybe a big one): For as detailed as the article is regarding his post-2010 career, there is nothing on what he did before then save some very perfunctory accounts of his childhood and schooling. I can't believe a person this outspoken did not just come into being at the age of 30. I'd have to believe he was engaged in some art and activism before then. Is there any record of this anywhere that we can add? I get the feeling you did your research thoroughly, but it would be nice to have some idea as to anything notable he might have done in his young adulthood.

OK, that's it. I don't see these issues as being too difficult to fix, so I'm putting this article:

 On hold Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I was busy, I'll take a look at this now. Vacant0 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, I appreciate the feedback. It is correct that English is not my native language, so the copy-editing and adding a few of lang templates to refs was very helpful from you.

• In regards to paragraph-splitting, I think the passage you posted is helpful and makes sense. The only thing I disliked was how it visually looked, though the MoS matters more in this case. I've just implemented that recommendation in this edit here, feel free to check and amend (split more paragraphs) if needed.
• I do not use machine translation and as I've said above, English is not my main language. The example you presented is a good one because I would sometimes literally translate things from Serbian to English (privatni objekti → private objects). I've changed this to private property as this is the correct translation.
• I've amended it to "Lazović said the duck symbolised the project itself and lex specialis, which was adopted shortly prior in the National Assembly and expanded the legal structure of the Belgrade Waterfront project" and "He added that "a duck is the symbol of fraud, but also of resistance to arrogance and arbitrariness"." which is mentioned in the source. I hope this is more helpful.
• I'll start the article regarding the Stefan Nemanja statue soon as it did receive mixed responses because of its location of placement, so an article about it would be helpful for readers if they want to know more about it. I've added a more a bit info regarding this to Lazović's article for now.
• I've replaced disinformative with unsubstantiated as this is mentioned in the source.
• As it is mentioned in the source, Mika seems to be his nickname used by close friends so I'm not sure whether it should be included in the lede. I've added the Danas thing to the lede though.
• I wasn't able to find anything that he did before 2010, this still seems to be the case. It's something that I dislike too so besides his education, occupation, what he did in the youth, there does not seem to be much reliable information available online. For example, I was able to find his birthday and that he has a brother but none of this is covered in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

OK ... Everything has been addressed! Thank you for your cooperation and swift attention to detail. This is now ... ✓ Pass!

My one suggestion for further improvement in the article might be adding a picture of the waterfront, perhaps specifically the development he and NBD have led opposition to, or an area they want to preserve. You would know better than I what picture would work (I have actually been to Belgrade, but that was once, for a day, 35 years ago, so I wouldn't presume to know). But don't use any images of renderings as they aren't free images (unless specifically licensed as such at the point of original publication) and don't come under fair use (in fact, I'm going to list this image for deletion at Commons for this reason. Nothing to stop it from being used locally, of course, with proper justification, in the right article).

Also, speaking of pictures, and with nothing to do with this review, I was amused by the original picture you had, the one you removed, since in it he looks almost exactly like a guy I occasionally work with ... I'll have to show him that picture next time I see him.

Congratulations! Happy editing going forward! Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually one more thing ... now that it's been promoted, it would be eligible for a DYK nomination. I've done a lot and I'd be happy to make one for this article (something with the rubber duck seems likely to stand out). Would you like me to? Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel, I'll add an image of Belgrade Waterfront now. That's a good recommendation. And yes, feel free to make a DYK for this article. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)