# Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=12th+Congress+of+the+League+of+Communists+of+Yugoslavia&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 50.100.81.36 (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Its a quote so no surprise there; the article clear marks it as a quote so no copyright vio  TheUzbek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheUzbek (talk · contribs) 10:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Easternsahara (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is good arical, well written, well sourced and readable, I would support rating it as GA ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you & thanks for reviewing it! TheUzbek (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Has the article now passed? Will you change the ratings and complete the GA review process? :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
As the previous user seems to have abandoned their nomination, I will replace them. Pinging to inform TheUzbek (talk · contribs) of this change, and to (re)add this page to their watchlist. Will probably finish later today/tomorrow but definitely by the end of this week.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
@TheUzbek:, please change a couple of things from the prose
"the Central Committee, Commission for Statutory Questions and the Supervisory" → "the Central Committee, Commission for Statutory Questions, and the Supervisory" add a comma before and
"assistance for cultural, scientific and educational institutions in self-management"→"assistance for cultural, scientific, and educational institutions in self-management" add a comma before and
"no reason to stipulatee this"  remove extra e from stipulate
"the country was facing and it" add comma after and
After these measures are taken, then the prose meets the standards for a good article. I would say it is beyond expectations.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Correct order and elements in lead
Lead has no citations, but none are needed.
Appropriate summary of key points of the article in lead.
Could you include Serbo-croatian name for the 12th congress?
Conforms to other expectations set by the MOS on the lead.
Does not include any words to watch
First two lists are used correctly, would be more confusing if they were prose.
The "Agency" section is entirely a list and is confusing to understand because there is no introduction. Please make this into prose or introduce it if you are quoting something from official documents.
"According to Yugoslav media" I understand if the source that you are using does not specify which media outlets these are, but if it does then could you specify?
Article is not on fictional event, does not apply
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline 
Has "References" section which is further categorized by format.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Credible authors, reliable publishers. Sources are attributed for opinions.
C. It contains no original research: 
No synthesis, things found are cited in sources.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Only copyright violations that the copyvio finds is in references, where the names of articles are mentioned. Safe to say that this is not copyright infringement.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Yes it does. Trying to find information about other affairs of the 12th Congress, which have not been mentioned in this article, has been unfruitful for me.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Only mentions other things where relevant, mostly in background section. These events have been reported in a reliable source about the topic (Reuter 1980), (Reuter 1981) and (Jovic 2009).
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Yes, due weight is applied to opinions and most of the article is factual anyway. Opinions are given attribution to the opinion-holders. Very minor but I would like to ask if you think that it is appropriate to redlink Jens Reuters. So that, when an article on him be created, readers can understand the opinion-holders position on it better. Same question with Robert Miller.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Last edit before mine took place all the way back in March. Most substantial additions took place in January to my understanding. There is no reason to suspect that the information available will change much since it has been quite long since the conclusion of this congress.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
There are 3 images used, 2 are the emblems of the Yugoslav communists, which are both CC0. The other one is CC BY 2.0.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I added a caption for the emblems, and the captions for the meeting place sufficient.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Easternsahara (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! :)
I have responded to you're comments. I have a question: would it have been more correct to start a new review entirely by creating the page Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA2? It seems like that is what the GA template wants. TheUzbek (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
As for Reuters and Miller: I have no clue how notable they are and if they warrant their own articles. TheUzbek (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah alright, I understand about the Reuters and Miller people. This is my first GANR, so I did not know to create a new page for the review if you're replacing someone. I will keep that in mind and do that next time. Easternsahara (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
You've done a great job, so I am very pleased about this process :) I have no clue myself :P TheUzbek (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
But I think you need to do this to finish the process off: [1] TheUzbek (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Alright I have promoted the article, good work as always! Easternsahara (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the GA promotion as it was causing a bot crash.  Please see here, which explains what the problem is and how to fix it.  Easternsahara, I could fix it myself but then I'd get credit for the review, rather than you, so I assume you'd prefer to do it yourself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Easternsahara, sorry but I had to revert again.  The problem isn't just that the GA template was incorrect; it's that there is no review with a page number of 2.  Can I ask you to click on the template at the top of this page to start a GA review and then wait for the bot to update the GAN page?  Once you've done that you can promote the article as usual, or if you prefer I can do it for you.  The only step I can't do is the initiation of the review.  When you initiate it, just put "creating new review to solve bot problem" or something like that, and then I can take care of the remaining steps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
And I see you've created the review -- thanks.  I can finish it from here, but please don't promote it till the bot has seen it.  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:12th Congress of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheUzbek (talk · contribs) 10:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Easternsahara (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

As the previous user seems to have abandoned their nomination, I will replace them. Will probably finish later today/tomorrow but definitely by the end of this week.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
@TheUzbek:, please change a couple of things from the prose
"the Central Committee, Commission for Statutory Questions and the Supervisory" → "the Central Committee, Commission for Statutory Questions, and the Supervisory" add a comma before and
"assistance for cultural, scientific and educational institutions in self-management"→"assistance for cultural, scientific, and educational institutions in self-management" add a comma before and
"no reason to stipulatee this"  remove extra e from stipulate
"the country was facing and it" add comma after and
After these measures are taken, then the prose meets the standards for a good article. I would say it is beyond expectations.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Correct order and elements in lead
Lead has no citations, but none are needed.
Appropriate summary of key points of the article in lead.
Could you include Serbo-croatian name for the 12th congress?
Conforms to other expectations set by the MOS on the lead.
Does not include any words to watch
First two lists are used correctly, would be more confusing if they were prose.
The "Agency" section is entirely a list and is confusing to understand because there is no introduction. Please make this into prose or introduce it if you are quoting something from official documents.
"According to Yugoslav media" I understand if the source that you are using does not specify which media outlets these are, but if it does then could you specify?
Article is not on fictional event, does not apply
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline 
Has "References" section which is further categorized by format.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Credible authors, reliable publishers. Sources are attributed for opinions.
C. It contains no original research: 
No synthesis, things found are cited in sources.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Only copyright violations that the copyvio finds is in references, where the names of articles are mentioned. Safe to say that this is not copyright infringement.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Yes it does. Trying to find information about other affairs of the 12th Congress, which have not been mentioned in this article, has been unfruitful for me.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Only mentions other things where relevant, mostly in background section. These events have been reported in a reliable source about the topic (Reuter 1980), (Reuter 1981) and (Jovic 2009).
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Yes, due weight is applied to opinions and most of the article is factual anyway. Opinions are given attribution to the opinion-holders. Very minor but I would like to ask if you think that it is appropriate to redlink Jens Reuters. So that, when an article on him be created, readers can understand the opinion-holders position on it better. Same question with Robert Miller.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Last edit before mine took place all the way back in March. Most substantial additions took place in January to my understanding. There is no reason to suspect that the information available will change much since it has been quite long since the conclusion of this congress.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
There are 3 images used, 2 are the emblems of the Yugoslav communists, which are both CC0. The other one is CC BY 2.0.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I added a caption for the emblems, and the captions for the meeting place sufficient.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Easternsahara (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks -- all done now.  Sorry about the confusion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)