# Talk:1920 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Constitutional Assembly election

I'm working on basic copy edits. I realize that the first section was intended to be the MOS:LEAD but it is too long to be that. The lead should be short - usually just a paragraph. Because the article will have all of the details, the lead is no more than a teaser. I started a lead but do not know enough about the topic to help much. I'll be happy to review any drafts of the lead that you write. Lamona (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lamona, you are completely wrong. Please read MOS:LEAD more carefully. It explicitly says that few well-written leads will be shorter than 100 words, and the lead you have for all intents and purposes destroyed, is mere 39. MOS:LONGLEAD specifically says that leads up to 400 words are common in featured articles (the lead before the "copyedit" had 494). WP:CREATELEAD explicitly says up to four paragraphs per lead - and before the "intervention" slashing everything out, the lede had four paragraphs. Please refrain from making MOS edits before actually taking time to read MOS. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I can easily reverse the lead, and did not change the following paragraphs. I do think that a shorter lead would be preferable, as the lead is intended to introduce and summarize. What I did there was a place-holder, not intended to be complete. But I will change it back, as you wish. Lamona (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1920 Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes Constitutional Assembly election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 17:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)


### Lead
Should party colors not be in the infobox under the party leader's images? They seem to be known as the 4 parties in the infobox have colors in the results table.
I chose not to include them as decorative and to avoid conflict with the pie charts in the map. Is that even a required feature?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
"The election result established the HSS as the leading Croatian political party." Why is this notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? Later in the article it says the HSS was the only party to win a majority of the votes in a province. I would reword this sentence to reflect that.
The HSS becoming the leading Croatian party is significant for two reasons: 1) it defeated (in Croatian terms at least) previously leading parties on a political platform of opposition to the manner in which the new state was being formed and ultimately its constitution drawn up; and 2) it would remain the leading Croatian (and mostly leading opposition) party in the country in the entire interwar period. I have reworded this a bit and included the majority information as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


### Background
"The Serbian government rejected this agreement.[5]" I think it's kinda obvious why Serbia rejected it (they wanted to be in charge), but I don't think it would hurt to mention why Serbia rejected it.
Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


### Campaigning
I'd reword "The HSS leader Stjepan Radić, calling for establishment of Yugoslavia as a federal republic," to "HSS leader Stjepan Radić, who called for establishment of Yugoslavia as a federal republic," so the sentence flows better, as well as link federal republic.
Edited as suggested--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


### Results
The results section says the turnout is 64.79% despite there being no data for invalid votes. I've been told previously that turnout can't be displayed unless the invalid vote is also counted or if an official source states what the turnout is. I checked the given source (I can't read Serbian) and I think it says the turnout was 64.95%? Can you verify/clarify this?
Yes, you read it correctly. There is a difference in the numbers and the template calculates (correctly) the turnout. It turns out that the published results contain several arithmetical errors and I have added notes (one earlier, and now another one for the turnout rate) to explain. Whoever was tasked with calculations related to the elections made many mathematical mistakes, including one regarding assignment of seats for "qualified candidates" and "ordinary candidates" - so another arithmetical mistake is not very surprising.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


### Aftermath
Is there a page to link Constitutional Assembly to?
Not really. Could be linked to Constitutional Assembly of Yugoslavia, but that only redirects to Assembly of Yugoslavia. I think that would be a bit of an easter egg.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


### Sources
All seem reliable to me


### Overall
All images appear to be properly licensed and appropriately captioned
Article is stable
Neutral
Content verifiable
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
@Tomobe03: I've gone over the article and left some comments. Otherwise looks very good! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 17:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@PizzaKing13 thank you for taking a look at the article. I believe I have covered everything above, assuming that one colors issue is decorative or outside GA criteria. Could you comment back please? Tomobe03 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
@Tomobe03: Everything looks good to me and I'll go ahead and pass this review. Congrats! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 07:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to say "provided for universal manhood suffrage" in Wiki voice, both in the lead and the article body, given the long list of groups who were excluded (German, Italian and Hungarian minorities, former Ottoman nationals, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and 'certain (other) religious minorities'). 'Universal' is defined as "regardless of income, property, religion, race, or any other qualification" and these exclusions on grounds of race or religion are the opposite. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say something like 'extended voting rights' (perhaps with details of who gained them)? YFB ¿ 10:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Ping @Tomobe03 and @PizzaKing13 YFB ¿ 22:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)