Talk:Sara Pavkov

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sara Pavkov/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pangalau (talk · contribs) 06:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I will be review this shortly.

Here is my initial assessment, see my comments below.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good
	2b. 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).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Good
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good
	7. Overall assessment.

• Comments:
  • No copyright issues or personal research found.
  • Image is captioned and not copyrighted.
  • Several grammatical issues have been corrected.
  • The career section has been reorganised to improve fluency and ensure chronological order.
  • Duplicate links to the same articles have been removed.
  • Ministerial section leans toward event listing.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Pavkov in 2025

• ... that Serbia's minister for environmental protection (pictured) practiced karate for 13 years? https://www.danas.rs/vesti/klimatske-promene/ko-je-sara-pavkov-biografija/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Patricio Fontanet
  • Comment: Driveby nom.

Improved to Good Article status by Vacant0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 418 past nominations.

Launchballer 08:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC).

• @Launchballer: DYK seems to be still in backlog mode, so you've had two perform 2 QPQs. Nevertheless, I reviewed one nomination so it's all good now. Thx for nominating. I was busy and couldn't do it. Here's another interesting hook(?).
• ALT1 ... that Serbia's minister for environmental protection (pictured) co-chaired the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference? https://www.021.rs/novi-sad/vesti/288805/ko-je-novosadjanka-koja-je-predsedavala-klimatskim-samitom-cop26-u-glazgovu Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Fontanet is a double nom and counts as two QPQs, I don't need Old State House for this. Thanks though.--Launchballer 14:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Didn't know. I'll use it for a different DYK nom. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• New enough (Good Article on the same day as the DYK nomination), long enough, well sourced, no obvious copyright violations. A double nomination was reviewed by the nominator as a QPQ. Both of the hooks are cited although the first is more interesting to me. Edward056686 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)