Former good article nomineeSerbia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
January 16, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006, February 15, 2007, February 15, 2008, February 15, 2009, February 15, 2010, February 15, 2011, February 15, 2012, February 15, 2013, February 15, 2014, February 15, 2015, February 15, 2016, February 15, 2017, February 15, 2018, February 15, 2019, February 15, 2020, February 15, 2021, February 15, 2022, February 15, 2023, and February 15, 2024.
Current status: Former good article nominee

demographics %[edit]

its differents at the home page around 84 %, compared to the demographics page 81% serbs, which would also put the number of ethnic serbs higher than 5.3 mil within serbia if its 84% or lower if its 81% 2A01:C23:C495:F900:8027:50F8:D943:320F (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politico "undue"[edit]

Hello @Griboski, you removed this article with the explanation that it is "undue". Politico is an established WP:RS, and Anna Baerbock is Germany's minister for foreign affairs, a top level politician, so I don't think that is undue. TylerBurden (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of the source, it's about giving undue weight to a particular individual's opinion. For example, why is the German foreign minister's opinion about Serbian foreign affairs more relevant than say, the Russian foreign minister? Or the British or American one. Not that I side with one view or the other, but high level politicians regularly comment on other countries. it doesn't mean we should include their commentaries or criticisms here. For a country article, Serbia's foreign stances can be mentioned without doing so. --Griboski (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather vague not to mention who it came from, she is a notable person with her own Wikipedia article who also happens to be the foreign minister of the largest country in the EU, so her word carries weight, which is why RS are quoting her. Mentioning the commentary without specifying who it is from would just be confusing for readers, unless you would add something such as "Germany's foreign minister", in which case it'd make sense to link her anyway. As for why her, she's the one in the source, if there are similar sources with other people then that can be added also. TylerBurden (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. I'm against giving weight/importance to any particular politician's recent views, critiques or commentary about another country's affairs. News organizations report on what high level politicians say all the time, it doesn't mean we should add their opinions here (see also WP:NOTNEWS).
The politics section should provide a neutral general overview of the important points, like the rest of the article.--Griboski (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milosevic picture[edit]

Please remove Milosevic's picture. He is not as important as Tito or king Aleksandar I or king Milan. Who agreed to have him in the article in the first place? 93.86.237.31 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Entire section covering him so that is the normal place for a picture. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]