Talk:1946 Romanian general election/GA1

GA Review

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

GA comments copied from WT:GAN

I'd appreciate it if a more experienced editor took a look at this article. It was nominated by Nergaal on November 22, 2009, so it's been in queue for quite some time now.

I'm honestly not sure exactly where to begin with this. There appears to be ample citations. There's two images there, they are tagged and captioned appropriately. The major problem appears to be the introduction and the organization. Reading it, it's just not introducing the election and its major players very well. And the sections aren't flowing very well, either. I've also found several typos in early reading as well.

I really hate to fail an article that's been nominated almost three months ago, but I'm not sure what else to do. Another concern I have is that there hasn't been much recent editing activity in the article at all, based on the edit history. It appears to have been nominated somewhat arbitrarily in November after Nergaal added two images. Plus, you can still see edits from 2008 and 2007 showing up in the last 50 edits of the page. I know we need articles to be stable and all, but this one seems to be practically dead!

So, if someone could take a peek, that would be great! Thanks! WTF? (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very poorly written, a clear fail. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not well written, lead fails WP:LEAD. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like one of several nominations that Nergaal made on behalf of Dahn; the others are Ion Antonescu (currently under review, although not updated in a month) and Ion Luca Caragiale, which is so exceedingly long -- 400+ citations! new record? -- there's even a template at the top of the page saying as much. Dahn is the major contributor to all three articles, and as can be seen with the one stalled review, doesn't seem to agree with recent changes. All three have been queuing for a while, and all have their issues from what I can tell. Three massive articles at GAC at the same time seems like overkill, especially since it will strain already tight reviewer resources; if they need intensive help to pass the criteria, that's even more time wasted. I don't know what to suggest, really. If nothing else, both editors should be informed of this discussion. María (habla conmigo) 17:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two articles are 117 and 101kb or prose, respectively. That is a big fail of GA criterion 3b, so it could theoretically be quick-failed. Maybe find a way to fork some of the info into a new article (early life of x, death of x, etc.) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran AWB on the Ion Luca Caragiale article and managed to cut the citations down from 486 to 413, along with other fixes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving this a review as best I can. The consensus on the GAN talk page (now archived above this review) is to fail the article per issues with how it's written. Here's a few I noticed to start with, aside from what others have:

You throw a lot of political party names out there in the first paragraph of the lead, and for someone not familiar with Romanian politics, it's overwhelming. I'd reword the lead and try and reduce the naming, since a lot of them are in the results box below anyway (you can add the abbreviations there too). It would probably be better for the lead to be rewritten completely.
By extension, That second sentence becomes a run-on. "Officially, it was carried with 79.86% of the vote by the Romanian Communist Party (PCR), its allies inside the Bloc of Democratic Parties (Blocul Partidelor Democrate, BPD), and its associates — the Hungarian People's Union (UPM or MNSz), the pro-government splinter group from the opposition National Peasants' Party (PNŢ), formed around Nicolae L. Lupu, and the Jewish Democratic Committee (Comitetul Democratic Evreiesc)." This could be summed up simply by saying the Romanian Communist Party and its allies for 79.86% of the vote, and readers can see who the allies are in the table and prose below.
"the 1946 Romanian election has drawn comparisons to the similarly flawed elections held at the time in most of the emerging Eastern Bloc (in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland),[5] being considered, in respect to its formal system of voting, among the most permissive of the latter" Most permissive of what, exactly? Most permissive of fraud, of allowing voting, or what?
Note the issues that the other people have had in reading the article.

Per my attempt in reading it as well as others on that talk page, I'm failing this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]