This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
I was asked to evaluate the translation from Romanian. It's pretty accurate. I did some cleanup and made some of the English more colloquial. - Jmabel | Talk02:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: While we should doubtless have more than one source, you appear to object to Institutul National al Patrimoniului (cIMeC) as unreliable and overly primary. It does not seem to me objectionable on either of those grounds. Can you explain the basis of your issue? - Jmabel | Talk02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're confused Jmabel, it's pretty clear cut. Read WP:PRIMARY. Here we have an ENTIRE article based on a single primary source. While the use of that primary source is not an issue, the sole reliance on that source is problematic. If that were the only source available, the article would most likely not pass an AfD discussion. Onel5969TT me12:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider twork of a professional at Institutul National al Patrimoniului to be secondary, not primary, and I certainly would not see any reason to question its reliability. And if the issue is {{One source}}, then say so, instead of {{unreliable sources}}, which is a different matter entirely. - Jmabel | Talk15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
