Jump to content

Talk:Romania/GA4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The MoS does not allow stray quasi-"see also"-links, such as under culture. Embed into the text, or let people click on "Culture of Romania".
    • WP:LEAD: Almost all countries have had at least one European Capital of Culture. There is no reason this should be in the lead; perhaps not even in the body. Why is the flat tax worthy of the lead, when none of the prime industries are mentioned? What does 'growth speed' mean? The lead does not cover education, sports, transportation, tourism, culture nor administrative divisions. The lead is to summarize all parts of the body, at least mention all sub-sections.
    • Currencies in the infobox need to be specified (i.e. not just $, but either USD or US$).
    • A hyphen (-) is never to be used as punctuation. Instead, use an emdash (&emdash;)
    • Please use piped links for dab-links with parenthasis.
    • For "further discussions" and the like, perhaps including the item in the {{main}} template would be favorable.
    • The sentence "Romanians were not even allowed to reside within the city walls." is POV. If the word "even" is removed, it becomes NPOV.
    • "coup d'état" should be wikilinked, either to the one in particular (that should have an article), or to the general term.
    • "The 1878-1914 period" should use an endash (&endash;), not a hyphen (-). Also Austria–Hungary uses an endash, as should Soviet–Romanian companies, Israel–Egypt and Israel–PLO peace processes. PLO should be in full length on first occurance.
    • What does "on August 14/27 1916" mean? Between 14 and 27 August? If so, use an endash, or word it out.
    • Under history, why do some of the headers go over two lines?
    • Even on first occurance, use US$ or USD, but pipe link to the currency, instead of writing out in full.
    • Half the "communism" section talks about foreign policy; the domestic impact is hardly mentioned.
    • Not all metric values are converted to imperial.
    • Again, lei should not be spelled out, but use a linked ISO code. Currency conversions are very fluxuating, particularly towards the USD, and might be considered avoided.
    • "the transport infrastructure does not meet the current needs of a market economy" is very fuzzy. Is the infrastructure congested? Is there speed or volume restrictions? If so, state it.
    • Reword sentences like "Romania comprised in 2004 22,298" so there are not two numbers after each other.
    • "The Bucharest Metro was only opened in 1979." is a terrible sentence, and indicates POV: many cities built their rapid transit systems after 1979.
    • "Romania has its unique culture, which is the product of its geography and of its distinct historical evolution" says aboslutely nothing.
    • "Nevertheless, in 2006 Brussels report..." sounds bad (grammatically); also, never refer to th EU or one of its branches as 'Brussels'.
    • Could the list of counties be converted into a table? At current, it is very difficult to read.
    • There are many external links, of which most seem redundant to this article, or to the subpages. External links should only be provided to sites that supplement the article. For reliable sources, readers should use the references (e.g. the CIA Book of Facts). The link box to other wikiprojects is not particularly helpful.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Many paragraphs or sentences lack references, in particular "Administrative divisions", "National Flag", "Arts", "Transportation", "Geography", "Present-day democracy", "Middle Ages", but also many other places.
    • There are unresolved [citation needed] tags.
    • Statements along the line of "[flat tax] ... a factor which has contributed to the growth of the private sector" are very speculative, and would need sound scientific evidence (it is not sufficient that they are time correlated. I point this out as an example, because there are many such statements that are completely unreferenced.
    • What makes ref 162 reliable?
    • The statement "Romania's contribution to the World Heritage List stands out because it consists of some groups of monuments scattered around the country, rather than one or two special landmarks." is very POV, vague, and comes from an unreliable source.
    • According to this tool, refs 40, 54, 121, 130, 151 and two external links are dead.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • The section "Environment" should be broadend to "Ecology", and be less focused on protected areas.
    • Is the 2002 census the latest population data? Why is the value in the text and the infobox different (by a lot)?
    • I fear that the section about cencoring education is very off topic, since it is a very dimiutive part of the overall education system.
    • The section "national flag" is very short, and could easily be merged into a different section.
    • The section on sports seems way out of porportion. Would it not be better as a part of "culture" (either a paragraph, or a short section)?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    This has been covered in the references section. Lack of proper referencing makes it impossible to establish NPOV.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • File:Romanians before WW1.jpg does not look good with so much red. There was a better version a few days ago. I would recommend reverting.
    • File:Putna Monastery.jpg and File:Iasi cultural palace.jpg do not have valid licenses. They must be removed.
    • At three occurrences, the images are 'sandwiching' the text; they must be adjusted to not do so, and if necessary the number of images should be reduced, if there is not room to accommodate them.
    • For reasons of accessibility, do not specify the size of images. This option is for user space, panoramas etc. for portrait-aligned images, use |upright|.
    • File:Romania-demography.png does not have a caption; likewise, 'Romania' should not be bold in captions.
    • Never place an image directly below a === or smaller header, since this will make it difficult to follow the flow of the text.
    • Under economy, instead of a tower, it would be better to have a picture of one of the large industries.
    • Generally, there are too many pictures of old buldings.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    There are very many issues with this article, and it fails all but two criteria. I react to that not all the issues named in the previous review had been resolved. In general, the article reads very well, has only a few typographical mistates, few grammer and spelling mistakes. It also covers all areas, but tends to overfoucs on some fields. Unfortunetly, about half the claims are not verified, making it impossible to pass GA. I would recommend that the instances mentioned above are seen to, and that effort is made to referene all claims. After that is done, it may be ready for a new attempt at GA.

"Unfortunetly", the GA itself seems to have "mistates" and "grammer" issues, which leads to a slight overbearing impression.

Also, in regards to a mention of censored education as being off-topic, I beg to differ, and find the matter notable. (Purpleturple talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania/GA4&oldid=284754516"