Talk:Romania/GA5

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some initial comments within 48 hours and will mainly focus on copyediting issues, but given the article's size I'll be doing a full review. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait, I'll read through and leave some comments now. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

Opening sentence can be improved. "Romania formerly also spelled Roumania and Rumania" - not grammatically great. How about something like Romania, formerly spelled Roumania, and also Rumania
"Since then, the living standards have seen a vast improvement" - since when? Since the 1989 revolution? Or its independence from the Soviet Union?
"Romania has an economy predominantly based on services" - what kind of services?
Overall the lead is well written and proportionate, however bearing in mind the size of this article make sure that the lead summarises almost every section. As far as I can tell, it adequately summarises the article well (improvements since last time), so this complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria.

History

"the territories were inhabited by Dacians, a branch of Thracian people" - a branch of the Thracian people
"During the 3rd century AD" - no need to say its AD, this should read During the third century
"most Romanians were awarded few rights" - awarded? How about 'given'?
"Romania remained neutral for the first two years of the World War I" - of the World War I? You mean of the First World War?
There are two citation needed tags in the World Wars and Greater Romania section. Need to destroy them!
"Romania ranked second in Europe and seventh in the world. and was Europe's second-largest food producer." - syntax error

Administrative divisions

"The municipality of Bucharest is a special case as it enjoys a status on par to that of a county" - how about uses/employs/shares?

Economy

"After joining the EU in 2007, Romania is expected to adopt the euro sometimes around 2020" - sometime
"There were almost 13 million connections to the Internet in 2012" - internet shouldn't be capitalised
"According to Bloomberg, in 2013 Romania ranked 5th in the world and 2nd in Europe in terms of internet connection speed" - "fifth" and "second" respectively

Demographics

There's another citations needed tag here
The prose appears good here, so no problems in this section

Culture

Be careful of WP:OVERLINKING in the Arts and monuments section

References

Ref 22 is dead since 2008
Ref 68 is broken, leads to another page
Ref 112 is broken
Ref 111 is another 404 error
Ref 130, Ref 146, Ref 152, Ref 155, Ref 184 and Ref 196 are all dead!
This is the main concern. You can check all of the dead refs here. They all either need to be deleted/replaced before this can meet the GA criteria. However the citations are in the correct places, so that part meets the GA criteria.
Make sure all book titles are italicised

WP:ENGVAR

Which variant of English does this article use? For an article of this size, it has to use one form of English (either American or British spelling in this case). I'm seeing British suffixes used in some cases (ie. Romanisation) and American spelling in others ("colonization"). I don't know what form of English this article started in, but it should use one form only.

On hold

This is the 933rd most viewed article on Wikipedia, gaining 160371 views last month. There is much to applaud to this article, it is vastly comprehensive, focused and well referenced (despite the current number of link rots). I note that this is also its fifth GAN, and being Romani myself this article is well deserved to finally become GA. The things standing in the way of this becoming a Good Article are the issues with the references and everything else I had mentioned above. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have all been addressed I'll take another look. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I don't know if you've seen this yet? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted a "source" published in 1896. Ghyka wrote his book more than 150 years ago. Ghyka's work is not a reliable source. It should be deleted too. As you see the early history section is very badly written. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little off-topic remark to User:Jaguar: what do you mean by "being Romani myself"? I hope you are aware that the Romani people and the Romanian people are completely differnt peoples. Bagnume (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am Romani (or some might say Roma), not Romanian at all! I don't like usually telling anyone but I like to think on wiki it is a little less judgemental! I am Irish-Romani, or at least my family are. Hope that clears things despite being off topic! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaguar, I don't despise you for being a Romani. I just had the impression that you hinted that Romania would be the motherland of Romani people. I am sorry if you fell offended. I'd like to close this off-tpoic parenthesis. Bagnume (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - not listed

I'm sorry to do this, but there has been little movement and responses from this GAN so far and there are still many pressing concerns before this article can meet the GA criteria. But don't worry, this isn't the end. I would love to see Romania gain its well deserved GA status, and if any of you wish to renominate this GAN, you could ask me and I will give it a speedy review (seeing that the concerns I mentioned above are the only things stopping this from becoming a GA). It has been eight days since the review opened and currently it does not meet the criteria, but rest assured it is close.

As I said, if you want to renominate this I promise I would give it a quick review. For the time being it's almost there. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]