Talk:Alexandra Stan vs. Marcel Prodan/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

General

• Article appears stable, no edit-wars.

Thank you!

• No noticeable POV problems

Thank you!

• There is mainstream press coverage, which is fine, but is there anything available from legal experts on the case? Some expert opinion on how this case fits into Romanian law would help the non-Romanian reader get a better sense of things.

This case got a wide coverage in Romania, but not including opinions from commentators. The only opinion I could get was the one in "Related legal proceedings and aftermath"

Images

• The third image's fair use rationale is close, but I think it's all right. The other two are fine.

Thank you!

We should address the concerns BlueMoonset raised below before proceeding. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• This sentence is kind of confusing: "Although other accusations by Stan were ruled groundless and she was fined court costs, Prodan's fines were increased." Maybe better as "The court ruled Stan's other accusations to be groundless and she was fined court costs. Prodan's fines were later increased." Does that describe the facts correctly?

 Done Yes, the sentence describes what happened well.

Allegations and hearings

• "In late December 2015, another hearing took place. Stan attended the hearing with her new boyfriend, and Prodan's ex-wife and Nicolae Prodan appeared." Might be better as "In another hearing in late December 2015, Stan attended with her new boyfriend, and Prodan's ex-wife and Nicolae Prodan also appeared."

 Done

• "On 19 February 2016, it was announced that Prodan..." The words "it was announced that" don't add anything to the sentence and should be removed.

 Done

• "Her damage award from Prodan was increased to €25,000. That decision was finalised by the court on 21 December 2016." It's not clear what's going on here. Was the previous decision not a final one? Was it appealed and the fines increased by the appellate court?

There is no context given by the sources. I assume it was appealed by the singer and was then finalised with Prodan's fines increased and Stan also having to pay some court fines. However, as I said, the sources aren't that good.

This is a problem. If we're writing about a legal case, getting the procedural history right is essential. Are you sure there's nothing that could clear this up? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Well, after I have read the file released by the Constanta Court of Appeal, it seems like there was an appeal from the singer: "Admite apelul formulat de apelanta parte civilă Stan Alexandra Ioana împotriva sentinţei penale nr.193/19.02.2016 [...] Majorează cuantumul daunelor morale la care a fost obligat inculpatul Prodan Vasile Marcel către partea civilă Stan Alexandra Ioana de la 10.000 euro la 25.000 euro", which transaltes into: "Approves the appeal by the civil party appellantexandra Ioana a Stan Algainst the criminal sentence no.193 / 19.02.2016 [...] The amount of moral damages to which the defendant Prodan Vasile Marcel was charged by the civil party Stan Alexandra Ioana was increased from 10,000 euros to 25,000 euros". Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the text f the article to note that. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Related legal proceedings and aftermath

• "That year, it was announced that..." Again, "it was announced that" doesn't add anything.

 Done

• "...representatives of the law firm to which Stan appealed during her court process..." Not sure what this means. Do you mean the law firm that represented her? "Appeal", in the legal world, has a specific meaning that involves a higher court reviewing a lower court's opinion.

 Done Yes, that's what I mean. I was "inventing" words, sorry ;)

Better, but on second reading, I'm not sure about their demand for a foreclosure. What did the law firm want to foreclose on?

Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The Romanian source says "executarea silita a cantaretei", which translates to "[They demanded] the foreclosure of the singer." Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In English, though, one forecloses on property. It means that a property is seized and sold to satisfy the amount owed. So that cannot apply to a person, obviously. Do you think they meant that a judgement should be entered against her? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: I think it is best to remove the "foreclosure" part as the sources do not exactly said what's up with that. If we leave the stat to just "they sued her", it is clear that they wanted money from her, and that's what matters. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• "...filed lawsuit against her..." Should be either "filed suit against her" or "filed a lawsuit against her"

 Done

• "...advising Stan to go "all the way to [...] justice"." Leaving out the word "get" makes the sentence less clear. I would restore the wording completely to how it's quoted in the Daily News.

 Done Revised

Outcome

@Coemgenus: Thank you very much for your review. I have responded to all your comments. Let me know if I can do something for you; best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've struck out the resolved comments and added some more. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

I believe there are issues with two of the three images that need to be addressed. The infobox image, of Prodan and Stan, is a combination of an image of Stan from Commons with an image of Prodan. While the Prodan image is said to be by Cartoon network freak, it appears to be a screenshot from this YouTube video of Prodan at the 2012 BMI London Awards. Since that video is almost certainly copyright, any images taken from it are also copyright, which makes the composite image ineligible as well. (If there is to be a composite image, I think it would be better if Prodan were not so much larger and better lit than Stan; perhaps the Stan image could be cropped so the two faces were approximately the same size. The "Double image" template could be used for two separate images side by side instead of creating a composite.) The third image, which is labeled as a "YouTube video screen capture", has been tagged, and will be deleted tomorrow unless a better non-free justification can be provided, explaining why it is "irreplaceable". BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:; @Coemgenus: I have fixed the image problems. While I removed one of the pictures, I have replaced the one in the infobox with one depicting just Alexandra Stan. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the infobox image is fine. The other one, according to its OTRS summary, is also fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was just reading through the article, and came across these two sentences at the start of the "Related legal proceedings and aftermath" section: After Stan's recovery, she was sued by Prodan for using his songs in her live performances, with her eventually winning the copyright battle in June 2014. That year, Stan did not appear at a scheduled November 2012 show at a club in Turkey; club representatives filed a lawsuit against the singer and Prodan for €197,500. This does not make chronological sense: Stan was injured in June 2013. The first sentence is talking about events between June 2013 and June 2014, while the second sentence begins "That year", yet is talking about a November 2012 show that Stan didn't appear at, seven months before she was injured. Also, in the previous paragraph, Prodan's ex-wife is mentioned, but not her name nor when in this chronology the two divorced (though the ex-wife claims it was because of her husband having a relationship with Stan); there's also the mention of a "Nicolae Prodan" without identifying the relationship between Marcel and Nicolae: sibling, parent/child, or what. These should be established to give context. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:; @Coemgenus: I have solved the chronological issue by writing "That year, it was announced that...". While there's no information on Prodan's ex-wife and why exactly they divorced, Nicolae Prodan appears to be his father. Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll defer to BlueMoonset on whether this point has been addressed adequately. Everything else I've brought up has been resolved. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I don't believe that adding "it was announced that" is an adequate fix: this makes it sound like a simple statement of fact, when it is really a charge or claim (and see below for other issues on this particular lawsuit). Also, I've just looked at the source given for Prodan's ex-wife, and discovered that the other person testifying against Stan wasn't Nicolae Prodan but Nicolae Nemirschi, not Prodan's father at all. That's a basic error of fact, and a worrying one for a GA nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of the €197,500 lawsuit the libertatea.com source (number 20) did not do the original reporting; they say they got the information from this story in replicaonline.ro; it's generally best to use the source in articles that did the actual coverage. This source, when you read it closely (or as closely as I can using the Google translate version), tells a far more nuanced story. It says that Marcel Prodan and a colleague, Alin Soare, received a €50,000 advance to present a November 2012 concert, which never took place. There's nothing to say that Stan even knew about the booking; the way the story's second paragraph is worded, it was Prodan and Soare who received the money; the remaining €147,500 is penalties and lost profits, and according to the story that amount is supposed to increase until paid—but, of course, this is a lawsuit and who knows what will (or did) happen. Perhaps there's more information out there—it's been about three and a half years since the lawsuit appeared in the press—but I wonder whether it's appropriate to include it in this article, since there doesn't seem to have been any further coverage, such as a judgment or a settlement, and it isn't clear that Stan has any responsibility for the alleged fraud, despite the sensationalized headlines with her name. We have to be very careful what we include in Wikipedia's voice.

 Done Removed per comment. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The third sentence of that paragraph is written so that it follows Prodan's ex-wife's bugging of his car with Stan's demand of over a million euros. The two are completely separate things; I would suggest mentioning the demand in a separate sentence, perhaps something like "During the hearing, Stan demanded more than a million euros in damages".

 Done Fixed the sentence. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There is an extraordinary claim at the start of the second paragraph of this "Related legal proceedings and aftermath" section: Some observers believed that the case was a publicity stunt. This statement needs to be sourced if it is to be retained both here and in the lead; I've tagged it as needing an inline citation (perhaps more than one). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I think we'll have to remove that as I couldn't find any article on the internet to see the case as publicity (all were either neutral or slightly on Stan's side). The article published by New York Daily may just be based on comments and reactions on her social media. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to ping Notecardforfree, who was very helpful regarding the legal details in the previous review of this article under its prior name; there are probably legal nuances that I'm not understanding. Thanks for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure these issues can be resolved in a timely fashion since many of them go to the essential facts of the article. Do you think it might be worthwhile nail down all the facts with appropriate sourcing and then to resubmit this for GA at a later date? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:;@Coemgenus:;@Notecardforfree: I don't think the issues are that big to close the GAN to work on them (I looked again over the previous reassesment today). I collected them in the section below (please add more issues to the list if there are any more). I hope I can help, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsolved issues from the previous GA reassesment

Issues listed in the GA reassement:

• If the Constanța judges decided in 2014 not to prosecute the case, why were there any subsequent proceedings, under what auspices, and was this criminal or civil?
• Was the November 2016 judgment a normal follow-up to the December 2015 one, or had there been an appeal?
• This article references a number of different cases -- a suit filed by Stan against Prodan, a copyright suit filed by Prodan against Stan in 2014, and a criminal prosecution of Prodan Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Still, each issue we fix seems to uncover another. It would be better for you to be able to take your time and get it right, then resubmit. I'll reluctantly fail this for now, but I hope to see it on the lists again when it's been fixed up. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)