Talk:Romania/GA6

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FriyMan (talk · contribs) 18:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I, FriyMan am reviewing this article. I will make the improvements, in case they are needed.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues at all!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No problems here either.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, this page meets the layout standards.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	11 dead links in references! That needs major improvement. (Check external links tool)
	2c. it contains no original research.	As far as I can tell, the page doesn't have any original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	It would be hard to plagiarise something here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article does address main aspects of its topic (Like history, geography, economy and so on)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article covers quite a broad topic, but it does not go into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article had some POV issues in the past, but they were fixed. (See talk page)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article had seen few conflicts in the past, but they were resolved.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Nothing problematic in this section.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, all the pictures are relevant and have captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article had few issues in the past, but the problems have been resolved. Even though it has 11 dead links, it is still a good quality article.

Comment from Ritchie333

• This review should not have passed. There are far too many unsourced ends of sentences and tags in the article, which fails criteria 2b immediately. I have reverted the status on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a follow-up to Ritchie333, the article was nominated with a great many "citation needed" templates still active, nearly all of which are still in the article, and was nominated by a new editor to the article who had made three edits (one a reversion) prior to nominating yet without asking the regular editors for their assessment as per WP:GANI. That many "citation needed" templates is grounds for a quickfail per the GA criteria, so I believe Ritchie333 has done the right thing in reverting the above review's passage and failing it instead, since it should have been failed under 2b, or at the absolute minimum put on hold for those sourcing issues to have been fixed. There may well have been other issues. Unfortunately, in his first review, FriyMan did not do an adequate job; I recommend that he gain quite a bit more experience at Wikipedia, and nominate one of his own articles for GA and experience the process from the other side before attempting any further GA reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)