Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Soviet occupation of Romania

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet occupation of Romania

An excellent article made on a quite sensitive and controversial topic. There were some discussions in the past regarding its neutrality, but the problems are finnaly solved and this article can become an A-class in my opinion. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Short, stubby (in comparison to the necessities of such a topic), incompletely referenced, unformatted, and far from comprehensive. Several texts cited as references are not actually cited in the text (at all!). Several MoS issues (such as the use of "recently", such as the POV wordplay on people's names - the old Nicolschi issue, such as not citing direct quotes, such as using a bulleted list instead of formatted text). The article, right or wrong, is subject to a dispute, which means that it is not stable content. It may get there eventually, but at this stage it has serious problems. Dahn 04:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know about you other opinions, but "short and stubby"!?... It has 3000 words, and refers to a bunch of {{main}} articles, Romania during World War II and King Michael Coup, Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II, Securitate, SovRoms... It is a WP:SS article...--victor falk 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. There is much more to be said for this article to be A-class. Note for example that there is disproportionate coverage of the first years, while I fail to note any in-depth discussion about how the occupation ended. It is, at the moment, a lead section and an array of summaries. The literature surrounding this topic is immense, and I think that it would be quite tactless for this project to endorse an article that does not at least look into what some of the seminal works on this subject have to say (I'm saying this as an editor who has contributed much to related articles, including one cited as a main article in one of the sections). This, of course, should be taken together with the other points I made. I would like to point out that what I presented were not just "my opinions", but factual problems, including vague and incomplete references and the fact that references are not cited in the text.

The article still needs a lot of work in order to become a B-class. I have to congratulate some of the contributors for the work they have done so far, but I'm sure they all know that there is still a lot to be done. Dahn 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article needs more citations, some sections don't have any. Also, there are a lot of one paragraph sections that need to either be combined or expanded. Furthermore, there's no "aftermath" section or something like that to explain what happened after the Soviet occupation ended and its legacy or influence on the future of the country. A great start on the article but not quite there yet. Cla68 21:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Given the article size in the absence of the Notes section and everything below it I would say that you have enough citations at the moment to meet A-class standards; although I would like to see more included in the long run the amount you currently have shows that some effort has been put into this article to source this information. None the less, I do have some suggestions for improvement:
  • The article has a lot small sections that sometimes seem to have no immediate conclusion. Admitedly there are links to larger articles, but a breif summary should include the important details of the event, and I presume that since this one deals with people displacement (from the war in general and sides in particular) there is probably something to say about what happened to them after the displacement.
  • There is no explination of what the armistice treaty was.
  • The estimated forces in Romania table looks rather out of place in its current form; is there is a way to line the text around the table like an image, or maybe create a pictorial graph to represent the information? (This is merely a question; If these two options are not viable, then I will not hold this against the article and will reassess my stance on the article taking that fact into account).
  • I see no citations for the 25th hour in the pop culture section; could you provide one or two?
  • Some of the links in the see also section are already linked in the article body. If that be the case then the links already covered in the article should be removed from the see also section.
  • Would it be possible to add additional pictures to the article? I see only two images, and those are very near the top.
  • Why isn't the line Soviet Occupation of Romania bolded in the first sentence? Ordinarily people do the bolding right off the bat rather than wait to last paragraph to introduce the bold text. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.