Talk:Alexandra Stan/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 23:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Freikorp (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) 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:
 * Lead and Infobox
 * All good.
 * 1989–2009
 * "she showed special interest in music and she studied " - this sentence doesn't flow well. Suggest 'she showed special interest and went on to study'


 * "In 2003, 15-year-old Stan" - think this could be worded better. How about 'In 2003, Stan, who was 15-years-old, was'. Up to you though. Also can you give any indication of what the TV show she appeared on was? Was it a talent contest?
 * ❌ Done the first part, but not your second suggestion, as the source does not give any further information about the show.


 * "including the Mamaia Music Festival" - when did this happen?


 * "but failed to achieve much success despite heavy radio airplay" - did you mean to say she failed to achieve much success OUTSIDE Romania? Otherwise the sentence seems to contradict itself.
 * ✅ Check out!


 * '''2010–2013
 * '"Get Back" gained major recognition' - this seems a bit biased. I wouldn't call the top ten in two countries and only the top 20 in a few others 'major' success, I'd call that moderate at best. Suggest less promotional wording, or better yet, just state where the song charted and let the reader decide how successful that is.


 * "selling more than 68,000 copies there" - can you state when it had sold this amount by?


 * "which charted in Bulgaria, Japan and Italy" - this isn't particularly helpful. At what position did it chart? You can be broad, saying in the top 50 for example, but I think you need to give at least some indication.


 * "sold about 6,000 copies there" - again, an indication of the time it took to sell that amount would be nice.


 * "Nu bate! Mai bine cântă!" - can we get a translation of that? Also what was the media response to the campaign (if any) considering the previous altercation?
 * ❌ There were not responses to it.


 * 2014
 * All good, though is the term hiatus in the reference? Its a pretty short break and I'm surprised the term is used at all.
 * 2015
 * "Stan was involved with ecological and humanitarian causes" - that's a bit broad, can you be more specific?
 * ❌ Source does not give any further information


 * "she planted a tree named after her" - did she actually have a new species of tree names after her? If so you should definitely mention its name.
 * ❌ She just planted a normal tree which she named "Alexandra Stan"


 * "she won a trophy at the Celebrity Awards" - what are the celebrity awards? Where are they held and what makes them notable?


 * "for $40" - USD? Wikilink to the currency.


 * "in Cairo, Egypt" - do you think its necessary to clarify that Cairo is in Egypt? I think you can drop Egypt but keep it if you like.


 * "with Antonia, Inna and Lori" - Antonia and Inna have wikilinks, which is great, but Lori does not. Accordingly can you tell us anything about her? Even just describe her as a pop star, assuming that's what she is.


 * ""Dumnezeu nu face politica" - can we get a translation?


 * "Both singers reportedly thanked Goulding in Twitter comments" - using the term 'reportedly' makes it sound like it may not have actually occurred.


 * Artistry
 * "I consider saxophone a very hot and sexy instrument which is also very used in my region." - this is given in quote marks, yet the source is in German. As per my last review, I don't think it's appropriate to put your translation inside quote marks, though I'm not sure if wiki has an official policy on that. I'd consider going through the entire article and removing such quotes. There are several.


 * Public image and personal life
 * "the most successful Romanian products" - product strikes me as a very interesting choice of word here. Are you certain that's an accurate translation? As per the above comments, I don't think it should be in quote marks.


 * "wrote that this could have been a reason for the clip to be banned in Romania" - this is awkward wording. How about "said this could have even led to the video being banned in Romania". I assume based on the current wording that it wasn't actually banned. Perhaps you should clarify this further to the reader.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Checklinks finds half a dozen issues that need to be fixed.


 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Well done on the article. Putting this one on hold until the above issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded to all your comments. THX, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Great job. Happy for this to pass now. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)