Talk:Alexandra Stan vs. Marcel Prodan/GA5

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've finished my first runthrough of the GA review. There are a couple of minor issues to fix, but I think this article is in pretty good shape! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you very much for the review, as well as the copyedit. I can confirm that the sources cite what they need to cite, as I've rewritten the whole article before nominating to GA. Regarding your comments, I have tried to adjust the image caption—is it better now? Concerning the note, I really do not think it is original research; this is the only recognized court in the city and the only place this lawsuit could've happened. The sourced just don't mention it, however, because it is rather not important (I think). But of course I can remove that info if you insist. Hope you have a great day; greets—Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for updating the image caption! While I agree that the note makes perfect logical sense, I think it should be removed - it's still something that you deduced, rather than that was stated in a source, so to me it falls under WP:OR. I agree it's sometimes strange that we are not able to apply common sense in cases like this, but I think the principle should be firm - anything we come up with ourselves shouldn't end up in the article. Anyway, it's a minor point in the scope of this article. I'm going to AGF that you will fix it shortly and pass the article, as that was the only remaining issue. Congrats! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for passing the article! I have removed the note, although I left the info that the lawsuit took place in Constanta (which is sourced). All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" ! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute !           | Review Comment
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 1. :


 * Some grammar issues and unusual wording. I'll go through and fix some issues myself when I have time rather than try to list them all out exhaustively here.
 * I've gone through and fixed some issues. On the whole, I think this passes for prose.


 * Pass. No issues.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 2. :


 * Pass. Well-cited, no issues. Sources well-formatted and article titles translated.


 * Assume good faith on Romanian sources I cannot read. Some basic research turns up nothing obviously problematic.


 * I think the note about why the case was submitted to Constanta Court crosses the line of original research a little. Remove the note and the article will be fine.
 * Assuming in good faith that this will be fixed shortly per discussion above. Pass.


 * Pass. No issues detected.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 3. :


 * Pass. No other major parts of this story found via Google and some other research.


 * Pass. Good use of summary style. The case is not described in excruciating detail, but gives a complete picture.


 * Somewhat assuming good faith as I cannot read the Romanian sources, but Google Translate and some digging lead me to believe this covers the fairly controversial lawsuit neutrally. Pass.


 * Pass. No edit wars. Most work done in February.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 6. :


 * Pass. No issues.


 * The caption for the second image (of the Autostrada) should be modified to refer back to what actually happened on that road per the article or similar, not describe what it connects. Keep caption relevant to content of article.
 * Caption fixed. Pass.