Talk:Ion Creangă/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I chose the article because it the longest-nominated on that has not had a review started. It has an immense amount of material and sources, and an immense amount of work that has gone into it. Initial comments will follow shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * According to my count, the article has about 116 red links. I would not fail the article for this or even say that it should be changed, but you may want to take a look at that to see if the bar might have been set a bit low, as 116 red links is a bit distracting. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it is not distracting. The article is 91850 characters, which works out as OK, in my eyes. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved / non-issue.  It was just my suggestion / opinion, not a GA criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The subheading "Main tales" seems a bit mysterious and appears to not be explained in or an apparent topic of that section. Does this simply mean that the section covers his most prominent tales? Suggest either putting something in the section explaining this, or else relabeling the subheading.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Resolved North8000 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Any more issues, or could this be passed? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I still have to look at it some more. Sorry I've been so slow; I had some unexpected things engulf me.   I'll do that soon.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Criteria / review
Well-written
 * Passed: Very well written.  So well written that I did some searches for copy-vio and found no problems.   Well written summary in the lead. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable
 * Passed. Extensively referenced and sourced.  With such a huge amount of material on an unfamiliar topic, confirmaiton of accuracy by me was nopt possible, but everything looks plausible  and carefully written. (no overreaching material)  North8000 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage
 * Passed. Very broad (but still on-topic) and thorough. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
 * Passed  Looks neutral, again within my limited knowledge of the topic.   Wording is very careful and neutral-looking.  Appears to be well balanced with respect to what is in the sources.  North8000 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Passed. Stable. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images


 * Passed. Good.  Has 12 images, no non-free images, so rationales not a question. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This article passes as a Good Article
This article passes as a Good Article. I will implement the details shortly. If there is any one small suggestion for improvement, it might be to be more selective with red links. There are 116 of them with few of them becoming articles. But this is minor, not a GA criteria, and just an opinion of mine. What a immensely thorough, well-written, well-illustrated article this is! Congratulations to the editors on creating this and on achieving Good Article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeated here for when the review is no longer transcluded. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)