Talk:Panait Cerna/GA1

GA Review
Reviewer: Homunculus (talk · contribs) 07:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this one. Might take a couple days to complete.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Overall not bad, but a few readability issues. Some of these are suggestions may reflect personal preferences, so you don't have to implement if you disagree. I also went ahead and made some edits myself. I am not done reviewing, so will add more here soon.
 * "Cerna became the group's main representative during its decline, affiliating with both competing Junimist magazines, Convorbiri Literare and Convorbiri Critice." — how about just "Cerna became the group's main representative during its decline, contributing to both major Junimist magazines, Convorbiri Literare and Convorbiri Critice."
 * "This characteristic earned him a dedicated following, but was criticized by many of his peers, who found it artificial and outdated." — What, exactly, is the characteristic being referred to which his contemporaries found outdated and contrived? His intellectualism?  His writing style?  It's not really clear.
 * "Although his links to Bulgarian culture were weakened by the latter's departure..." — I assume "the latter" refers to his father, and changed accordingly.
 * " This, he argues, was one of the few areas in which Junimea still differed from Sămănătorul, which was more open to less elitist environments." — Elitist environments? What does it mean for a literary movement or society to be more or less open to particular environments?  Does this mean that the Sămănătorul was more inclusive?
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Looks alright, but a question to the author: I've seen a number of different approaches to including poetry or other excerpts of written works. Is there a standard presentation, or is it fine to use different styles as long as there is consistency within the article?
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * I am unable to verify most of the references, as they are not in English, but formatting looks fine and page numbers included, so I'm going to AGF.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Looks thoroughly referenced
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Might benefit from a one-sentence introduction to the Junimea literary society. Maybe something like "...By that time, he was discovered by Junimea—an influential Romanian intellectual association founded in 1863" (or something to that effect).
 * B. Focused:
 * I think we're good here.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Pretty straightforward.


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Article history could not possibly be less interesting.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Not a big deal, but it would be nice if we had an approximate date on the portrait. If not available, no worries.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I've ✅ the majority of them and cannot find the date on the image. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm satisfied. Thanks for nominating this one! Homunculus (duihua) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)