Talk:Romania/Archive 7

This is a list of all the reviews made to this article. Its function is to more easily follow reviews for editors. Please do not remove this information, and instead, create a new archive. Thank you!Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

=Peer reviews= Review on Sept 14,2007

Review on Nov 15,2007 to Jan 7, 2008

=GA reviews=

GA comments
Normally, I would quick-fail the article for the reasons below, but with the current backlog it may be weeks before the article is reviewed, so hopefully you can address my suggestions before the article is reviewed. Or if you think it is too much, you can withdraw your nomination and renominate it once the following issues have been addressed: These three things can take a while depending on the number of users involved in the article and how much time is spent focusing on the issues. Again, it is your choice to either quickly address these before another reviewer looks over the article or withdraw your nomination. Remember, you can always renominate the article again whenever you think it is ready and meets the GA criteria. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good luck and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 05:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is currently undersourced. There are several "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed and entire sections that are lacking sources. You can use online or print sources, but make sure that all statements that may be questioned for their verifiability has a source.
 * 2) The references section needs to be better formatted. Right now it has a tag pointing out that it is not up to date. I'd recommend going through all the sources and making sure that the links are not dead or go to the wrong place. Also, consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET.
 * 3) I would also recommend that the above section focus on being civil, as this could effect the stability issue of the article.

GA
First, it looks like this article is currently undergoing a peer review, which is a bit unorthodox to nominate it for both PR & GA at the same time. Anyway, as far as GA status is concerned, the article currently does not meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed. In the article's present form, there is a 'citation' tag in the culture section, as well as a 'cleanup' tag in the article's external links section, which both must be addressed prior to GA status.

The article also appears to have several organizational issues, and the order & content of some sections is a bit confusing. First, I would promote the geography section to fall right after history, moving the government section lower in the article, probably after economy or even culture. Second, the subsections in the culture section could probably come out; sports & science/technology don't seem to fit, and should probably be in their own main sections. Media could probably come out as well. I'm not sure what to make of the 'national holidays' section; I haven't seen a similar section in other articles - it's content could probably be merged with the culture section in some way. The international rankings section is also just a list of some random rankings from various international sources, and isn't really all that important in an article about this country - if people want to see rankings, they really should see the full list to put each country in context with others.

The 'topics in romania' template should be placed at the bottom of the article. Templates such as this are not normally placed into the 'see also' section.

Avoid the usage of lists in articles, such as in 'largest cities' or 'counties'. You might have a separate page with a list of all cities in romania, in order of population. You could link to this under a see also section. Same goes for the counties.

There should be some information on climate in the geography section.

Where's a discussion on education & transportation? This seems to be totally absent from the article.

It might help to take a look at some existing articles on nations that are GAs, such as Brazil and the United States. Also, I would recommend looking at several other wikipedia guideline pages: manual of style, WP:LEAD, WP:CITE, and WP:EL.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 07:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Nergaal 21:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
I am sorry to say that this article still needs a lot of work to get it up to GA standard
 * The thing that sticks out the most to me is the lack of refs in the article. Many sections do not have refs. It is ok to not have refs if the daughter article is reffed but in most cases teh daughter articles have no refs
 * Just to clarify: from your comments bellow, I see only the last ~half of the article (Culture, Government & Sports) suffering from this issue. Is that right? Or your statement was referring to more than the last half?Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The last half suffers more than the first half, but the first half still has a few places thin on refs.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On many refs, the full date, author, accessdate, publisher is not recorded. Please record this where applicable
 * Wasn't full editing of references a FA standard? (a good part of the references do have significant details but stuff like full date and publisher are not allways awailable.)
 * That's true, but in some cases there was info but it wasn't included.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * also, what is accessdate supposed to show exactly?Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The date that you inspected the webref basically.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅In the sport section, I find it unusual that you have gone into detail of listing individual players as then it would be very hard to balance and work out which people deserve personal mentions. eg, what about Gabriela Szabo and so forth. In most articles, specific players are not mentioned unless they tower above all others. In any case, it is not necessary to note the clubs that Hagi played fro, that is irrelevant to Roomania at large. Noting ever grand slam winner is not feasible and secondlt the Romanian rugby team is not competitive at all. But anyway, the entire section there is unsourced. ACtually there is nothing about sport culture among the people, it is just a list of a few famous sportspeople
 * the statement rugby team is probably superficial and borderline snubby. If the information hereby is not well presented then state that and before you go ahead and make statements ilke "it is not competitive at all" it might be wise (at least as and admin) to do a little bit of research before denigrating. I am just going to say that in Rugby union, the country is usually rated atound 15th place.Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well maybe that is because I am from Australia. I just checked the results of the 2007 WC again and losing 85-8 to NZ and then 42-0 to SCO is a sign that they are a weak team. Even if they are a good team on a bad day, conceding 50 points once is what would be expected. In 2003 they lost 90-8 to Australia and 50-3 to Argentina. This shows that they are not causing much problems for a world-class team at all. These scores are about the same as losing 4-0 or 5-0 in a soccer match, which is a lot.
 * 'second tier' IRBNergaal (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm for removing the reference to rugby, Romanian team is not good and the sport is not even popular in Romania, I think somebody introduced that because they play (or they like) rugby and wanted to support the sport, but this is pretty much useless and doesn't provide info. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...simiarly, all the references to gymnastics and tennis should be removed since neither of them are actually popular (and not really successful anymore either). Therefore the section 'Sports' should be renamed to 'Football'. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your attempt of humor, ha ha ha, I don't think that Romania is really known for Rugby, but even if temporarily the gymnastic team is not _very_ good (it's still better than 99% of other countries) I still think that many people when they think of Romania they think of Nadia Comaneci and Romanian gymnastic team, but be my guest include info about any sport you wish, that was only my opinion... -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not my point. IN THE PAST Romania was competitive in both gymnastics and rugby. I agree that in gymnastic (only feminine though) is more competitive than rugby. But in rugby union, it is still only one of the 12 countries that has participated in all of the world cups (which by the way is the only statement about rugby). Anyways Romania is definetily more competitive in rubgy than in tennis (and if you ingnore 2 people, tennis means and meant nothing to Romania). As far as popularity, gymnastics is not even really broadcasted anymore. Leaving all of this aside, I believe that this is an encyclopaedia, where stereotypes should not be propagated, but where facts are presented. Therefore, keeping gymnastics for the sake of stereotypes (see Quintuplets 2000) and not for the sake of encyclopaedic relevance is a bit off. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in case the stereotype is of encyclopedic proportion it should be mentioned, in case of football Romania never reached the success of gymnastics, but I would actually like to see both criteria used: success and popularity, both with references: for example number of gold medals in Olympiads for gymnastics and number of practicants (if we have such a number for football) I don't think that rugby meets any of these two requirements: no medals and not too many paricipants (unless I'm wrong about that) -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * POV like "when the "Golden Generation" was at its best." no sources and describing specific mathces.
 * Foreign relations section is completely unsourced
 * ✅Counties section is not sourced
 * ✅Ditto for politics
 * ✅Science is not really part of culture and suffers from teh same type of problem that the sports section does in that it talks about personaliteis rather than the bigger picture, eg, how much is the research budget etc. It mentions an astronaut bbut does not talk about the general space program at large.
 * ✅Monuments is again not sourced directly or in teh daughter article
 * ✅The Arts section is again heavily dependent on a list of personalities rathe than discussing the cultural art picture of Romania at large.
 * ✅Culture section unsourced
 * ✅The economy section is relatively good
 * History section has undue weight on post CEaucescu. Most of the events in this period were normal electoral transitions, so there is not that much to say in that respect.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some of the sections in the last half are geared too much towards specific people rather than general trends. I also agree that some sections in the last half do suffer from underreferrencing. Thanks for the input but seriously, this was a GA review not an FA one.
 * ps:This is rather simply my curiousity: the GA-review are done by a single person or by a group of people? I am asking this because last time this was GA-reviewed the feedback did notseem to be this overwhelmingly negative.Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * GA is done by a single person. Unfortunately, I do tend to be one of the harsher markers in GAC.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

left to do

 * The thing that sticks out the most to me is the lack of refs in the article. Many sections do not have refs. It is ok to not have refs if the daughter article is reffed but in most cases teh daughter articles have no refs
 * On many refs, the full date, author, accessdate, publisher is not recorded. Please record this where applicable
 * History section has undue weight on post CEaucescu. Most of the events in this period were normal electoral transitions, so there is not that much to say in that respect.

=FA reviews= July 28, 2006