Wikipedia:Peer review/Counties of Romania/archive1

Counties of Romania
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am just wondering if I am missing anything before I go to FLC. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Maps and table excellent, prose not so good - problems as listed.
 * Prose issues in the lead
 * First sentence: "The 41 counties (Romanian: judeţe) and the municipality of Bucharest represent compose the official departmental level of the administrative divisions of Romania." "represent compose" is presumably an error: suggest delete "represent", replace "compose" with "comprise".
 * Sentence needs rewording anyway. The words "the department level of" should be removed. Thus the revised first sentence should read: "The 41 counties (Romanian: judeţe) and the municipality of Bucharest comprise the administrative divisions of Romania.
 * Same paragraph: Is there a way that the second sentence can be worded rather more clearly, and without the need for the reader to have to click on links at least twice? Or otherwise, is this information important enough to be in the first paragraph of the lead?
 * "...respectively ţinuturi of Moldavia" should be "termed ţinuturi in Moldavia"
 * "at least to the early 15th century" → "to at least the early 15th century"
 * "as a model", not "as an example"
 * "Between 1927 and 1938, a total of 71 judeţe existed" - this reads awkwardly. Perhaps "From 1927 to 1938, a total of 71 judeţe existed" Then, what happened in 1938 to affect this total? The territorial losses came later.
 * "The current format has been in place largely since 1968," → "The current format has largely been in place since 1968,"
 * "small changes were made, with the last one in 1997." → "small changes have been made, the last in 1997."
 * In the last paragraph the metric areas need to show conversions to square miles. Use "convert" template, which for 5,809 sq km gives "5809 km2".
 * Prose issues in History setion
 * Due to its chopped prose, frequent insertions and repetitions ("respectively" occurs three times) the first paragraph of this section is almost unreadable. In any event, as per the lead, "respectively" is the the wrong adverb. As a start in removing te fact clutter, the Latin origins of the Romanian words could be put into a footnote. Then the opening sentence could read: "The earliest organization into judeţe (for Wallachia), and ţinuturi (for Moldavia), dates back at least to the late 14th century." Similar kinds of surgery necessary to make the rest of the paragraph digestible.
 * Second para: again, "example" used when you mean "model"
 * "as basic administrative unit" → "as the basic administrative unit"
 * Give dates for the part of the Communist period to which you are referring
 * "this system remained in place." Should be "this system has remained in place.
 * Irrelevant Latin origins should be removed (prefect, pretor)'
 * "only a couple minor adjustments" - too informal. If you actually mean two adjustments you should say so. Otherwise say "a few".
 * "introduced back" → "reintroduced"
 * Give year for the establishment of "communist rule" (not "communism")
 * Ungrammatical sentence, needs rewording to make sense: "The county borders introduced in 1968 are largely in place, but administrative reform during 1990s has devolved the functions of different authorities have changed."
 * Presently" → "At present..."
 * "some of which with..." → "some of which have..."
 * Other points
 * Non-English sources and their language should be indicated
 * Alt text should be added for the main maps. This won't be easy, but for the first (lead) map it might be: "Outline showing the territory of modern Romania and its division into 41 counties and the Bucharest municipal district."

Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these nice suggestions. I will work on them later today. As for wp:FT, I just saw that you worked on a huge amount of articles in that topic and I wanted to make you aware of the topic part of wikipedia because it would be a really neat topic. Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done with most suggestions. I still need to do alt text, cleanup refs, and copyedit the history section. Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Brian, I've cleaned up the text a bit. Does it read sufficiently well now for FL or it still needs some work? Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)