Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Romania/archive1

Flag of Romania

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. I've checked the article and it seems to be well written and referenced (I wrote the Romanian version and Biruitorul translated it entirely in English). However, we could use a fresh, neutral perspective.

I'm concerned about:
 * the hardest criteria to match (1-a) for FAs: "the article must be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
 * possible omissions of references where needed.
 * possible use of peacock terms.
 * the appropriate length and number of pictures. Are there any unnecessary details which could be eliminated from the article?

Thanks, Alex:D (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry to sound negative, but I think you will struggle to get any review of this article in its present form. It is far, far too long, with far, far too many images. If you look at the 10 flag articles that are featured, you will see that their average length is around 3,000 words, the longest being Portugal with 5,000. Yours has 11,000. Similarly, the featured articles have on average around 15 to 20 images. Yours - well, I lost count at 100-plus. It seems that you have not attempted to tailor your article into anything like the form that has been established for the best articles in this topic area. It appears, too, that you are not familiar with either WP:SIZE or WP:SUMMARIZE, or with Featured Article criterion 4.

My advice is that you reduce the length by at least two-thirds, and the number of images by at least three-quarters. I realise that you must have worked very hard to produce this article, but if you want it to be recognised with an appropriate rating, you will need to operate within the Wikipedia parameters. Brianboulton (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I'll try to split the article and reduce the number of images. --Alex:D (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)