Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Romania/archive2

Flag of Romania

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 December 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review again because I want to eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. The article seems to me to be well written and referenced (I wrote the Romanian version and Biruitorul translated it entirely in English). Also, I've taken into account the suggestions of the previous peer review. We could use again 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.

Thanks, Alex:D (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: The prose is poor and the article would quickly fail to achieve FA without a lot of further work. It's too big a job for me to take on but here are some pointers: check for "also", "only" and "as well as". Do not be tempted to over-dress the prose in an attempt to make the article sound encyclopedic (it has the opposite effect). Keep the sentences simple. Don't use "related" when you mean "similar". And, please do not quote the legislation (law numbers) in the body of the article; confine them to the footnotes. Some parts are poorly referenced, it's best to go a little over the top with referencing in my experience. Graham Colm Talk 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was afraid the prose wouldn't be briliant, because I am not a native English speaker. User:Biruitorul used "related to" not as "similar to" but as "influenced by". I'll move the law numbers inside the article to footnotes. For the last observation, some of the paragraphs are referenced by only one work, at their end. Should I repeat the reference where necessary? --Alex:D (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to comment on your last point. Any facts in sentences that might be challenged should have a citation. If this means having to repeat the same reference, then do so. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)