Talk:Romania/Archive 7

message: 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)

message: ===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:
#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.
#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. 
#I would also recommend that the above section focus on being civil, as this could effect the stability issue of the article.
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)
thread_title: 21 Sep 2007

message: 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:
#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.
#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. 
#I would also recommend that the above section focus on being civil, as this could effect the stability issue of the article.
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)
thread_title: GA comments

message: 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)
thread_title: GA