Talk:Alexandra Stan vs. Marcel Prodan/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

With regret, I'm opening this individual GA reassessment after the GA review that was opened and approved yesterday. I would much rather that reviewer Carbrera had reopened the review to deal with the issues raised, as I requested, but that wasn't done, and original nominator Cartoon network freak has already added the article to a Good Topic nomination, and this despite the fact that I had put a "copy edit" template on the article just as Carbrera was posting his initial GA review.

The article is unfortunately quite far from meeting some of the basic criteria for Good Articles, in particular 1a: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. In fact, the prose is very weak: sentences are unclear and words used that seem to only approximately convey what makes sense, many are run-on sentences, and the grammar needs work. The sequence of events is not always clear, and the most of the frequent uses of forms of "confess" or "admit" are inappropriate in context. This needs a comprehensive edit by a good copy editor; I strongly recommend that the Guild of Copy Editors be requested to work on this article.

Examples of problematic sentences include In 2009, the singer was discovered by Romanian producers and songwriters Marcel Prodan and Andrei Nemirschi at a karaoke bar, who offered her a record deal with their own label, Maan Records, through which she also recorded a promotional single called "Show Me The Way" that year., and First, they had stopped them in order to legitimize them, thus noticing they were Stan and Prodan. Also, "the former" and "the latter" are used when it isn't clear who this might be.

There is a great deal in the article that doesn't make sense. If the Constanța judges decided in 2014 not to prosecute the case (and, indeed, this reads as if they believed that Stan assaulted Prodan rather than vice versa), why were there any subsequent proceedings, under what auspices, and was this criminal or civil? If Stan lost the case, why was she awarded 25,000 euros for moral damages? (She asked for a million euros, but she did get a monetary payment.) And why was Prodan sentenced to seven months probation if the court found for him over Stan, and was the November 2016 judgment a normal follow-up to the December 2015 one, or had there been an appeal? The dates are all over the place, with the incident said to have been on 6 June 2014 in the lede, but 2016 in the body of the article, and 2014 being "one year after the case", which I think is supposed to mean one year after the original incident, even if that contradicts the original date. Stan started her anti-violence campaign in 2013, which would seem ironic if she was then the victim of violence in 2014. And there's a sentence in the middle of the Judges' hearings section about a 2012 concert that didn't take place that appears to be completely irrelevant to this entire article; it should be removed.

I believe this is more than enough to start with. As is usual for GA reassessments, I plan to allow one week for significant improvements to be made; if they are, then I will continue the review, but if not, it will be closed. I realize that GOCE edits rarely happen that quickly, and I'm sorry, but this is so far from a GA that it would be inappropriate for the listing to remain without major improvements. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Notecardforfree

By way of background, I am a semi-frequent contributor and reviewer of good articles about legal cases and other legal topics. I concur with many of BlueMoonset's observations, and I would like to share a few thoughts of my own:

• Copyediting: There are many passages in this article that are either (i) ungrammatical (e.g. "The singer subsequently filed a lawsuit ... alongside making various public appearances regarding the issue") or (ii) unclear (e.g. "First, they had stopped them in order to legitimize them ....").
• Is this about a single case or a series of cases? As a disclaimer, I am not familiar with the Romanian legal system, but I think the focus of this article should be narrowed. This article references a number of different cases -- a civil suit filed by Stan against Prodan, a copyright suit filed by Prodan against Stan in 2014, a criminal prosecution of Prodan, and a lawsuit filed by a club in Turkey against Stan and Prodan. In general, unless one case has some sort of preclusive effect on another, you should only discuss one case at a time. By intertwining multiple cases in the same narrative, you may give the false impression that the proceedings in one case affected the outcome in another. If you want to write an article about the civil case between Stan and Prodan, then you should place the discussion of the other cases in a separate section (called "related legal proceedings," or something like that).
• Providing sufficient legal context: Articles about legal cases need to explain (i) the laws at issue in the case and (ii) the reasons why the court reached its conclusion. Neither of those are discussed in any detail in this article. See MOS:LAW, which states that articles about legal cases should provide "[t]he legal details, for those who need to better understand the legal issues involved and how the court arrived at its decision."
• The article's title: If the focus of the article is going to be the civil suit, then the title of the article should reflect "the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case" (quoted from MOS:LAW).

I may share more comments, but I think this is enough for now. I certainly think this article needs a lot of work, and I support removing it from the list of good articles until further improvements are made. As always, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, Norecardforfree: Romanian sources do not give so much context on (for example) why a second hearing found place. However, as the article stands now is the maximum I could get. I think the events are chronogically correct now, although there is not any info about why a second hearing found place, as aforementioned. I bet there are still a bunch of grammar issues, but can't one of you do a kind of GA review on this: to list all portions that are wrong so that I can correct them? Best regards to both, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, many thanks for your hard work on this article. I certainly think it is in a much better condition than a few days ago. A few quick points:

• In terms of the civil proceedings, did the court publish its ruling? If it did, you should obtain a copy and explain the details. If it didn't, you should still explain the legal issues that serve as the foundation for the civil suit. For example, what were the specific statutes/laws that Prodan is alleged to have violated? I think this is an essential component of the breadth criterion for good articles about legal cases.

 Done I have only found a part of the ruling, but I've added a detail requested.

Cartoon network freak, it looks like you added information about a criminal trial. It is important to clarify whether this was from a different trial than the private lawsuit that Stan filed against Prodan. See my other comment from 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC) for more information about the difference between private law and criminal law in Romania. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• You say in the introduction that Stan accused Prodan of Robbery, but this needs further clarification. In many English speaking countries (i.e. Common law jurisdictions), the act of "Robbery" is a crime, rather than an act that leads to civil liability (compare with conversion (law)). Do the facts of the case allow for civil liability for Robbery under Romanian law? Have any sources discussed this?

There is no source to further speak about this; I'm sorry :(

• It sounds like Romania utilizes separate legal proceedings for criminal matters. Unless the civil and criminal liability was determined by the same court, you should move any discussion of the criminal proceedings to a separate section. After you do that, you should explain any legal effect that one proceeding had on the other.

Could you please use word which are not that complicated? I know this sounds odd, but I can't understand what you want from me here ;(

I apologize for the complicated language. I realize now that this wasn't entirely clear. This is what I intended to say: I think that Romania holds separate trials for "civil law" cases (also sometimes called private law, which involves lawsuits between two individuals) and criminal law cases (where the government accuses a private individual of a crime). If this is correct, then (as far as I can tell) Prodan's criminal punishment (the suspended jail sentence) would have been imposed during a different trial. As I mentioned earlier, it is important to not combine discussion of multiple cases if the outcome of one does not influence the outcome of another. Are there any editors on either the English or Romanian Wikipedia that are familiar with Romanian law? I live and work in the United States, and I know very little about Romanian law, but it is important to clarify whether these were separate trials. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• To the extent possible, look for commentary from legal experts, rather than popular media.

Not available; sorry :(

• The grammar issues have certainly improved, but there is still work to be done. For example: "Following a legitimization, the two persons turned out to be Stan and Prodan." What does "legitimization" in this sentence? Do you mean "investigation"? Unfortunately, I am very busy this week and don't have time to do a complete copy edit.

I mean that the officers checked their passport and noticed they were Stan and Prodan respectively.

I don't mean to make your life difficult with these comments, but I think its important to make sure that we (1) provide an accurate description of the legal issues in the case and (2) discuss the "main aspects" of these legal issues. Thanks again for your work with this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

One other point: please address the issue regarding this article's title (see MOS:LAW). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: What would you suggest as a new title? (I have read the article you presented to me, but what would you suggest?) Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: It looks like the criminal prosecution was part of Stan's private lawsuit against Prodan (source; translated): "Alexandra Stan has filled a lawsuit [against Prodan], but the judges from Constanta decided not to criminally prosecute Marcel Prodan, further adding that the accusations of the artist are groundless" Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. They could have been talking about the decision to not prosecute in a separate case. In any event, that still leaves the question of why Prodan later received a suspended sentence. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, while there has been some improvement, unlike Notecardforfree I think there is a very long way still to go to attain GA standards, especially the prose. Even now there's much that isn't clear and/or has problematic grammar. I'm also surprised to see you saying I think the events are chronogically correct now when you have a date of "June June 2014" in the intro for when the "violent incident" took place, and it disagrees with the 16 June 2016 stated in the "Incident and accusations" section. I'm pretty sure both are wrong even regarding the year, but as they stand they're each clearly inaccurate. You've not addressed a number of the points I made in my original review, including about misuse of "admitted" and "confessed", and at least one of your new edits using "former" introduced a new error. I don't have the time or the inclination to attempt a thorough copy edit of the article, which is why I urged you to file a request at the Guild of Copy Editors, who specialize in such things; four days later and you still haven't done so. They would certainly fix "legitimization", among other things, which is not the right word for that situation: the police saw a fight, stopped the two people and had them identify themselves. It strikes me as a straightforward situation for the police, at least. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, just to clarify, I do not think this is close to being ready for GA. I agree that there is much more work to be done, and I agree with all of your comments here. For any Wikipedia article, GA or otherwise, it is critical that we provide an accurate account of legal issues in lawsuits. As far as I can tell, this article does not provide a clear account of the legal proceedings or the issues involved (see, e.g., my comment above about accusations of "robbery"). This could certainly benefit from the attention of someone familiar with Romanian law. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research these issues. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: If you "have no time" and are so grouchy, then you may close this and revert the GA promotion. I tried to act politely with you, but you're treating me like I knew nothing. Well, maybe it is like this: I'm a 14-year old non-English/American boy trying to fight himself through all the law thing without any knowledge on any of this (apart from the information I get from the sources) and obviously without any moral help from you, obviously. I know my style is horrible here, because I have had only promoted GAs about music, but I will find someone else to work with on the article if you are so disgusted of my contributions. Good night, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, please do not be discouraged by this discussion. Neither I nor BlueMoonset are "disgusted" by your efforts, and we certainly appreciate the time you have devoted to this. We know that Wikipedia is purely a volunteer-based project, and it would not survive without contributors like you. Writing articles about legal cases (or any technical subject) requires a certain expertise in the subject matter, and many editors (including myself) find that it is very difficult to write simple, clear articles about legal topics. However, for all articles, it is important to provide an accurate description of topic. We want to make sure that this article correctly explains the key facts: Was there one trial or were there multiple trials? What were the laws that Prodan allegedly violated? is it correct to classify the violation of law as a "robbery"? These all need to be answered, and I hope that you will continue to address these issues. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I encourage you to reach out to editors who may have more familiarity with the Romanian legal system. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, I'm sorry I came across as grouchy; I certainly didn't mean to. As Notecardforfree points out, this is a volunteer-based project, and articles like this would not exist without contributors like you. We all have differing knowledge, interest, and skill levels in areas like law and music and writing ability, and it affects what we're capable of doing, and also what we spend our time on. When an article is submitted to GA, there are standard criteria that come into play, and these include clarity and the extent of information presented. You have a great deal of experience in the area of music; unfortunately, you're new to legal areas and that makes it harder. English isn't your native language, which makes things even more difficult; sometimes, when you fix one problem, you inadvertently create a new one. It's why Wikipedia has set up a number of areas for editors to get assistance from other, more experienced editors in particular subject areas (such as the peer review process) or the Guild of Copy Editors for people who aren't as strong in English as is required at the GA or FA level. (My prose is typically clear and concise, but it's not at the level required for an FA; I'd have to post a Request at the Guild if I ever wanted to submit an article to FAC.) It's a longer process perhaps than you're used to, doing much more preparation before nominating an article, but the result is stronger articles are created.

As you suggest, I am going to delist the article today: it remains quite far from meeting the GA criteria. I hope you find someone to collaborate with who can deal with the legal details and work with you in smoothing out the prose. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)