Talk:Alexandra Stan vs. Marcel Prodan/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Etzedek24 (talk · contribs) 00:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lots of passive voice throughout. Minor spelling and grammar errors as well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Decently sourced, accepting Romanian sources on AGF. However, especially in the allegations and hearings section, lots of information is unsourced especially in the 2nd paragraph.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article purports to be about a lawsuit, but in reality is about at least three criminal cases. I'm not even sure the last section needs to be as long as it is. It's also out of chronological order, especially with the aftermath section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The lead says fans supported Stan but this is not addressed in the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The issue relating to the infobox image has not been corrected. The mashup image of Prodan, as a user pointed out in the original nomination review, is not free as it is a screengrab of a YouTube video.

7. Overall: As was noted in the previous assessment, this has a far way to go. The most significant issues, in my opinion, are the prose (very elementary and passive), the structure (the aftermath section blows up the chronology), the scope (purports to be about one case but talks about several), the sourcing (lots of stuff concerning living people that is not sourced), and the infobox image (it isn't free). I know a lot of work has gone into this article, but seeing that so many of the issues from the past assessment from over a year ago have not been rectified, I can't in good faith even put this on hold. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: Not listed.

Etzedek24 Not commenting on the content of this review (I had read the article myself considering it for review and found enough issues that I passed on doing the review) but given that the nominator is a prolific reviewer and GA creator I would encourage you to reconsider placing it on hold to give him time to correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I was on the fence and still am, but I stand by what I said--the problems from the last nomination were not resolved in a visible manner. I can't see how it would become GA-worthy barring a fundamental rewrite. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)