Talk:Alexandra Stan vs. Marcel Prodan/GA5

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cartoon network freak, I've finished my first runthrough of the GA review. There are a couple of minor issues to fix, but I think this article is in pretty good shape! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Hi and thank you very much for the review, as well as the copyedit. I can confirm that the sources cite what they need to cite, as I've rewritten the whole article before nominating to GA. Regarding your comments, I have tried to adjust the image caption—is it better now? Concerning the note, I really do not think it is original research; this is the only recognized court in the city and the only place this lawsuit could've happened. The sourced just don't mention it, however, because it is rather not important (I think). But of course I can remove that info if you insist. Hope you have a great day; greets—Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, thanks for updating the image caption! While I agree that the note makes perfect logical sense, I think it should be removed - it's still something that you deduced, rather than that was stated in a source, so to me it falls under WP:OR. I agree it's sometimes strange that we are not able to apply common sense in cases like this, but I think the principle should be firm - anything we come up with ourselves shouldn't end up in the article. Anyway, it's a minor point in the scope of this article. I'm going to AGF that you will fix it shortly and pass the article, as that was the only remaining issue. Congrats! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you very much for passing the article! I have removed the note, although I left the info that the lawsuit took place in Constanta (which is sourced). All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some grammar issues and unusual wording. I'll go through and fix some issues myself when I have time rather than try to list them all out exhaustively here. I've gone through and fixed some issues. On the whole, I think this passes for prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. Well-cited, no issues. Sources well-formatted and article titles translated.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Assume good faith on Romanian sources I cannot read. Some basic research turns up nothing obviously problematic.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I think the note about why the case was submitted to Constanta Court crosses the line of original research a little. Remove the note and the article will be fine. Assuming in good faith that this will be fixed shortly per discussion above. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No other major parts of this story found via Google and some other research.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Good use of summary style. The case is not described in excruciating detail, but gives a complete picture.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Somewhat assuming good faith as I cannot read the Romanian sources, but Google Translate and some digging lead me to believe this covers the fairly controversial lawsuit neutrally. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No edit wars. Most work done in February.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption for the second image (of the Autostrada) should be modified to refer back to what actually happened on that road per the article or similar, not describe what it connects. Keep caption relevant to content of article. Caption fixed. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.