Talk:Founding of Moldavia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am commencing a review of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose is not clear and concise, as described below. I regard these problems as being fundamental problems with the article, not capable of a reasonably quick fix, and do not propose to place this review on hold awaiting their resolution:

• The article topic is not defined - what is the foundation of Moldavia?
• The article regularly uses complex jargon where simple English would suffice. Some examples just from the lead paragraph include "linked by medieval chronicles", "incipient states", "took place within the external context created by". This pattern continues throughout the document. Acknowedging that this is a complex subject, significant work still needs to occur to make this document accessible to a non-expert reader.
• The article appears to fall out of encyclopaedic language at times: eg "caused a real exodus of the Cumans". If "real exodus" is a term with a distinct meaning from "exodus that is real" it should be wikilinked or explained. Otherwise the world "real" can be removed. Likewise the word "however" in "The process of political unification, however," and "on the other hand" from "On the other hand, during the same period,". There are too many other examples to list conveniently.
• The text is regularly vague, introducing concepts and people with no regard for their context or significance. For example: "The correspondence of the popes from the 1330s also contain references to the “powerful men of those parts” (potentes illorum partium)." What correspondence? Which popes? To whom? There are multiple instances of this problem.
• The section "'Dismounting' by Dragoş" contains an exceptionally long quote from "Moldo-Russian chronicle". A quote this long is almost never appropriate in an encyclopaedic article, and there is no justification for it here. Consider transwikiing to WikiSource.
• "In lack of documentary evidence, it is disputed" is poor phrasing. Possibly "Given the lack of documentary evidence"?
• The article as a whole is confusingly written. There is no through-line for the reader, and while without being familiar with the sources I'm unable to tell whether the overall problem is a lack of detail, an overabundance of detail, or simply poor presentation, in any case I am unable to gain any real appreciation of the subject from the article as written.

Spelling and grammar, for what it's worth, are fine.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

This article complies with the manual of style for layout, lead sections, words to watch, list incorporation and fiction, insofar as those policies apply.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All references appear in the section "References".

(b) 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);

All content requiring citations appears to be appropriately referenced.

(c) it contains no original research.

The article does not appear to contain any original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article appears to be appropriately broad in its coverage.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

TI am unable to determine whether the level of detail is appropriate because of the problems with the article's writing style discussed under criterion 1.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article appears to represent all relevant viewpoints. Obviously with a topic like this, new viewpoints are likely to emerge over time, but there is no obvious bias in the current article and the article's talk page does not alert me to any areas being overlooked.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article does not appear to be the subject of rapid changes, edit wars, or ongoing disputes.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images in the article have the following problems:

• File:Hordecup.jpg is not in the public domain and does not have a fair use rationale justifying its use in this article.
• I frankly don't believe the licensing information on File:Hungarian_Angevin_coat_of_arms.jpg. For it to be valid, the uploader would have to be the craftsman who created the fairly expensive items being photographed. I have severe doubts he is even the photographer, given the poor quality of the licensing rationale and the value of the pieces. Please contact the uploader to verify the status of the image.
• The licensing information for File:Moldova_1483_EnglishPNG.png is clearly wrong as the page has obviously been taken from a published atlas, no publication details for which are given. The same uploader uploaded File:Coat_of_arms_of_Moldavia.svg with the same rationale which makes me suspect that that one might also be problematic.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images are relevant to the topic and are appropriately captioned. (You should consider adding alt text, but this is not required for the GA process.)

Overview - This article has significant problems with its images (fixable) but also severe problems with the quality and readability of its prose, which I estimate to require substantial work and probably a significant rewrite of the article. I am therefore proposing to close this GAR as a Fail, pending discussion. I realise prose quality is a subjective issue and so you are welcome to seek additional opinions from other independent reviewers, although the decision to pass or fail the article at this review remains mine. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Result: Failed - There has been no response to this review from any editor, despite notifications, and no edits have been made to the article or its talk page in the intervening period. I am therefore proceeding to fail the article for the reasons set out above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)