Talk:Founding of Moldavia/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Samtar (talk · contribs) 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

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

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

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;

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

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

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

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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; and

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

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Passing.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Meets 1b criteria.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Good, clear list of references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Reliable inline citations.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Article is free of any OS.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Article covers the main aspects of the topic.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Passing	Pass

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

Notes	Result
No detectable bias is present in the article.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Article is stable and does not change significantly from day to day.	Pass

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

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images meet 6a criteria.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Article contains eight appropriate images with informative captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	I've passed this review per the improvements made.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

• Previous hold reason: "I've placed this article on hold for seven days to allow time for improvements. I note on the talk page there has been discussion, and recommend implementing some ideas from the sandbox. The primary point of failure of this article has been: 1a - "the prose is clear and concise"." samtar ^{t} 13:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, thank you for your thorough and bold review. I must apologize but I need more time to address all the issues above because I am quite busy in real life. Could you give me one more week (till 29 November)? Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I can try, I don't think a bot will clear up after seven days. Also, as a side note, there seems to be a little bit of a content dispute going on? samtar ^{t} 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved material across from the sandbox, with the apparent endorsement of Borsoka (below). I'm hoping that interested editors will perform some cleanup before the deadline for the assessment. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

YI believe that the material that I have incorporated both achieves conciseness and satisfies the requests regarding territorial description and origins of the Romanians. User:HopsonRoad 22:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that after the review, the name of the article should be changed to Founding of Moldavia, per discussion. User:HopsonRoad 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

HopsonRoad, thank you for your hard work to improve the article. I highly appreciate your contribution. samtar, thank you for your bold review and understanding. I wish you both a beautiful week! I am planning to read the article again and to make some minor changes if I think it is necessary. Please feel free to modify my edits. Borsoka (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)