Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romania/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:37, 9 February 2023

Romania

I find that this article is worthy of nomination to be a feautred article, because it is comprehensive, stable and informative. Compared to the croatian featured article Rumunjska, it contains a significant amount of extra information. -Danielsavoiu 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - Yes, Romania article is complete, well written and it should be marked as a featured article. Well done. --Eliade 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Insufficient lead and insufficient inline citations. Not enough references. I would guess that croatia's FA standards are somewhat lower than ours are. Fieari 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object -- Five images now listed at WP:PUI and five at WP:CP. The galleries (plural) should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, or at least what is left of them after all of the copyright infringements are deleted. Jkelly 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have contacted the holder of Copyright of those images, and have requested the person in question to allow Wikipedia to use the resources. By the time I get an answer, I request that copyright infringement not be a criteria of judging the article's quality. Danielsavoiu 07:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - The Communist era of the history section looks far too long to me. I realise this is an emotive issue, but this level of detail belongs in the article History of Romania (which interestingly is much shorter on this period!). I'd also like to see more refs. If these things can be fixed I'll support the nomination. Walkerma 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd agree with this. The article is quite long as is. The gallery images should be

sprinkled in appropriate subpages rather than tacked on the bottom.Cas Liber 21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - Lack of balance. Michael 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support-Romania is a well done article and I think it fulfils the necessary conditions to be a featured article, the only thing is really missing is promoting more Romania's natural and cultural heritages. Arthur 12 August 2006

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 -[[User:Danielsavoiu|Danielsavoiu]] 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-#'''Strong support''' - Yes, [[Romania]] article is complete, well written and it should be marked as a featured article. Well done. --[[User:Eliade|<font color="blue">'''Eliade'''</font>]] 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Strong support''' - Yes, [[Romania]] article is complete, well written and it should be marked as a featured article. Well done. --[[User:Eliade|<span style="color:blue;">'''Eliade'''</span>]] 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Weak oppose''' - The Communist era of the history section looks far too long to me.  I realise this is an emotive issue, but this level of detail belongs in the article [[History of Romania]] (which interestingly is much shorter on this period!).  I'd also like to see more refs.  If these things can be fixed I'll support the nomination. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
+:'''Comment''' - I'd agree with this. The article is quite long as is. The gallery images should be
+sprinkled in appropriate subpages rather than tacked on the bottom.[[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] 21:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Object''' - Lack of balance. [[User:MichaelZ526|MichaelZ526]] 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Object''' - Lack of balance. [[User:Mike 7|Michael]] 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Strong support'''-[[Romania]] is a well done article and I think it fulfils the necessary conditions to be a featured article, the only thing is really missing is promoting more Romania's natural and cultural heritages. '''[[user:NorbertArthur|Arthur]]''' 12 August 2006