Talk:Traian Demetrescu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Traian Demetrescu was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: December 4, 2007 |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Traian Demetrescu: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
 |
An entry from Traian Demetrescu appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 22, 2007. |
 |
[edit] Good Article Assessment
This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. Below the assessment are some tips that will help the page even further.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- (No edit wars etc.)
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Here's a further analysis of my findings:
- No images were used, so can't fail upon that criterion
- I was initially concerned about the one-handed (or viewpoint) which seemed to prevalent, especially in the biography section, which seemed to be overwhelmingly POV and almost like a diary. But after checking out the source and looking at other authors/poets who's articles have gained GA status, it seems alright.
- There's only a few grammar mistakes, but that's easily rectified.
- I am concerned about the reliance upon the literary source, and it really does need some more.
- I can find no or very minimal amounts of original research.
[edit] Assessment comments
I am concerned about the exclusive use of one source and so I am unwilling to pass this article now. So, I am placing this article 
On Hold for 7 days (Friday 7th December 2007) until more sources can be found, used and most probably cited with the {{Cite web}} template. Thank you for your co-operation. — Rudget contributions 20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, I wasn't aware that this was a GAC. I have to say i tend to agree with the assessment: I am going to strive to find more sources, but this may take more than the current nomination deadline. Demetrescu is merely mentioned in readily available sources, and one would have to go looking for printed ones to complete (and perhaps offer alternatives to) what is already in the article. If it helps in any way, Călinescu's book, though it has its flaws, is universally considered the authority on Romanian literary history, at least in what concerns the period between the earliest records and the 1940s (it was never truly revised by him after the 1940s). Unfortunately, from my end, there is little I can do for now to improve it. The same goes for adding pictures: I was able to find some material in that area, but it would require scanning from a rather large book, which I'm afraid is not a priority for me right now. I want to thank the nominator, though. Dahn 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- One question: are the section headers for the poems really necessary? I've never seen them used before, and the text below them is quite self-explanatory (he wrote in Romanian, and anyone here will be able to tell that the right half is in English). Dahn 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hmph. I'll extend the deadline, because I appreciate that it may be hard to find the sources, but 7 days is the absolute maximum - set out by the GAC guidelines. Considering the Romanian and English headers, they're there for one reason, to help break the page (as it's so long, it could become unnecessarily unviewable, especially considering there are no subsections in the Works section). You can remove them if you like, but if you do please make some subsections. Thank you. Best, — Rudget contributions 10:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fully understand the necessity to keep the deadline short, and I have no objection. The problem is that, while I agree that this is not up to GA standards yet (for the reasons you mention), it may take me considerably more than 7 days. I did not actually ask for an extension: meaning that this GAC session might not be enough, and that I'm okay with the article not being promoted at this point. I'll try to improve it in the future for the article's sake (I did not even know until yesterday or so that it was a GAC), and I'll think about renominating it when I'd have addressed your concerns/objections. Of course, there is nothing preventing anyone else from adding sourced material in the meantime, but I would think that this is somewhat unlikely. If it is easier this way, you could consider this a "withdraw nomination" - although I'm not the nominator. Thank you again. Dahn 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rudget, there is no real maximum hold period. Being on hold merely informs other reviewers that they need not review this entry as it is being already being evaluated by someone. The whole "on hold" system is rather pointless anyways; it's simplier just to fail it for the time being and immediately re-evalutate it once it gets re-nominiated.--SeizureDog 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- So I should fail this and re-assess it next time. I would love to by the way, it'd be a great article. — Rudget contributions 11:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rudget, there is no real maximum hold period. Being on hold merely informs other reviewers that they need not review this entry as it is being already being evaluated by someone. The whole "on hold" system is rather pointless anyways; it's simplier just to fail it for the time being and immediately re-evalutate it once it gets re-nominiated.--SeizureDog 20:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fully understand the necessity to keep the deadline short, and I have no objection. The problem is that, while I agree that this is not up to GA standards yet (for the reasons you mention), it may take me considerably more than 7 days. I did not actually ask for an extension: meaning that this GAC session might not be enough, and that I'm okay with the article not being promoted at this point. I'll try to improve it in the future for the article's sake (I did not even know until yesterday or so that it was a GAC), and I'll think about renominating it when I'd have addressed your concerns/objections. Of course, there is nothing preventing anyone else from adding sourced material in the meantime, but I would think that this is somewhat unlikely. If it is easier this way, you could consider this a "withdraw nomination" - although I'm not the nominator. Thank you again. Dahn 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmph. I'll extend the deadline, because I appreciate that it may be hard to find the sources, but 7 days is the absolute maximum - set out by the GAC guidelines. Considering the Romanian and English headers, they're there for one reason, to help break the page (as it's so long, it could become unnecessarily unviewable, especially considering there are no subsections in the Works section). You can remove them if you like, but if you do please make some subsections. Thank you. Best, — Rudget contributions 10:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
