Talk:Panait Cerna/GA1

GA Review

Reviewer: Homunculus (talk · contribs) 07:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this one. Might take a couple days to complete.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Overall not bad, but a few readability issues. Some of these are suggestions may reflect personal preferences, so you don't have to implement if you disagree. I also went ahead and made some edits myself. I am not done reviewing, so will add more here soon.

   • "Cerna became the group's main representative during its decline, affiliating with both competing Junimist magazines, Convorbiri Literare and Convorbiri Critice." — how about just "Cerna became the group's main representative during its decline, contributing to both major Junimist magazines, Convorbiri Literare and Convorbiri Critice."
   • "This characteristic earned him a dedicated following, but was criticized by many of his peers, who found it artificial and outdated." — What, exactly, is the characteristic being referred to which his contemporaries found outdated and contrived? His intellectualism? His writing style? It's not really clear.
   • "Although his links to Bulgarian culture were weakened by the latter's departure..." — I assume "the latter" refers to his father, and changed accordingly.
   • " This, he argues, was one of the few areas in which Junimea still differed from Sămănătorul, which was more open to less elitist environments." — Elitist environments? What does it mean for a literary movement or society to be more or less open to particular environments? Does this mean that the Sămănătorul was more inclusive?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Looks alright, but a question to the author: I've seen a number of different approaches to including poetry or other excerpts of written works. Is there a standard presentation, or is it fine to use different styles as long as there is consistency within the article?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I am unable to verify most of the references, as they are not in English, but formatting looks fine and page numbers included, so I'm going to AGF.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Looks thoroughly referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Might benefit from a one-sentence introduction to the Junimea literary society. Maybe something like "...By that time, he was discovered by Junimea—an influential Romanian intellectual association founded in 1863" (or something to that effect).

   B. Focused:

   I think we're good here.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

Pretty straightforward.

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article history could not possibly be less interesting.

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Not a big deal, but it would be nice if we had an approximate date on the portrait. If not available, no worries.

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I've  done the majority of them and cannot find the date on the image. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm satisfied. Thanks for nominating this one! Homunculus (duihua) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)