Talk:Mitică

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mitică has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 2, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mitică/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  1. File:Ion Theodorescu-Sion - Cei cari fac pe râioşii, Furnica, 30 apr 1909.JPG
  2. File:Ion Luca Caragiale - Foto04.jpg
  3. File:Romania LeuBanknote 1915.jpg
  4. File:Sava Hentia - Targul Mosilor.jpg
  5. File:Romania territory during 20th century.gif

All images are free-use from Wikimedia Commons, passes here. Next, on to Stability review. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Stability review[edit]

  1. Edit history of article page stable upon inspection.
  2. Talk page history shows no evidence of prior major conflicts upon inspection.

Passes here, now on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 2, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing is pretty good, good enough for GA at this point in time, however I would strongly recommend both WP:GOCE copyedits, posting to relevant WikiProject talkpages, and going for a peer review and seeking out previously uninvolved editors for copyediting help. The one thing I'd focus on is tense uniformity within paragraphs and subsections.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, nice job bringing in sister projects and linking to Wikisource.
3. Broad in coverage?: Indeed thorough, though I would suggest going forward breaking up Other texts into a couple sub-sub-sections and titling the main section with a more descriptive title. Also, lots of redlinks, could any of these be created with a few sources as stubs, just an idea going forwards.
4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone throughout, passes here.
5. Article stability? Passes here, per above.
6. Images?: Passes here, per above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)