Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Romania in the Middle Ages has been listed as one of the History 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
December 23, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
January 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
April 7, 2011 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Principality of Transylvania[edit]

This should be discussed in the article about the History of Hungary. Transylvania belonged to Hungary until 1920 when it was annexed by Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.159.178 (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

About the new article[edit]

Borsoka! Great job! Creditable work. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments after first read-through: mightily impressive. Detailed comments after my second read-through, but I haven't seen anything so far to stop this article from being promoted. Tim riley (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Images: all look fine and properly accounted for, but they lack Alt Text. This isn't a prerequisite for GA (or even FA at the moment, I believe) but is good practice, for the benefit of blind and visually-restricted users who make use of screen readers. It would be good if you could add a few words to each image caption, using "alt= description text". More later. Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I found this an interesting and instructive article to review. (In passing, it is, as far as I can recall, the first article I have run across at GA, peer review or FAC in which I could find absolutely no typos or other minor faults.) In my opinion this article could be a worthy candidate for WP:FAC. For the moment, however, it is a pleasure to affirm its GA-status. Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article has gone through a significant reedit since it has been reviewed. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I shall revisit the article and comment further after I have read it again. Tim riley (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe the revisions have materially improved an already impeccable GA. In my view it is now of a standard fit to be nominated for FA. Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Klepper, Nicolae[edit]

Nicolae Klepper has been tagged as unreliable. It does not look like the best source. Is it possible to replace it, it sources quite a bit of information. AIRcorn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I need 4-5 days to replace it. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. AIRcorn (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)