Talk:Traian Demetrescu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeTraian Demetrescu was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 22, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that many works of the Romanian Symbolist poet Traian Demetrescu survived as popular romanzas after their author died from tuberculosis in 1896?

Good Article Assessment[edit]

This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. Below the assessment are some tips that will help the page even further.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    (No edit wars etc.)
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    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.

Assessment comments[edit]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Traian Demetrescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traian_Demetrescu&oldid=1206928521"