Talk:Seara (newspaper)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSeara (newspaper) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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
DateProcessResult
June 23, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 5, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that, in its campaign against a Romanian World War I alliance with the Entente Powers, the newspaper Seara employed conservatives, socialists and anarchists as contributors?

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1914
  • "prophesied "?
Saying that a specific thing will happen in the future. TAP 09:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, mistook as a typo.

Bottom section

"Also a military physician, received into the Order of the Star of Romania, Ottoi Călin died of typhus in early 1917." Delink Calin, he's already been linked. Also I would mention earlier on about him being a military physician rather than here.

Done.TAP 10:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images

A distinct lack of images. Perhaps you could introduce a few images of some of the people mentioned if they are free of course. You could also upload a few more images of the papers given that 1910-1916 is now PD although google image isn't picking up anything..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything either. TAP 10:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    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:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I can genuinely find little fault with this article. I found it informative and easy to read and take in. Again some concern about the number of red links but I think its productive to link them, I may even try to blue link a few myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]