Talk:Romania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 24 February 2009 and demoted on 25 October 2009.
This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now.
You may see the vote that promoted the article here.
You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Ok, so I am going to start working on getting this to GA status, and I would like some pointers as to what I should do?

My current plan is this:

  • Simplify and add the History section.
  • Simplify and add the Geography section.
  • Simplify and add the Economy section.
  • Simplify and add the Government section.

If there is anything else that I need to do, please let me know. Otherwise, I am going to start working on the History section now. Cheers, Razorflame 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I really stink at simplifying History sections, so I would appreciate it if someone could simplify User:Razorflame/History of Romania for me :) Thanks for the help! Razorflame 16:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all those (or where you plan on getting big, add a {{main}} templat,e and copy the current text there. Once you are odne expanding, you coy the expanded text there, and only leave a summary in the article with the main template..see Human. Also look at other Country articles, for example France and Germany.. --Eptalon (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I am planning on going that big (with the exception to the history section. Do you think that I could simplify the History section by myself, or do you think that I might need help? Cheers, Razorflame 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[change source]

Ok, I have just realized how big of a task this article will be to get it up to GA status, and I need some definite help :)

First, if there is anyone out there who is very good with finding references, please try to fill in as many of the {{fact}} templates as you can.

Second, if there is anyone out there who is very good in summarizing bigger seperate articles down into summarized versions on the main article, could you please do that for the Geography section of Romania?

List of things needing help[change source]

Therefore, I need help on the following:

  • Fill in the {{fact}} templates in Romania.
  • Summarize the Geography section.
  • Create the most important red-links in the article.
  • Simplify History of Romania.

Please let me know when you finish one of these tasks so that I can mark them off this list as completed. Thanks, Razorflame 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think so far?[change source]

Reviews[change source]

Hey there all! I want to know what you guys think of my work on this article so far....please tell me what needs to be fixed and I will fix it.

History section[change source]

The history section is taking much longer than I was expecting. It has taken me nearly 4 and a half hours to write as much of the history section as I have wrote already and I am wondering: Am I going too far into detail, and should I try to give the same story, only with less words? I will continue to be working on this article well into the night (don't worry, I will be going to bed in a few hours) to try to continue getting it ready for GA.

Should I continue along as I have been doing the history section, or should I make it a little less in depth? Thanks for the help, Razorflame 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help is still needed![change source]

Hi there all! I am still trying to get this article up to GA standards, however, this project is too big for me to take on alone. I need help on this article in order to get it up to GA status and VGA status. My goal is to get this article to GA status quickly and then VGA status eventually. However, before this can happen, much needs to be done to this article. The following is a list of things that I need help on in order to get this up to GA/VGA standards:

  • Creating all of the articles for all of the red links.
  • Simplification of the article (this is the biggest part that I need help with. I can only simplify it down to about an 8th or 9th grade reading level and even then, it still needs more work). The History, Geography, and Social trivia sections are the sections that need the most help with simplification.
  • Finding references for all of the places in the article that are marked with a fact template.
  • Completing the History section of the article.
  • Fixing the overall look of the article.
  • Finding pictures for the article.

If you can help me in any way, shape, or form on this article, that would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! Razorflame 00:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readability[change source]

Checking the figures still gives a readability score that is way too high [1]. Foreign names will make an auto count unreliable, but there are places where we could make it simpler - for example in the opening paragraphs the word "territory". I'll have a bit more of a look to see what can be done. It would be good to get a Flesch ease score around 70. Peterdownunder (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried working on the opening paragraph (see below) to see what sort of changes I could make. I managed to get the score from 58 to 58.6! I think it is easier to read even if the numbers don't see a difference. Too many foreign names for the machine. I haven't changed the article, I'll leave it to someone else to see if they like this proposed change.

Romania (dated: Rumania, Roumania; Romanian: România, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is a country in the south east of Central Europe. It is north of the Balkan Peninsula, on the Lower Danube River. Part of Romania is circled by the Carpathian Mountains. It also has a border on the Black Sea.North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Official Raport Most of the Danube Delta is found inside Romania. It shares borders with:

I'll keep looking for other bits to simplify. --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, go right on ahead. You don't need permission to simplify the article Peter :p Synergy 15:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you see things that can be fixed, don't be afraid to go right ahead and fix them :). If you need any help, I will be very happy to go ahead and help you, although it is very hard to simplify an article that you yourself already believe to be simplified ;). Cheers, Razorflame 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done the first bit, will keep going.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
finished!--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to be resolved before VGA[change source]

This is just from the lead...

A lot of work to do... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues[change source]

  • "Herodotus in the fourth book of his Histories (Herodotus)." was his book really called "Histories (Herodotus)"?
  • "This is the last known mention." awful - of what?
     Done Removed this sentence as it was a problem and didn't really need to be in the article. Razorflame 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...found in Europe were found..." this may be Simple English but this kind of repetition should be avoided. Dull prose.
  • What does AD and BCE mean?
  • Lots of small choppy paragraphs in the "The Romans" section. Copyedit to improve the flow.
  • Heavy dependency on simple.wikt in this para as well. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article that uses links to the Simple English Wiktionary too much is not a bad thing. It just shows that the person who wrote the article knows which words are complex, and in an effort to simplify the article, they linked those words to the Simple English Wiktionary, where people can go to get a better idea of what the word means without having to clog up the article with a lot of definitions of complex words. Razorflame 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a good thing. Expand the encyclopodia and stop outlinking to articles at simple.wikt which sometimes don´t exist and sometimes don´t explain the word correctly (i.e. link to ambiguous definitions). Use simpler words or create decent Wikipedia articles please. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I always create decent articles. Never say that I don't create decent articles, ever. I take messages like that very personally. I will work on finding simpler words for those words. Razorflame 20:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down, I didn´t say you didn´t create decent articles, just stop linking to wikt when you could link to decent articles in the wikipedia mainspace. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More[change source]

  • No need to relink Roman Empire.
  • "A lot of gold and silver were found in the Western Carpathians. Trajan went back to Rome with 165 tons of gold and 330 tons of silver after his conquest." needs citation. And "ton" should be linked.
  • Is (seen here) really needed in the caption? It´s pretty obvious that since it´s a caption it´s describing the picture, right?
  • overrun is not linked correctly to simple wikt. You need to check all these links...
  • "It was made part of the First Bulgarian Empire, which ended Romania's Dark Ages." is not cited nor is it simple. What do you mean by ended the Dark Ages?
  • "...Pechenegs,[23], the Cumans[24], " place citations after punctuation where possible.
  • "were a few of the people later noted in the history of Romania" what do you mean by noted? According to whom? And where is the citation for this? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More II[change source]

  • "Basarab I" explain who he is, i.e. provide context.
  • ". [25]." see previous comment about citations and punctuation, check throughout please.
  • No need to relink Romanian in consecutive sentences.
     Done Fixed. Razorflame 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...were living in 3 different..." MOS failure - try "... in three different .."
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 20:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...when it turned into..." yuck, sounds like a magic trick. Perhaps "...when it became known as..." or similar.
  • No need to relink Ottoman Empire.
     Done Removed a wikilink to the Ottoman Empire several sentences later. Razorflame 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many people in Romania during this time thought of him as a ruler with a great sense of justice[32] and defense for his country." Citation placement and what do you mean by "a great sense of... defense for his country."? Not good English at all. Suggest, once more, a copyedit.
  • "Moldavia was at its greatest ..." what do you mean? Largest? Strongest? Not clear at all.
  • "After every battle he won, Stephen would build a church. Because he won 47 of the battles that he fought, he ended up building 48 churches.[35]" Not a logical sequitur.
  • "After Stephen the Great's death, Moldavia came under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century." not cited. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these other problems in this section were completed by Obento. Cheers, Razorflame 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More III[change source]

  • Why link to an article for second class citizens but wikt for citizen?
     Done Removing the link to Wiktionary for citizens. Razorflame 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They stayed this way even when they made up most of the people in those areas.[37][38]" even to me this is not clear?
  • You link to Great Power but the article does not mention Romania at all. Where is the context please?
  • Should "personal union" be linked to something or even capitalised?
     Done After thinking about this, I believe that it should be neither, because there is a definition for this term right after the first use of the word.
  • I´ve just noticed you haven´t linked IPA at all.
     Done This isn't that big of a deal here. Most users of the Simple English Wikipedia don't even know what the IPA is.
  • Don´t relink Great Powers.
     Done Removed the link to this page. Razorflame 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It´s confusing, you link one independent to wikt and one to an article in Wikipedia. It´s confusing for readers.
    Already removed the link to the Simple English Wiktionary for independent.  Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In returm they had to give Russia 3 of their southern districts of of Bessarabia. In 1881, the principality became a kingdom, with Prince Carol ruling as King Carol I." needs citation and 3 should be three. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More IV[change source]

More V[change source]

  • "...lost power..." isn´t altogether simple.
  • "...that didn't agree with..." avoid contractions.
     Done Fixed problem. Razorflame 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abdicate links to both wikt and wikipedia. Choose one please.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The USSR kept control of Romania until late in the 1950s, when the Soviet troops agreed to leave Romania. During this time, resources in Romania were taken by the Soviet Union with agreements made by the communists." no citations at all.
  • What´s the PLO? Expand acronym before using it.
     Done Fixed problem. Razorflame 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...3 billion dollars..." three and type of dollar? Link it.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To try and keep in power,..." poor English.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These events caused Ceauşescu to be hated by the Romanian people. He lost power and was killed in the Romanian Revolution of 1989." POV and no citations.
     Done Reworded the sentence to both eliminate the POV and the need for a citation. Razorflame 01:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Salvation Front seems like a significant enough term for an article.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the "born-again" political parties.
     Done These pages have been linked and are awaiting creation. If someone else would like to create these pages, it would be greatly appreciated, as I don't like making pages about political parties, because they tend to be very complex.
  • "After a time, the demonstrations turned violent" after a time? context required.
     Done Copyedited the sentence to make it have all of the context it needs. Razorflame 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(92,043.279786169 sq m" conversion is WAY too precise.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 00:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physical map links simply to map. It´s actually a digital representation of a map of the physical features of Romania...
  • "Some of the other major rivers in Romania are the Siret, the Olt, and the Mureş. The Siret River runs from the north to the south of Moldavia. The Olt River runs from the Carpathian Mountains to Oltenia. The Mureş runs through Transylvania from the east to the west." no citations.
  • 8,346.4567056 ft - way too precise again. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 00:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More VI[change source]

  • "It travels about 1,075 kilometers through Romania. That is almost half of its' length" half the length of Romania or half the length of the Danube? And no citation.
     Done Made it more general so that it doesn't need a citation. Razorflame 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...climate that changes between temperate and continental climates..." repeat climate reads poorly.
  • You convert 8 deg C but not 11 deg C - be consistent.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romania has good skiing. " pure POV.
     Done Removed this sentence as POV. Razorflame 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23.62204722 in - too precise again.
     Done Fixed this problem. Razorflame 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Danube Delta, there is not as much rainfall." citation?
     Done Removed this sentence as it wasn't very important. Razorflame 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around 21,698,181" - around followed by a precise number reads strangely. Either it had that many people recorded in a census (in which case say so) or an approximation was made which surely didn´t go down to single digits.
  • Language section is entirely uncited.
  • Monuments section should be prose rather than a simple bullet list.
     Done Removed this section as it was mostly irrelevant to this article. Razorflame 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folk music of Romania section is not cited.
     Done Removed this section as it was mostly irrelevant to this article.
  • There´s a See also midway through the prose and a [needs proving] as well.
  • "His most famous creation..." is POV.
  • Some redlinks in the references.
     Done They are the access dates of the references and do not need to be filled in in order to make the article complete. Razorflame 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks in the template. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am a bit curt here, but you could have, instead of citing all of these little points (especially for the ones that are too precise), just fixed them (the smallest things), instead of spending the time to list them here. I still thank you for listing them here, but I just wanted to get that off my chest as it was kind of bothering me. Cheers, Razorflame 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Razorflame, it´s a project that you and a number of other editors have been working on. I know nothing about Romania, and I don´t want to fiddle around with templates either, I simply responded to a request for a review as to whether the article would make VGA right now, and the answer is clearly no. I would hope that you and your colleagues now have enough to be getting on with before taking the article to the voting stage. As a matter of interest, listing the issues actually takes a lot less time than fixing them, previewing them and then saving them. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I wasn't trying to offend you, either, as I do greatly thank you for the help that you provided me with the review. Thanks for taking the time to do this for me :). Cheers, Razorflame 16:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propsosed demotion[change source]

Sorry but so many of my points were overlooked and yes, while I didn´t log in my oppose was overlooked (and even if it had of stood it would have made no difference in this very poorly worked VGA process) but nevertheless there are massive swathes of this article which are unreferenced. There are manual of style issues which need to be fixed. This article, while good, is certainly not good enough to be VGA. I suggest the main authors address the remaining points I made above or I will be moved to call for the article´s demotion as soon as I can find the time and an internet connection I feel secure enough to log into. All the best, 201.237.175.136 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (The Rambling Man on tour)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but while they are unmarked, actually, a good majority of your issues were fixed, which is why so many people supported the VGA. Go ahead and propose the demotion of this article; I can assure you that it won't pass. Razorflame 09:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "so many people", do you mean the absolute minimum required to be promoted? And with the last vote coming after the official 7 day votingnperiod had elapsed? The article is very poorly referenced and you know it. Please fix this and the numerous other outstanding issues. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, by very poorly referenced, you mean more than 80 references, then sure, I'll agree with you, but I don't. This article has more than 80 references, and you say it isn't referenced enough? Are you fucking crazy? This article has the most references out of any articles on the Simple English Wikipedia, so don't shove the not enough references in my face, because I know this article has enough to be a VGA. Kthanksbai! Razorflame 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Razor: You can calm down now Razor. And yes, this is a warning. Synergy 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not crazy. Just a quick glance will show plenty of uncited claims...e.g.
  • "After Stephen the Great's death, Moldavia came under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire during the 16th century."
  • "This made Romania into a personal union, which happens when the same person rules two different areas. The personal union did not include Transylvania, because most of the people that were living there in the upper class were still Hungarian."
  • " In return, they had to give Russia three of their southern districts of Bessarabia. In 1881, the principality became a kingdom, with Prince Carol ruling as King Carol I."
  • " When taken from the Romanian language, România Mare means Great Romania. However, it is usually translated to English as Greater Romania instead."
  • Almost all of the "1989 to present day" section.
  • "After the communists left Romania in 1989, the economy was in very bad shape. Many people were not able to find jobs. The economy was in need of help. The bad economy lasted for about 10 years. In 2000, Romania's leaders finally started making changes to the economy and the system. People started being able to work again and inflation went down."
I won't take your personal attack personally, but I would strongly advise you to work on these unreferenced claims before the article is nominated for demotion. Cheers. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

very good article? - possible candidate for demotion[change source]

The article is one of our very good's. There are some redlinks on the Page. They need to be fixed, otherwise I'll request in two weeks the demotion of this article. Barras (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the pages, because they were deleted per consensus, but these are needed. Barras (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be a good move, because they should not have been deleted in the first place. The RfD only covered the rivers, not any other article about Romania. Razorflame 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&oldid=8775932"