Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bucharest/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bucharest[edit]

I am not sure whether you'll agree yet but this certainly has potential for a featured article. Let me know what you think - it may require slight editing and clean up. If you don't think it is yet keep it under the group of articles that have the potential. It covers all aspects of the city but on reading I think the crime section will need cleanup and citing --Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In just the second paragraph alone, I find many problems. "By European standards Bucharest is not an old city..." needs a comma after "standards". "...its existence being first referred to by scholars as late as 1459" is unsourced- when this is mentioned later ("First mentioned as "the Citadel of Bucureşti" in 1459"), it is still unsourced. "Since then it has gone through a variety of changes becoming the state capital of Romania in 1862..." also needs a comma. As far as "Although much of the historic centre was damaged or destroyed by war, earthquakes and Nicolae Ceauşescu's program of systematization, much survived...": when you take away the descriptors of what destroyed the center, the sentence reads "Although much was damaged or destroyed, much survived." That's a pretty pointless sentence. "...in recent years the city is experiencing an economic and cultural boom..." should read has been, not is. I can't imagine the rest of the article is FA-worthy if the lead is so poorly edited. -- Kicking222 22:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose / some more comments 1) Nicolae Ceauşescu's name is wikilinked five times in the article. That's quite unnecessary. 2) The "Visual Arts" subsection begins "In terms of visual arts," which is also unnecessary. The "Culture", "Architecture", "Media", and "Sports" sections- about 30 paragraphs total- have a grand total of two citations. 4) I see little reason for the image gallery in the middle of the article, especially when some of the images are of nondescript and/or unimportant locations. 5) In the lead, the population is given as 1,921,751 from the 2002 census; later, the article claims that census determined the population was 2,082,000. 6) The "Portrayal in Film and Fiction" section is both a mess and probably not needed at all. The article is definitely a good article, and perhaps a Good Article, but Featured? Sorry. -- Kicking222 22:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please correct the fac template on the talk page; it now says the article is a former FAC candidate. If that's the case, the old fac should be moved to an archive file, and the new fac should link to it. The instructions are given in Number 4 of the nominating procedure at WP:FAC. Sandy 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, while some of the criticisms above (including the bulk from Kicking222) are quite legitimate, if you think a comma is needed, or a name is linked too many times, wouldn't it be simpler to add the comma than to complain and to cite that as a reason it shouldn't be an FA? I'll fix it if no one already has, but I find this petty. As for the sentence "Although much was damaged…": why, yes, if you remove half the sentence, it loses much of its point. But by no means all of it: both the fact that much of the historical center has been destroyed and the fact that much survived are important. - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, looking again at the sentence that begins "By European standards Bucharest is not an old city...", I'm not convinced it would be improved by a comma after "Bucharest". This comes down to what Lynne Truss describes as the battle between berks and wankers over just where to use commas. Using her terminology, apparently I am more of a berk and Kicking222 more of a wanker. - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bucharest/archive1&oldid=150500144"