The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:38, 15 March 2008.

Cluj-Napoca[edit]

Check external links

The city of Cluj-Napoca. I worked very much to bring it this way, and i wait for your suggestions, if there are any corrections to be made. --Danutz (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -

I have my doubts that this article as it stands can be brought up to FA standards in the usual time FA candidates are allowed. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that it was translated from another language Wikipedia, but the FA standards require inline citations of any information considered contentious. There are LOTS of parts that could be considered contentious that are lacking inline citations. Starting at the top:
  • The theories of the origin of the name. Who came up with those theories? Without attribution they are considered Original research.
  • "This castle was designated on many ocassions as the "Transylvanian Versailles"".. by whom?
  • "This monastery hosts the renowned wonder Madonna of Nicula." and the sections following it.
  • "The locality was later raised to the status of a colonia, probably during the reign of Marcus Aurelius." Probably? Are there other theories?
  • "In 1270 Kolozsvár (the castle and the village) was donated (so thus degraded) to the bishopric of Transylvania. In 1316 received town privileges from Charles I of Hungary and to the memory of this event they began building the Saint Michael Church." Why was is it "thus degraded"? Why do we know it was in memory?
I could go on, but it's pretty much the entire article that needs referencing. (I was just picking out the most glaring on a quick glance) A good rule of thumb (and it's a rule of thumb, but it works well) is that every paragraph (at least) should have a citation. And all the prose is pretty much needing a good copyedit, probably by a couple of editors. For an idea of a recently promoted town FA, look at Bath, Somerset. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
OK. Finally, I can answer. I modified the article so it can meet your requests.
  1. I referenced all affirmations I thought someone could think that are dubious. But please pay attention. The History section, the Etimology section, and a part of the Geography section are referenced in the bibliography list at the end of the page. There is there a list of 13 books from where the information was collected. It is rather impossible to search for every information and reference all. Anyway this sections were translated from the Romanian Wikipedia, where the pages had this bibliography (references), so I added them all.
  2. I moved the gallery at the end
  3. I removed overlinks
  4. I modified the prose where I considered it unencyclopedic. If you find more examples, please put the forth.
  5. I also modified the peacock terms
  6. I find the lead rather long but I will include some more information if necesary
  7. Unfortunately English sources are not so abundent like the Romanian ones, that's why I used many Romanian sources
  8. Usualy I tried to only make internal links to articles that have a corespondent in the Romanian Wikipedia. In some time this red links will become blue. However, red links are not included in the FA criteria, so I expect you to be objective and understand that with the time this article will appear, and it should not affect the main article.
  9. I saw the dead link, and I replaced it with another source.

Now responding to Mojska. The subarcticle History of Cluj-Napoca is translated from Romanian Wikipedia, where it had references, so I inserted them into the English language article. The prose might be heavy, but this in an encyclopedia, so it should not be written in simple English. Besides, we already have such a wiki.

--Danutz (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem: look at the section #Transport and wikifich the titles of the subsections. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 15:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed that, and I also converted all notes, so they use a unitary system of reference, as per Template:Cite web/Template:Cite book. --15:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danutz (talk • contribs)

Comment Per WP:MOS#Images, “sandwiching” of text between images is to be avoided. The number of images appears to be well beyond superfluous. Wikipedia articles should not be image depositories; that’s what Wikimedia Commons is for. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I updated the sections Cluj-Napoca#Etymology, Cluj-Napoca#Geography and Cluj-Napoca#History, by improving the prose and adding very many citations. Also I reduced the sizes of the pictures, so that the text won't be literaly sandwiched between pictures, as their combined width doesn't exceed 300px (a width common used in other articles for one picture). I also allignated some pictures to the right, avoiding the combined use of left and right image in some cases (see Cluj-Napoca#Administration, Cluj-Napoca#Contemporary architecture. I also added a trivia section. I wait for your new repplies, if you think I should do anything more to the article. --Danutz (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've addressed some of the reference concerns but the prose issues still remain. It very much reads like what it is, a translation from another language. I highly highly highly suggest finding at least two copy-editors who speak English very well to read over and thoroughly massage the text, as it is very clunky through out. I could point out examples, but the whole text needs work, and it isn't a FAC reviewers job to do that, honestly. It has the basis of a good article, but it needs a LOT of work. I am not knocking the work you've put into it, but practically every sentence needs work, which is well beyond what any reviewer is expected to point out. Examples within the first four sentences include "The city lies in the valley of the Someşul Mic river and it used to be the capital of the historical province of Transylvania." which is clunky and combines two different subjects into one sentence, and "The population of the Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area, as proposed by the current project is estimated at 360,000." which has the very odd "proposed by the current project" which is totally unexplained and odd connected with the population. That's a mere sample. The very next sentence is "Finally the population of the influence area (periurban area) counts over 400 thousand residents." Finally? Why finally? Periurban? Influence area? counts over? That sentence is awkward. Once again, I highly reccommend taking this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors for help. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"as proposed by the current project" by the current project?
"Finally the population of the influence area" What's final about it?
"The city spreads circle-wise from" Circle-wise ?
"due to come to international spotlight"?

There are dozens more like this in the article.--GrahamColmTalk 17:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criterion 1a. This article needs a serious copyedit or three. There are numerous typos (vecinity, consuquence, ciurcumsription, trolleybuss, ensambles, ocasion), mis-translated words (terasse, petrified, suveranity, interrogatories, novation, questionated, beggers), and sentences that simply don't parse in English. Further oddities (note that not all of these are strictly WP:WIAFA breaches):

Maralia (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose grounds (I've looked no further than this). The prose needs considerable work by an uninvolved copy-editor. A few examples:

--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More