164:: The prose is poor and the article would quickly fail to achieve FA without a lot of further work. It's too big a job for me to take on but here are some pointers: check for "also", "only" and "as well as". Do not be tempted to over-dress the prose in an attempt to make the article sound encyclopedic (it has the opposite effect). Keep the sentences simple. Don't use "related" when you mean "similar". And, please do not quote the legislation (law numbers) in the body of the article; confine them to the footnotes. Some parts are poorly referenced, it's best to go a little over the top with referencing in my experience.
183:
used "related to" not as "similar to" but as "influenced by". I'll move the law numbers inside the article to footnotes. For the last observation, some of the paragraphs are referenced by only one work, at their end. Should I repeat the reference where necessary?
121:
I've listed this article for peer review again because I want to eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. The article seems to me to be well written and referenced (I wrote the
Romanian version and
198:
It is difficult to comment on your last point. Any facts in sentences that might be challenged should have a citation. If this means having to repeat the same reference, then do so. Graham.
224:
126:
translated it entirely in
English). Also, I've taken into account the suggestions of the previous peer review. We could use again a fresh, neutral perspective.
207:
193:
110:
133:
the hardest criteria to match (1-a) for FAs: "the article must be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
34:
173:
156:
77:
73:
92:
58:
229:
50:
140:
179:
Thank you. I was afraid the prose wouldn't be briliant, because I am not a native
English speaker.
102:
26:
17:
205:
171:
66:
54:
85:
8:
189:
152:
199:
180:
165:
123:
43:
218:
106:
185:
148:
105:
review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
225:Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews
216:
136:possible omissions of references where needed.
118:This peer review discussion has been closed.
101:A script has been used to generate a semi-
14:
217:
23:
24:
241:
109:style; it can be found on the
13:
1:
208:19:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
194:18:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
174:10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
157:21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
7:
10:
246:
111:automated peer review page
230:January 2009 peer reviews
129:I'm concerned about:
18:Knowledge:Peer review
36:Previous peer review
113:for December 2008.
93:Watch peer review
237:
203:
169:
139:possible use of
90:
81:
62:
245:
244:
240:
239:
238:
236:
235:
234:
215:
214:
201:
181:User:Biruitorul
167:
96:
71:
48:
42:
31:
28:Flag of Romania
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
243:
233:
232:
227:
213:
212:
211:
210:
145:
144:
137:
134:
120:
115:
114:
98:
97:
95:
41:
39:
30:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
242:
231:
228:
226:
223:
222:
220:
209:
206:
204:
197:
196:
195:
191:
187:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
170:
163:
159:
158:
154:
150:
142:
141:peacock terms
138:
135:
132:
131:
130:
127:
125:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
94:
89:
88:
84:
79:
75:
70:
69:
65:
60:
56:
52:
47:
46:
40:
38:
37:
33:
32:
29:
19:
161:
160:
146:
128:
117:
116:
86:
82:
68:Article talk
67:
63:
44:
35:
27:
55:visual edit
219:Categories
124:Biruitorul
103:automated
162:Comments
147:Thanks,
200:Graham
166:Graham
78:history
59:history
45:Article
186:Alex:D
149:Alex:D
107:house
87:Watch
16:<
202:Colm
190:talk
168:Colm
153:talk
74:edit
51:edit
221::
192:)
184:--
155:)
91:•
76:|
57:|
53:|
188:(
151:(
143:.
83:·
80:)
72:(
64:·
61:)
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.