Jump to content

Talk:Ion Creangă

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIon Creangă has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 22, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 14, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the literary works of Romanian teacher and defrocked Orthodox priest Ion Creangă (pictured) range from primers to erotic stories?
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Diacritics

[edit]

Isn't his name properly Ion Creangă? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:11, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Bogdan | Talk 20:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

No idea what this was doing in the article...

[edit]

... but I figure it's better to have it on the talk page. Relevance to Creangă escapes me. I'm guessing that it is to one of his stories, and that's fine, but it needs context: as an isolated fact, it's useless.

For the ones that want to know how can we translate from romanian in english the name of the character "Gerila", this is "Jack Frost".

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:02, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there's a character "Gerilă" in his Harap-Alb story, but this addition was indeed pointless without a context. Bogdan | Talk 20:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opinion cut

[edit]

I cut the following as an unattributed opinion. Not too well written, either.

Even though some critics say Creanga is a children's writer, his writing are subtles and difficult to understand by those who are not very well prepared.( see "Povestea povestilor")

- Jmabel | Talk 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Good Article

[edit]

This article passes as a Good Article. I will implement the details shortly. If there is any one small suggestion for improvement, it might be to be more selective with red links. There are 116 of them with few of them becoming articles. But this is minor, not a GA criteria, and just an opinion of mine. What a immensely thorough, well-written, well-illustrated article this is! Congratulations to the editors on creating this and on achieving Good Article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ion Creangă/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the article because it the longest-nominated on that has not had a review started. It has an immense amount of material and sources, and an immense amount of work that has gone into it. Initial comments will follow shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to my count, the article has about 116 red links. I would not fail the article for this or even say that it should be changed, but you may want to take a look at that to see if the bar might have been set a bit low, as 116 red links is a bit distracting. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subheading "Main tales" seems a bit mysterious and appears to not be explained in or an apparent topic of that section. Does this simply mean that the section covers his most prominent tales? Suggest either putting something in the section explaining this, or else relabeling the subheading. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still have to look at it some more. Sorry I've been so slow; I had some unexpected things engulf me. I'll do that soon. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria / review

[edit]

Well-written

Passed: Very well written. So well written that I did some searches for copy-vio and found no problems. Well written summary in the lead. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Passed. Extensively referenced and sourced. With such a huge amount of material on an unfamiliar topic, confirmaiton of accuracy by me was nopt possible, but everything looks plausible and carefully written. (no overreaching material) North8000 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Passed. Very broad (but still on-topic) and thorough. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passed Looks neutral, again within my limited knowledge of the topic. Wording is very careful and neutral-looking. Appears to be well balanced with respect to what is in the sources. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passed. Stable. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Passed. Good. Has 12 images, no non-free images, so rationales not a question. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Good Article

[edit]

This article passes as a Good Article. I will implement the details shortly. If there is any one small suggestion for improvement, it might be to be more selective with red links. There are 116 of them with few of them becoming articles. But this is minor, not a GA criteria, and just an opinion of mine. What a immensely thorough, well-written, well-illustrated article this is! Congratulations to the editors on creating this and on achieving Good Article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated here for when the review is no longer transcluded. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Ion Creangă. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ion Creangă. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "memorial house"?

[edit]

The article mentions a "memorial house". This is not clear in English. Is this a general museum? His former home, now a museum? Other? Pete unseth (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their former home, now a museum. 2607:9880:2408:BD:FCC0:1039:8155:9608 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

[edit]

Currently: "...was a Romanian writer, raconteur and schoolteacher." 

I would replace these with

"...was a Romanian writer, schoolteacher and deacon." 

(1) raconteur word is not quite used (at least in USA/CA) and writer should cover that /occupation/ 
(2) Ion Creangă has studied and worked for the Orthodox church
(3) "textile worker" on the summary - occupation, this sounds like he worked in a textile factory, which is not the case. I would drop that.

Anyone please can write an opinion on this, before I do any updates? Thanks! Doris de SV (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the occupation. Side note: he wasn't a priest, but worked in the Orthodox church as a deacon, mostly for his father in law. Doris de SV (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ion_Creangă&oldid=1251160011"