![]() | Port of Constanța has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:
Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 21:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please tell me what are the rest of the problems so that i can try to fix them? Mario 1987 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now that I see how much improvements have been made in so short time, I regret not placing the article on hold. Good work. There are still some more stuff that needs perking up (some which is GA criteria and some that is not). First,
the lead is a bit short, and the first sentence sounds more like a marketing gimmick than a good encyclopedic introduction. I had no idea where Constanţa until I reviewed this article, so make it clear straight away that this is in Romania. Otherwise, all sections in the article are to be in the lead. Remember: the lead is to summarize, not introduce, the article. History, satellite ports and statistics are not mentioned in the lead right now. Concerning references, they are to be behind the punctuation (not in front). In the {{
cite}} template, there is the peramiter |language=
set this equal to Romanian
instea of using {{
ro icon}}. Also, the section "operations" is completely unreferenced. Other perky stuff is to use an
endash (–) insead of a
hyphen (-) in ranges (ex. 2002–08 and Danube–Black Sea Canal [while written correctly here, the latter article's name is wrong]). Consider right-aliging the statistics, since they vary so much in magnitude. Also remember to {{
convert}} metric values into the medival system to the Americans do not get lost (and the value nm
is for nanometers, not nautical miles [though that could have been me in my copyedit]). Do not superscript th in numbers. There is also a bit over over-linking, since some words are linked multiple times. The section "Ore, coal, coke" should have an and in it. I still feel the history section is quite small, but you are the one who knows when sources are running out of more to say. While the old stuff is covered well, newer stuff is more lacking (especially after the revolution), and a news search can show wonders when researching this sort of stuff. Good work, things are coming along great. Again, do not hesitate to ask for more feedback or advice (on this or a different article).
Arsenikk
(talk)
22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are Size of harbor 26.13 km2 (10.09 sq mi) and Land area 12.13 km2 (4.68 sq mi) not adding up to the full Size 39.26 km2 (15.16 sq mi)? Rubenescio ( talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Port of Constanța has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:
Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 21:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you please tell me what are the rest of the problems so that i can try to fix them? Mario 1987 11:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now that I see how much improvements have been made in so short time, I regret not placing the article on hold. Good work. There are still some more stuff that needs perking up (some which is GA criteria and some that is not). First,
the lead is a bit short, and the first sentence sounds more like a marketing gimmick than a good encyclopedic introduction. I had no idea where Constanţa until I reviewed this article, so make it clear straight away that this is in Romania. Otherwise, all sections in the article are to be in the lead. Remember: the lead is to summarize, not introduce, the article. History, satellite ports and statistics are not mentioned in the lead right now. Concerning references, they are to be behind the punctuation (not in front). In the {{
cite}} template, there is the peramiter |language=
set this equal to Romanian
instea of using {{
ro icon}}. Also, the section "operations" is completely unreferenced. Other perky stuff is to use an
endash (–) insead of a
hyphen (-) in ranges (ex. 2002–08 and Danube–Black Sea Canal [while written correctly here, the latter article's name is wrong]). Consider right-aliging the statistics, since they vary so much in magnitude. Also remember to {{
convert}} metric values into the medival system to the Americans do not get lost (and the value nm
is for nanometers, not nautical miles [though that could have been me in my copyedit]). Do not superscript th in numbers. There is also a bit over over-linking, since some words are linked multiple times. The section "Ore, coal, coke" should have an and in it. I still feel the history section is quite small, but you are the one who knows when sources are running out of more to say. While the old stuff is covered well, newer stuff is more lacking (especially after the revolution), and a news search can show wonders when researching this sort of stuff. Good work, things are coming along great. Again, do not hesitate to ask for more feedback or advice (on this or a different article).
Arsenikk
(talk)
22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are Size of harbor 26.13 km2 (10.09 sq mi) and Land area 12.13 km2 (4.68 sq mi) not adding up to the full Size 39.26 km2 (15.16 sq mi)? Rubenescio ( talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)