Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/When the shepherd lost his sheep/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: The original GAR posting does not seem to identify any substantive problems that prevent this article from being a GA, but rather a disagreement about writing style. If you feel the writing can be improved, then please have at it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This article went through a very minimal review around a week ago, but I've noted some issues that violate the criteria:

• Well-written:
  • There are grammatical errors throughout (e.g. first paragraph in "The poem within the pastoral folk tradition").
  • Article is mostly composed of short paragraphs which can surely be grouped.
  • Instances of MOS:PUFFERY (e.g. "now-famous", "authentic", "notable")
  • Redundant usage of "the poem When the shepherd lost his sheep" (use "the poem", "it", or "When the shepherd lost his sheep")
  • Lead mentions it usually is performed by male shepherds, but I don't see that anywhere.

• Verifiable:
  • Discogs usage
  • It mentions a "notable revival" in "Modern status", but it's only sourced to the release page of it on Bandcamp.

• Broad:
  • The article covers similar poems, but sometimes goes in too much detail that can be seen as unnecessary (e.g. first paragraph "Similar musical stories")

There might be other issues in the article I'm not aware of. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 03:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Many of these concerns seem like personal preferences, not legitimate flaws. The phrase "the poem When the shepherd lost his sheep" occurs 4 times, which is hardly redundant in a 3000-word article. Each time its usage is clearly designed to help the reader keep track of which text is being discussed.

"Mostly composed of short paragraphs" is meaningless and vague. How short is too short? Is there some guideline that's being violated? I see paragraphs of many different lengths in the article with no prevailing pattern.

The Good Article criteria emphasize, "Prose at the good article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for featured articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status." The prose is clear, concise, and understandable.

Gender is understandably referenced in the lead of an article that states, "...women were traditionally barred from entering sheepfolds, and shepherds were often bound by a vow of chastity".

It's reasonable to refer to a televised performance of the folk song by a Transylvanian shepherd as "authentic".

Discogs is simply pointing readers to the recordings which are the actual sources. It's a convenience a lot of editors use to point readers and other editors directly to the cited recordings where they can read liner notes and refer to additional details. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.

• I have corrected several small errors, including non-standard punctuation. Added wikification and interlanguage links to newly created articles. Used Efn-lr for citations inside notes. Made the text more neutral (removed "now-famous", "notable").
• Added a mention with a link to another recent authentic performance, which is relevant to the article's coverage.
• Regarding Discogs: the citations rely not on user-supplied text content but on scanned album covers and liner notes. The link could be omitted and the album cited as a publication, though I do not consider that an improvement.
• The level of detail in "Similar musical stories" is intentional. Povestea lui Tânjală has no Wikipedia article and is largely unknown outside specialized ethnomusicological literature. Without a brief plot summary, the comparison with When the shepherd lost his sheep would be unsupported and unclear to the reader. The detail provided is the minimum needed to make the parallel meaningful.

It may be worth noting that the article holds Featured or Good Article status in two other Wikipedia language sections, where it underwent thorough review.

Also could you advise whether this article is correctly placed under Language and literature good articles, or would Music be a more appropriate category? - Iurii.s (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes and reply, the article is in a better state but I'll let other editors comment before this gets closed. (hopefully someone else goes through this article and re-reviews it)

I think article should be under Language. Musical poems like Baa, Baa, Black Sheep are under that category. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 10:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Passerby comment: I'll just echo the above that some of these criticisms are clearly personal writing preferences, not problems. There are good articles with many short paragraphs, there are good articles with a few long paragraphs, there are GAs with a mix. It's fine. A paragraph or two being short is not a sign of a problem if it's a full independent topic. Additionally, reminding the reader of what we're talking about is good and makes an easier read with less confusion than using "it" everywhere. Even if a reader can puzzle out the subject of a sentence, just... make it so that they don't have to. Article looks fine at a glance from me, but could be convinced to look deeper if more substantial criticisms are raised. SnowFire (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)