Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2012: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎June 2012: added one
→‎June 2012: added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==June 2012==
==June 2012==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulgaria/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulgaria/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar women's national football team/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar women's national football team/archive1}}

Revision as of 13:11, 9 June 2012

June 2012

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 by GrahamColm 13:11, 9 June 2012 [1].

Nominator(s): Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to nominate this article for FA-status. It has gone through two peer reviews, a great deal of informal peer discussions, and a recent copyedit. The subject matter spans an important subset of First Amendment law, one that I hope this review process will only help expand. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Alright, first things first: this will be my first time having reviewed an article, so I know there will be things I missed.

Maybe it's just me, but should court be capitalized in the following instances:
  • In the Lead section: "The Court ruled that this specific restriction violated ..."
  • In the Supreme Court decision section: "The Court affirmed the decision ..."
Not relevant, as Lord Roem describes below. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction
1. In the sentence: "... stating that while they were glad the restriction fell "[the decision] opens the LSC up to even more attacks" Could this be improved by adding two commas: "... stating that, while they were glad the restriction fell, "[the decision] opens the LSC up to even more attacks"?
Subsequent developments
2. The following sentence confused me a bit: "Since the Court struck down the limitation LSC has engaged in welfare-reform litigation, due to the injunction preventing enforcement of the restriction (which was entered by the District Court)." Did the court strike down the limitation LSC engaged in welfare-reform litigation? Or has LSC engaged in welfare-reform litigation because the court struck down the limitation? If I am right, a comma might help clarify: "Since the court struck down the limitation, LSC has engaged in ..." If not, is there are better way of saying it so it is a little easier to understand?
Analysis and commentary
3. In this sentence: "... Justice Kennedy's analysis renders the opinion "uncredible" (sic) and "unconvincing." " Could/Should it be changed to: "... renders the opinion "uncredible {{sic}}" and "unconvincing." "
Miscellaneous
I found a few instances of duplicate links.
This last bit I don't believe is extremely important, but there are several links that are redirects.

Like I said, my first time reviewing an article, and I know I probably missed some stuff, but, hey, that is part of learning. L1ght5h0w (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thought you might want to know that the website the first reference links to ("Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, Carmen, et al./U.S. v. Velazquez") is "off-line" at the moment (as of 8:24am PST, 8 May 2012). L1ght5h0w (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'll work through these suggestions later today. Quick question though: you mention in #6 that there are several 'redirects'. I'm having trouble seeing what you're describing. Could could be specific please? Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, some of the links on the page are redirected to...well...I'll give you a few examples:
  • [What you link to] => [The actual article]
  • Legal Services Corporation Act => Legal Services Corporation
  • Public fourm => Forum (legal)
  • Law journal => Law review
  • Indigent => Poverty
I'm sure you know how to fix it, but just to clarify, you put, for one example, [[indigent]] and it could be [[Poverty|indigent]]. Like I said, not really something extremely important, but it makes it look nicer, IMO, if when you follow a link to another article, it doesn't have the "(Redirected from [article linked])" on the article's page. And, obviously, do to fix this, you can avoid a "redirect" to the article using piping. Sorry if that is difficult to understand, and if it is, please know it's my fault, not yours (it is my way of wording it, and sometimes I can be pretty vague). L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and happy to help! =) L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Lightshow! I've worked through all your suggestions for the article. Only thing I didn't do is the change of "Court". The proper way to refer to the Supreme Court is "the Court held" or "the decision of the Court" (for example [this Supreme Court featured-article]).
If you think I've resolved your concerns, if you could strike through it or put a "collapsetop/collapsebottom" box around it, that would be great. That way, other editors and reviewers know that I've worked through the suggestions. Thanks again! Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from what I saw when I first reviewed it. Sorry it took me two days to add collapse boxes/strike throughs. Nice work! L1ght5h0w (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I enjoyed reading this article (and the case). Here are some suggestions:

  • "funding restrictions" That sounds like restrictions on who can receive funds, but the restriction is that lawyers working for entities that receive the funds are restricted in what types of cases they can represent. Needs clarification
  • "private speech—that of its clients" Do you mean grantees? Using the word clients makes it sound like the attorney's client's speech but the Court's decision is based on the attorney's ability to speak freely (bring certain cases). This needs to be clarified.
  • "created a public forum" What public forum did it create? I know I saw "existing medium of exchange" in the opinion.
  • "government's ability to regulate speech is highly limited" - The government's ability to regulate speech is always highly limited - needs clarification.
  • "Because the restrictions excluded attempts to affect only a certain type of law" - cumbersome wording
  • "In academia there were more were critical responses to the Court's holding. Do you mean there were more critical responses than favorable responses? If so, make clear and source.
  • indigent defendants should be clients
  • the act, the Act, the LSC Act - needs to be consistent throughout article
  • "Velasquez retained" Since she didn't pay, I don't think this is the best word.
  • "a provision of the LSC Act" Since there's really only one provision of the Act that's at issue here I think "the provision of the LSC Act prohibiting challenges to existing welfare law" would be better.
  • In the "Lower-court proceedings" section you use "welfare advocacy" and elsewhere it's "welfare reform", should be consistent throughout article.
  • A couple of times you say the government was trying to. This doesn't sound professional, "attempting" or "its purpose was" would be better.
  • Somewhere there should be a clarification of what types of welfare cases an attorney working for an LSC grantee could represent and what that attorney could not represent.
  • "Supreme Court decision" section is very short. I think it needs considerable expansion to clarify the Court's reasoning. In particular explain governmental speech, private speech, "distortion", impermissible viewpoint discrimination -- what these are and how they relate to this case. Now they're just mentioned, they need a more thorough explanation.
  • I think the article would benefit from subsections giving brief descriptions of Rust and Rosenberger, specifically why the restriction in Rust was permissible (very unclear now) and why Rosenberger was impermissible. BlueBonnet 20:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working through your suggestions. I'm down to the last three points you have, each about expanding the article, which will take a tad more time than the other fixes I'll get to those expansions over the weekend. Thanks for the review! I appreciate the help in improving the article. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely finished I believe. I've expanded the article's discussion of Rust and Rosenberger. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Split into two: "The restrictions affected only a small portion of the caseload; however, they prohibited the LSC from using its funds for actions: ... initiating legal representation or participating in any other ..." - Those are two key concepts. The latter needs a dedicated sentence as in "One of the restrictions prohibited funding cases that ...".
  • Wording: also in the above: "small portion of the caseload; however, .." - The latter clause is not the opposite of the former, so "however" is not correct.
What I was driving at was that there are two distinct thoughts there: (a) the several restrictions, together, were actually relatively minor and impacted only a small portion of the LSCs workload; and (b) one of the restrictions dealt with Welfare, and that one was the subject of this SCOTUS case. I think those should be in 2 separate sentences (and the "however" will naturally disappear). --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite needed: " ... and sought to challenge the provisions of TANF under which Velazquez lost her benefits. The district court denied an injunction." - has no footnote & is at end of paragraph.
  • Cite needed: "The national LSC asked the Supreme Court for review by petitioning for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Second Circuit was wrong in striking down the welfare-advocacy restriction." - has no footnote & is at end of paragraph.
  • Cite needed: "The Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding that the restriction on pursuing welfare advocacy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a vote of 5–4."
  • Cite needed: "With this in mind, he concluded with a process by which the Court should have decided the case: a process leading to the upholding of the restriction by finding that LSC's purpose was in promoting the government's message, in contrast to a diversity of private views."
  • Cite needed: " Notwithstanding the difficulty of an organization to classify itself as an "affiliate entity" of LSC, Gozdor argued that there was no real prevention of speech when there were ample alternative means of relaying the message."
  • Clarify direction: "... could undermine abortion law " - Undermine in which way? Increase restriction on a.? Or reduce legal restrictions?
  • Mention Rosenberger v. Rector - That case is listed in "See also"; if it is in any way relevant, it should be mentioned in the body of the article.
  • Subsequent cases? - Has the Supr Court relied on this case in any subsequent cases? If so, mention them.
  • Wording: "Moreover, attacking the distortion principle's application, Gozdor also argued ..." - I think many editors will agree that "moreover" is never a good word to use. Reword.
  • Holding should be standalone: "Because the LSC facilitates private speech, the government speech doctrine does not apply and the speech restriction is therefore unconstitutionally viewpoint-based." - I know it is hard to summarize a whole case in 1 or 2 sentences; but here "the speech restriction" makes no sense because a restriction has not yet been mentioned before. Maybe something like: "A federal law which prohibited the LSC from engaging in welfare-law related cases violates the 1st amend freedom of speech because such advocacy by the LSC is private speech and thus not subject to the govmt speech doctrine". Or something like that.
  • Wording: "Supporters of the ruling were cautiously optimistic, ..." - The phrase "cautiously optimistic" is hackneyed. Recommend reword.
  • Was this case mentioned in the NY Times or any other general-audience media? If so, it would be worthwhile to present their take on it.
  • Easter egg link: Link "own message" leads to article Rust v. Sullivan which is probably not consistent with WP:LINK guidance.
  • Be specific: "The immediate reaction was mixed, especially among members of Congress." - Reword as "The immediate reaction was mixed among members of Congress." - unless you are going to identify who else had a reaction. The general public?
  • Reword: - "Parties involved in the case also had mixed reactions...." - It then gives two responses; but (1) it looks like both responses are from the same side; and (2) the responses both appear to be supportive of the decision - so Im not sure "mixed" is correct here.
  • Tense: "The implications of these subsequent rulings mandate two new rules" - That is a shift to present tense, and seems wrong.
  • Overall, a fine article. Not a spectacular topc, but it is on a narrow, focused topic, so one cannot expect to see lots of illustrations and celebrities. Leaning to Support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments.

I believe I've addressed all the issues you've raised. If you have any questions about my changes or more suggestions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for the thorough review! :-) - Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Support based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Does not meet criteria 1(a) or (b) - writing is confusing and imprecise, difficult legal concepts that many readers will be seeing for the first time are not adequately explained, lacks complete and clear description of the parties involved, insufficient description of the Court's evaluation of the problems caused by the restriction, insufficient description of how the Court applied legal principles to reach its decision, contains factual inaccuracies. Also the article is unbalanced, leaning toward criticism of the majority opinion. The discussion of the majority opinion is short and does not adequately explain the Court's reasoning whereas the "Analysis and commentary" section contains only criticism and is much longer.

Additional comments

  • "The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez" - not accurate - "Lawyers employed by the New York City LSC grantees, together with private LSC contributors, LSC indigent clients, and various state and local public officials whose governments contribute to LSC grantees, brought suit..." (quote from the Court decision)
  • "whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions" - inaccurate "...brought suit ...to declare the restriction...invalid." (quote from the Court decision)
    • Some of the points you raise are fair, but these first two I think are invalid. She was trying to challenge the welfare restrictions, but could not so so because of the restriction. I think the wording of the lead sentence then is accurate. Additionally, while her lawyers were the ones who brought the case technically, its in their client's name. Hence the reason its called LSC v. Velazquez. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This lawsuit is to challenge the restriction within the LSC Act, it is not to challenge a provision of welfare law. Challenging the welfare law would come in a different lawsuit against whatever government department denied welfare benefits. The Court states who filed suit. It's LSC v. Velazquez et al.. Current description of parties and suit is inaccurate. BlueBonnet 21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nature of how LSC funds are distributed" - what does how they're distributed have to do with anything? This is in the intro and I don't see an explanation later in the article.
  • "created a public forum" - What public forum does the LSC create? I thought the forum was the court system. The LSC didn't create that.
  • "Reactions to the decision were mixed within Congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing on the propriety of the decision." This is in the intro but I don't see anything later in the article about any Democrat having an opinion on the matter. Which source supports a Republican/Democrat split over the opinion.
  • According to the Greenhouse article the Clinton administration intervened in support of the restriction - that is significant and needs to be mentioned.
    • The Clinton administration/LSC is the same thing. It was a suit against the government, so to say the Clinton administration intervened is not technically accurate and thus should not be included. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The LSC is a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation established by Congress, it is not the government. Do you have a source that contradicts the Greenhouse article? There needs to be a full and accurate description of parties. And now the article gives the impression that Republicans were for the restrictions, Democrats were against it - inaccurate if the Clinton administration intervened in support of the restriction as the New York Times article states.BlueBonnet 21:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point of discussing Rust and Rosenberger in a "History..." section. The Court discusses these cases in its opinion so they can be discussed in the "Supreme Court decision" section. Still needs a more thorough explanation of how the principles in those cases relate to Velasquez and how the Court distinguishes Rust from Velasquez.
    • I think the History section is the appropriate place to put it. Please refer to the only SCOTUS article that is an FA here. It uses the background of prior case law in a similar 'history' section. That's my reference point. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs clarification that "specific relief" means suits for benefits and that such suits were OK under LSC Act so long as there was no challenge to existing welfare law
  • "Bronx Legal Services filed suit" - inconsistent with intro which says Velasquez brought suit
    • Done. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You changed it to: "Bronx Legal Services, on behalf of Velazquez, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking a declaration that the provision of the act prohibiting challenges to existing welfare law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.[4] " and you cite to the case. Please quote the language from the case that says Bronx Legal Services, on behalf of Velasquez, filed suit. I think this is wrong and that, if anything, Bronx Legal Services was a co-respondent with Velasquez and the others.BlueBonnet 21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (I did a quick online search and found where it looks like Bronx Legal Aid represented Ms. Velasquez after she lost benefits and attempted to challenge welfare law but the attorney was barred from representing her and she lost her benefits - that was a different case. That's not this case.)BlueBonnet 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article gives the impression that Ms. Velasquez filed suit to get benefits and this case proceeded from that lawsuit, but that is not what happened - needs clarification.
  • "The majority reasoned...[that] the purpose of the act was to promote a diversity of private views with its funding; not an attempt to restrict any views" - I'm confused, I thought the Act clearly restricted LSC attorneys from asserting the view that existing welfare law was unconstitutional
  • "The Court said that the government can only issue "content-neutral" conditions on such speech, and that the specific prohibition on welfare-reform litigation was viewpoint-based" - sounds contradictory to what was just said - that it was "not an attempt to restrict any views"
  • "the Court also attacked the fact" - sounds weird, poor wording
  • "The Court also attacked the fact that the restriction functionally barred attorneys from participating in the courts." - The restriction did not functionally bar attorneys from participating in courts. That is way too broad and I'm pretty sure the Court didn't say that. I also don't see support for this statement in the source that is cited (Greenhouse article).
  • "Any attorney receiving LSC funding would not be able to litigate welfare claims" - Inaccurate - they could litigate claims for welfare benefits so long as they didn't challenge existing welfare law
  • Need more accurate and more thorough description of the Court's discussion of problems the restriction caused in the functioning of the court system
  • Need explanation of how "distortion principle" came from majority opinion
  • If the "Analysis and commentary" section is only going to contain criticism (as it currently does) then it needs to be re-named to something like "Criticism"
  • The most notable critic of the opinion is Scalia, yet the Dissent gets a tiny paragraph and several less notable critics get much more space (they also get more space than the discussion of the majority opinion) - that doesn't make sense to me.
  • To the extent that the critics in the "Analysis and commentary" section are repeating what Scalia said, that criticism needs to be in the Dissent section so that it is clear that Scalia first made the point
  • "Taking the Velazquez rationale to its logical ends", he wrote, "the LSC subsidy itself could become an unconstitutional speech restriction. If Congress substantially increased LSC appropriations in order to allow LSC to take all of its cases ... the functioning of the legal system would be distorted because such a subsidy likely would result in a dramatic increase in the federal courts' caseloads." - How would a dramatic increase in the federal courts caseloads be an unconstitutional speech restriction? This doesn't make sense to me and is not adequately explained.
  • "Because Velazquez "blurred" this distinction, the privileged nature of doctor–patient conversations could be subjected to future regulations and limitations." - But Velasquez struck down restrictions, why would it be used as a basis for regulation and limitation in doctor-patient conversations? Sharpe's article was written in 2002, has Velasquez been used in such a way in the last 10 years? If not, why is this even relevant?

BlueBonnet 20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by GrahamColm 13:04, 9 June 2012 [2].

Bulgaria

Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the relevant issues of the December nomination have been addressed. The article has been copyedited by the GoCE. Hopefully this will receive objective and constructive comments, as I believe the article is ready for FA status. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random drive-by comments I probably won't post a review, but I'd like to make the following comments:

  • The arty photo of 'The Black Sea coast near Chernomorets' has very little encyclopedic value. It's a nice photo, but doesn't show anything of interest.
  • The MiG-29 fighters in the 'Foreign relations and military' section aren't flying in a 'combat formation': fighter aircraft generally maintain a fair distance apart during combat operations. This is an airshow-style formation flight.
  • "Bulgaria remained free of foreign deployments on its territory until 2001" - unnecessary as it's later stated that this was the first time combat forces were stationed in Bulgaria since World War II. 'Remained free' is rather POV-ish.
  • "In 2006 Foreign Policy magazine listed Bezmer Air Base as one of the six most important overseas facilities used by the USAF." - what does the USAF use it for?
  • The tense of the last two paras in the 'Foreign relations and military' swaps around a few times. The para also would benefit from a stronger focus on the Bulgarian military - at present it seems to emphasise foreign defence relations.
  • What are the green circles in the map of 'Bulgaria (orange) and its largest export partners'?
  • Most of the first para in the 'Second Bulgarian Empire' section is unreferenced, as is "refugees who put additional strain on the already ruined national economy." a bit later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced photo.
  • Changed image description of the jets, left out just "Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters"
  • Removed redundant wording
  • The Bezmer Air Base doesn't serve a significant purpose now, but the magazine claims it would be one of the principal supply and troop transfer airfields for an eventual war in the Middle East. Currently it's used for joint training and parachute/SpecOps drills.
  • Green circles represent the percentage of Bulgaria's total exports. Clarified it in image description
  • Sourced the first one, I thought the second one is a logical consequence of any war but I'll look for a source on it. Found source. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've picked them according to quality. Most are high-resolution with good contrast and colours. I'll replace the more standard ones with something else, though there's little choice when it comes to Science and technology and military. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed all pics in the Culture section, I think these are more descriptive and would be more interesting, especially the example of an early book in Cyrillic script. Replaced the wind turbines with one of the units of the MI thermal complex, it's pretty huge and I'm not sure if there's another such concentration of both mining and energy production activities in Europe. Left the IBM and the MiG-29s as they're not such pieces of equipment that one can find in just any country. Hope it looks a bit better now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, well-referenced, and very thorough. Interchangeable 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning towards Oppose The prose in the article is mostly grammatically correct, but I'm not yet convinced that it is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (from WP:WIAFA) Examples:

  • "It is a unitary state with a high degree of political, administrative and economic centralisation, and is a free country" – the final clause connects poorly with the initial clause. Generally speaking, 'action' + 'and' + 'action' does not create great prose—there are a few others in the lead. You could enhance the above sentence by emending it to "A free country, Bulgaria is a unitary state with a high degree of political, administrative and economic centralisation".
  • "After 670, he led a horde of as many as 50,000 across the Danube" – 'as many as' is non-neutral language.
  • "By the late 14th century the Ottoman Turks had started their conquest of Bulgaria and most towns and fortresses south of the Balkan mountains were under their control." – silly question time: did the Ottomans control the towns and fortresses before or after their conquest of Bulgaria? The sentence lacks cohesion.
  • "Considering its relatively small size, Bulgaria has an unusually dynamic climate due to its location at the meeting point of Mediterranean and continental air masses and the barrier effect of its mountains." – should be "...owing to its location", as the phrase is adverbial, not adjectival.
  • "Bulgaria's relationship with its neighbours since 1990 was generally good." – until when?
  • "Bulgaria has an industrialised market economy in the upper middle income range, with a large private sector accounting for more than 80 per cent of GDP." – 'with' is a poor linking word, and present participles are generally avoided after nouns (see WP:PLUSING); you could change it to "Bulgaria has an industrialised market economy in the upper middle income range: a large private sector accounts for more than 80 per cent of GDP."
  • "Even though relatively poor in natural resources, local deposits of iron, copper, lead and coal are vital for Bulgaria's manufacturing sector." – grammar.
  • "It is the most ancient Slavic written language, distinguished from the other languages in this group due to certain grammatical peculiarities." – another 'due to' error; also, for us language mavens, it would be nice if you would mention what these grammatical peculiarities constitute—for instance, loss of noun cases, definite article at the end of nouns, no infinitive etc.
  • "Government estimates from 2003 put the literacy rate at 98.6 per cent; approximately the same for both sexes." – what follows a semicolon must always be a complete sentence, so you'd better introduce the subordinate clause with a comma.

These are my initial comments; I am contactable on my talk page if progress has been made. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addressed pin-pointed examples and streamlined others that weren't mentioned but had similar constructions. The only thing I don't understand is why "as many as" is non-neutral language ? It just points out the highest possible estimate, the lowest estimates vary too much and I decided not to include them. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress seems to have stalled somewhat. I'm not yet ready to support it, but I won't oppose it. Here's the rest of my review:
  • "It is a European Union, NATO and Council of Europe member, a founding state of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and has taken a seat at the UN Security Council three times." – I suggest that you recast the sentence to: "It is a member of the European Union...", lest it read like Bulgaria is the EU.
  • "Prehistoric cultures in Bulgarian lands include the Neolithic Hamangia culture and Vinča culture and the eneolithic Varna culture (fifth millennium BC)." – use 'and' only once, at the end; commas are more appropriate.
  • "Under Samuil, Bulgaria somewhat recovered from these attacks and managed to conquer Serbia and Albania, but this rise ended when Byzantine emperor Basil II defeated its army at Klyuch in 1014." – what is the antecedent of 'its'?
Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Putting my personal stylistic differences with the article aside, this seems to me to meet all of the criteria required of a FA. I commented in the Peer Review of this article, and have had it on my watchlist since that point. This article doesn't try to explode with pictures as many country articles do, it's very concise yet covers a lot of information, and has no egregiously short sections or paragraphs. As raised above there seems to be room for improvement, but no article is ever finished and Tourbillon responds excellently to all queries, so I have all faith that any issues will be resolved. Even if it doesn't pass, it's an excellent job to get it to this point. There's hope for Balkan country articles yet. CMD (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. due to potential comprehensiveness issues. Also, I am not convinced by the organization of the article. I gave the article only a quick glance, but I see crucialpotentially important pieces of information missing.
    1. To what degree are there ethnic-social conflicts with Roma (hint: there are)? In what form is the pressure of the European Union on Bulgaria in this regard?
  • How is this of any significance ? Apart from several clashes that can be seen in almost any country in the EU, there is no general conflict. I will add a sentence or two, but this is of highly overstated significance.
  • What the heck? This is completely untrue! Romania, Bulgaria, followed by Slovakia are the countries having significant problems with Roma, at least to an extent that they are on an agenda by the EU. Saying that you won't add anything displays your ignorance. Nageh (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a sentence.
    1. The Bulgarian parliament's so-called Dossier Commission in December 2010 disclosed that almost half of the countries ambassadors (including other key persons as well as clerics) where members of the former Communist Committee for State Security, including now former president Parvanov, who refused to recall the personnel. This affair cause quite some ill feelings within and outside of the country. Here is a link.
  • This issue is one of the most hyperinflated problems inside the country, especially during the current government which keeps ranting about the ambassadors while having former State Security ministers in its own cabinet. I'll dismiss this remark, it's simply a poor observation.
    1. What are the important/influential media in the country? Completely missing.
  • There was a media section, it was moved to Culture of Bulgaria.
    1. The Culture section seems to focus strongly on classical culture. For example, it completely omits the dominance of contemporary Balkan pop. On the other hand, traditions and folklore seem to be completely missing. Also, it might possibly help to introduce subsections (Literature, Music, Cuisine, Sports, etc.).
  • Subsections will be far too short. Modern Bulgarian music does not extend beyond the Balkans, I don't think it's popular enough to deserve mention here. Maybe in Culture of Bulgaria, but not here.
  • So you are saying, there is no contemporary music worthy a mention, and there are no traditions and folklore of relevance? I seriously doubt that. Nageh (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. John Vincent Atanasoff is probably the most notable scientist of Bulgarian origin. Not mentioned a single time.
  • He's simply of Bulgarian descent, was neither born in Bulgaria nor raised in a Bulgarian-speaking environment.
    1. Infrastructure: What are the important transit routes? Which cities is the high-speed line going to connect? Do railroads connect to all neighboring countries? (E.g., it does not connect to Macedonia). Btw, there is a narrow-gauge railroad line famous in Bulgaria.
    1. The discussion of energy politics is very weak. How much energy does Bulgaria import/export? What about strategically important pipeline projects such as Nabucco and South Stream? What about the second planned nuclear power plant, at Belene? What energy is private, which is under government control?
  • Again, there's a respective main article for that. Won't add anything.
  • Maybe you don't get it, but these pipelines are affecting entire European energy politics, and are widely discussed outside of your country. Adding two lines is crucial information in an overview article this is supposed to be. Nageh (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What trade agreements does Bulgaria sustain? Which organizations is it a member of? For example, it is a member of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. What is the economical role of Bulgaria in the EU? (Where) does it get financial aid?
  • Given that it's a member of the EU, it's more than clear what trade agreements it has, where does it get aid from, and what its trading policy is. There's a membership template at the bottom of the page for those interested in membership. The major organisations it participates in - NATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe - are already listed.
  • Since when does EU membership imply membership in the BSEC? Does the article mention that Bulgaria gets financial aid, and in which size? You know, there is a reason why I am using question marks: it means that I don't know all the answers. Nageh (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, my question whether Bulgaria does get financial aid was hinting towards that European countries are either net receivers or payers, and Bulgarian is a net receiver, which should be mentioned together with the amount of annual funds it receives. Nageh (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping now. Nageh (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are all of these crucial? If I want to learn a general summary of Bulgaria, how on earth is knowing that some Bulgarian nurses may have given children in another country HIV going to help with that? How does knowing some ambassadors were formerly communist help me learn more about Bulgaria? There is some merit in a couple of these, but this list does not at all illustrate massive comprehensiveness issues. Articles are written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, there isn't space for every bit of newsworthy information. CMD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nurses case was a major issue in Bulgarian foreign politics, and was widely reported in European countries. The extent to which each of these points should be covered varies, some may be addressed by a single sentence (and I'm open to debate). Note that this is a list of issues that I compiled in a short time. But it includes several items that are indeed crucial topics and are not covered by this article. In general, the article is very/too brief in many aspects. Nageh (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nurse case was very widely reported, but that doesn't mean it needs to be covered in the Bulgaria article at all. In fact, I see few reasons why any single cases of a few civilian nationals being convicted of crime abroad should be included in any overview country article. The article prose is at 38 kB, which is basically right in the middle of the optimum range recommended by Wikipedia:Article size. Some things, like the Roma, do deserve mention, but if your list of "crucial topics" includes things like an American scientist and a proposed nuclear power plant project that was never built and has been abandoned, I find it hard to take it as a serious objection to the article's comprehensiveness. CMD (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's be fair. There are 9 items in the list, and you are repeatedly objecting to the same ones. I already said that I'm open to debate, but there are a number of items that are crucial. I did not know the Belene nuclear power plant was abandoned, I'm not all-knowing or immune to mistakes. Nageh (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Vincent Atanasoff may be an American scientist, but he is celebrated as a Bulgarian born in Bulgaria, as far as I can see.I thought he was raised in Bulgaria, my bad. That reminds me, are there any acclaimed universities or higher education schools in Bulgaria? Nageh (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to every item on the list. I have repeatedly noted some make sense, and have specified that I agree with the point on the Roma. My point is that you call this a list of crucial issues, when quite clearly some of them are not only not crucial, but probably not worth mentioning at all, making the list as a whole quite weak. In regards to universities, that depends on what you mean by "acclaimed", which is a rather meaningless subjective word.
I'll leave this now for Tourbillon, who should be able to comment on the merits of these and address those that should be addressed. CMD (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep the article as brief as possible - more is less, remember ? There's no point in throwing a ton of facts that might not interest anyone. There are respective main articles for each of these topics, and I'm pretty shocked to get a firm oppose on something like this. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great attitude. So in essence you are saying you don't bother. Nice. Nageh (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point of a summary article, like this ought to be. Your other replies are always like "it's moved to a seperate article, won't add anything". I'm not asking you to add entire new paragraphs to the article, I am asking you to spare a few sentences to these issues. Your reply is amazingly ignorant, and certainly won't change my vote. Nageh (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just responding in kind. Summary style means excluding details that aren't significant. How is a narrow-gauge line famous or significant to be mentioned here ? Yes, there is a separate article on transportation and it should stay there. I don't care if you change your vote because it's not a serious opinion anyway, and if you have a degree of self-criticism you'd notice that too. I've added some info on the Roma and HIV issues, but the others are simply not anything that significant. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are bashing me because I set an oppose vote (which I only intended to hold the article until I get to review it, sorry for the misunderstanding)? This is a really constructive attitude for someone seeking FA status for his article. Nageh (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the hundredth time, I was hashing ideas, I was under the impression that the narrow-gauge line was famous (for historical reason, whatever). I was trying to be helpful, you just go respond in bashing me. Thank you, this is what you get from doing FA reviews. Nageh (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think suggestions such as these would weigh enough for an oppose vote, simple as that. The first time I nominated this, it got rejected because of commas and brackets in the sources and a single IPA transcription in the title. Now I'm being told that I've missed things which were actually there, but I omitted them because other guidelines stated that I should be as brief as possible. There is no way to be ultimately constructive when trying to handle contradictions. I'm not asking for support votes, just for a degree of rationality and flexible thinking, which are quite absent around here. And since this is actually my first - and probably last - FA nomination, I'll just respond: This is what you get from doing FA nominations. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously a lot of misunderstandings. My mistake was to post an "oppose" when I only meant a "temporary oppose", to prevent the article from being archived/promoted prematurely. I corrected that mistake, and apologize for that. What concerns FA reviews, you are free to review my previous FA reviews (e.g., the last one is Giraffe), and I am certainly one of the thorough content reviewers. That many of my items in above list are admittedly of poor quality is a result of the quick nature in which I compiled it. However, when I ask for additional information it does not mean that you extend the article to the extreme but rather that you add concise additional information where relevant. Please review my commented list above. I'll leave it for a day to cool down the situation. Nageh (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some additions:
  • On the Roma issue - added three sourced sentences. I'm reluctant to add anything else first because it will add too much weight on the subject and that would require an expansion of the whole section, and second because it's a potential battleground for rampant antiziganists and human rights fanatics; I prefer not to leave such a loose hook.
  • State Security dossiers - as I said, this is a subject that is widely exploited by virtually all parties on opportunistic grounds. The current government itself has, and has had, former StaSec members [3] despite the entire anti-Communist rhetoric it uses. It's really a Gordian Knot not worth the effort.
  • Pipelines and transport links - added a sentence on South Stream and info on rail links with other countries.
  • Added information on renewed recession and the amount of EU funds received.
  • Added some information on customs and folklore.
  • I couldn't find any reliable sources on pop music, so I just threw in some of the better-known Bulgarian performers.
  • Mentioned the largest media outlets.
I hope that covers the remarks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the changes look satisfying. The one sentence on failed EU integration efforts is spot-on, and just what is needed to say about this within this overview article. I understand that the ambassador issue is more complex, and cannot be addressed in a convincing way in this article. As for the other issues, the coverage is in just the right detail. A minor one though that I mentioned above: Should membership in the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation be mentioned?
I still intend to provide another review, but I'll take my time to spare me another blunder. Nageh (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BSEC is in the International Membership template. It doesn't have much influence on regional politics; as long as I remember, the last time I heard of it was during the 2008 war in Georgia and their only activity was a statement calling for a quick resolve to the conflict. There's a ton of other organisations with similar weight (ex. La Francophonie) that could be added along this one. I think it's fine as it is now, down in the bottom. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question is how much economical impact it has. But I really don't know, so I'll take your word. Nageh (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Like to see a spotcheck of sources before we wrap up this review; also an image check unless there are no additions or outstanding licensing issues from the previous nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Mila_Rodino_instrumental.ogg needs a US PD tag for the anthem and a licensing tag for the recording
  • Added PD-Art (if that is what you mean under US PD tag) and PD-USN
  • File:Location_Spain_EU_Europe_1.svg (source of infobox map) lacks a source
  • Replaced map with another one based on a CIA map.
  • File:Krum1.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Added.
  • Do we have any evidence that the uploader of File:Campaigns_of_Ivan_Assen_II.png owns the source site?
  • The site is a source for the map, is it necessary that the uploader owns the site ?
  • The uploader asserts that he owns the image, yet it appears on the external site. If the uploader owns the site, that's fine; if not, how could he own the image from another site? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as I see, it's not the exact same image. He just made his own map using the overall layout as a basis.
  • File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • Added.
  • File:Bulgarian_soldiers_with_wire_cutters_WWI.jpg needs to include evidence that the author never claimed authorship and when/where the image was first "made available to the public" (which is different than the creation date). Same for File:Bulgarian_photographers.jpg
  • Source site doesn't state when they were "made available to the public", there's creation date. It does however mention that they came from donated albums and archives. I don't know if that is sufficient.
Not according to the licensing tag used - need public date and further details of source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Used PD-Bulgaria, the photos certainly respond to at least one of the four criteria.
  • Because Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all images showing 3D works (including buildings) also need to include licensing info about the 3D objects/buildings
  • Don't know if there's any templates available for FOP-eligible, so I just added info on the architect of the Parliament and University library buildings. File:Downtown Sofia Boby Dimitrov 1.jpg is impossible to assess if it's FOP or not. Removed an image which doesn't have FOP.
  • There's a lack of FOP, but only on buildings and 3D works whose author/architect has died less than 71 years ago ([4]). The architect of both buildings is the same and died in 1923, which means the restrictions do not extend to these two buildings.
  • File:Cape_Shabla_Lighthouse_3.jpg: author requests caption attribution
  • Would look ugly, so I replaced it with another image.
  • File:Bulgaria_Aministrative_Provinces_numbered.png: on what source is this image based?
  • Added.
  • File:Bulgaria_export_partners.png: on what data set is this image based?
  • Added.
  • File:Chasoslov_031.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • Added.
  • File:Location_NATO.svg: data source?
  • File:Euro_2008.png: data source?
  • File:Carte_du_Conseil_de_l'Europe.png: data source?
  • File:Balkan_topo_en.jpg: data source?
  • I don't get it, none of these is used in the article ?

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left comments. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead review. Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "home of some of the world's most ancient cultural artifacts." such as?
  • They're mentioned in the culture section - oldest golden treasure in the world, one of the most ancient cities in the world, first Christian monastery in Europe. I decided not to include them in the intro in order to provoke some degree of curiosity.
  • I added some basic details on the artifacts - crafts and religious work, and I mentioned the early literary schools as part of the culture, though I'm not aware of that will suffice.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two instances of "marked by" in the second paragraph. Some variety of phrasing would be nice!
  • Changed some wording.

* The lead seems to be heavily focused on History, while saying very little about Culture or Geography. What kind of climate does Bulgaria have? What about music?

  • "At the height of their activity from the 9th to the 13th centuries, Bulgarian literary and artistic schools have been instrumental for the development of Slavic literature and arts." The phrasing is a bit off here. The definite time frame in the first clause clashes with the use of the present perfect tense in the second clause. Perhaps what you meant was "At the height of their activity from the 9th to the 13th centuries, Bulgarian literary and artistic schools were instrumental for the development of Slavic literature and arts." Also, other than the time frame, this sentence seems really really obvious. Of course the art schools were instrumental for the development of art! This is not in any way unique to Bulgaria!
I think that in this sentence the focus is on the word Slavic, not art, i.e. the point is that Bulgaria was the cultural powerhouse of the Slavic world during this period. Nicksss93 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're quite right. I somehow forgot that "Slavic" and "Bulgarian" are not the same. Struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, it's a tad off-place anyway, at least in the way it was formulated. It doesn't really fit, neither with the previous nor with the next sentences. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: Sources selected using WolframAlpha's random number generator. Ref numbers accurate as of this version. Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 9: Source covers material, no problems with paraphrasing. I do find it somewhat odd that this summary news article is used as the source instead of the journal article about the study. News writers have a nasty habit of completely misinterpreting the findings of research groups, and I would greatly prefer to see the original source used for this sort of thing.
    Did a quick search, but no PDF or official research files came out. It has only been cited by media sources, so I'd assume it's not published online yet.
    That seems very weird to me, as it makes the statement even more difficult to verify. I've never done a source spotcheck before, so I don't know what the course of action should be for a situation like this. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Cryptic's concern about the accuracy of a news item discussing a study, rather than the study itself, but perhaps it's not such a big risk noting that the Britannica article used at Ref 12 also makes a connection between the Bulgars and the Thracians, which seemed to be one of the main points of Ref 9. On the other hand, perhaps that makes it less necessary to bother with Ref 9 at all, if the idea is to establish the Thracians as among the modern Bulgarians' ancestors -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If Ref 12 also connects the Bulgars to the Thracians (and I see that it does), it seems like the most convenient solution would be to replace Ref 9 with Ref 12, or to use both for the same statement. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced it with a Britannica Online source, so there's no problem with this one anymore.
  • Ref 37: "...participation in four wars during the first half of the 20th century..." is not covered by the source. The source mentions World War I and World War II, and it mentions Serbia and Greece being "major territorial rivals" with Bulgaria, but it doesn't explicitly mention four distinct wars.
    The source supports the statement for the militaristic nature of Bulgaria during these years, the four wars are simply mentioned in the next subsection.
    That's a problem, not a solution. The reader should not have to hunt for citations in a different section to be able to verify this statement. I suggest either rephrasing it to leave out the "four wars" bit, or add another citation to a source that confirms it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropped the four wars.
  • Ref 41: Google preview does not include p. 273. Sad pandas.
    I found a mention of the number in a table here (scroll down to next page). Will simply change the page number.
    I'm not sure I understand why you intend to change the page number -- the link you've posted above is to a completely different book, is it not? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch, indeed - got confused by the authors, they're (almost) the same. Anyhow, I cited this book as it's readily available to verify.
  • Ref 42 needs a page number.
    Added.
  • Ref 94:
    • Article: "The National Police Service (NPS) combats general crime and supports the operations of other law enforcement agencies, such as the National Investigative Service and the Central Office for Combating Organised Crime."
    • Source: "The National Police Service ... is responsible for combating general crime ... and supporting the operations of other law enforcement agencies such as the National Investigative Service and the National Service for Combating Organized Crime."
    • Are "Central Office for Combating Organised Crime" and "National Service for Combating Organized Crime" the same thing?
      As long as I remember, they aren't. I'm not sure if the former even exists anymore; the latter is something like a specialised anti-mobster organisation.
      The article and the source are inconsistent. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Dropped out the names of the two institutions to avoid confusion (they don't have their own articles anyway) and cited the website of the NPS instead.
  • Ref 105: I cannot read Bulgarian. Sad pandas.
    Very poor, but comprehensible automatic translation: click
  • Ref 162: Both article and source use the somewhat mysterious phrase "last deserted beaches"
    Meant to say "last beaches without a regular, massive influx of tourists" or something in that spirit. Will reword it somehow changed to "the last remaining beaches outside the reach of the tourist industry".
  • Ref 172: Subscription required. Abstract covers most of the material, but doesn't mention anything about the greenhouse being a Bulgarian invention. I suspect that this fact is not present in the body of the source, as it is not in any way relevant to the mission. If, for some weird reason, it is covered by the source, then a specific page number needs to be given, as this is an 11-page document.
    As long as I read, it says "SVET-2 SG Bulgarian equipment of a new generation with optimised characteristics...". I have a book on the issue, but it's not available online. Would it be better if I cite that along with this source ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you misunderstood my concern. Here's the phrase in question: "[Bulgaria] has deployed ... space greenhouses (a Bulgarian invention) on the Mir space station." Ref 172 confirms that they deployed greenhouses on Mir, but it doesn't say anything about the claim that the greenhouse is a Bulgarian invention. Our own greenhouse asserts that the modern greenhouse was invented in Italy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the space greenhouse is not a greenhouse per se. It's more of an incubator with all sorts of equipment and life support systems for plantlife in a cosmic environment. Unlike Earth greenhouses, which are simple glass structures, this is more of an electronic device - therefore somewhat distinct. I also added a book source with a quote on the statement.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Developing a new generation of equipment (which is what the sources say) is not the same thing as inventing a piece of equipment (which is what the article says). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced "invention" with "development", I hope that's more suitable.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 222: No problems here.

Spotchecks complete. All of the above issues have been resolved. However, I'm somewhat concerned that there may be other problems in the sourcing. Out of the 250+ source used in the article, I looked at a mere 9 and found 7 problems. These ratios are not encouraging. Does anyone else want to take another look at the sources? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Why is the official name of Macedonia included and those of the other countries not?
      • Hm, hadn't noticed that one has changed. There's a naming dispute over the use of "Republic" vs. "Former Yugoslav Republic of", and using only "Macedonia". It's a very controversial topic, but I'll take it back to "Macedonia" only as it's the shortest and will avoid confusion.
    • "to ally align with Germany"?
    • "Bulgaria as the leading regional electricity and raw material supplier through its energy and mining industries." Leading supplier of which area?
      • "Supplier" is a bit unclear, changed it to "exporter".
    • "Kyoto protocol" --> "Kyoto Protocol"
    • "the fall of Communism" --> "the Fall of Communism"?
    • Could you add alt text to the pics? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of "Politics". Hmmm ... did I happen upon a bad patch?

  • "which consists of 240 four-year[-]?term deputies elected by direct popular vote" ... better per MoS as "which consists of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote"?
  • Changed.
  • "The Acts of Parliament are the main source of law for the legal system, which is based on civil law."—particular acts we've just been told about? Or generic ... "Acts of parliament are the main source of law for the legal system, which is based on civil law." law ... legal ... law: can it be cleaned up? I mean, acts of parliament are in every country I can think of the ultimate source of law for anything. The legal system is based on civil law?
  • Changed it to "Bulgaria has a typical civil law legal system", it's already mentioned that the Parliament enacts laws a few lines above.
  • But here, surely we do need a "the": "Law enforcement is carried out by organisations mainly subordinate to the Ministry of Interior." -> "Law enforcement is mainly carried out by organisations subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior." It is a translation of the Bulgarian, I presume.
  • Sorry to go on about "the": "the most powerful executive position is that of the prime minister"
  • Cleaned up.
  • "for citizens 18 years of age and older" –> "for citizens 18 years and older" is good enough, or "for citizens at least 18 years old".
  • Changed.
  • "the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament" ... unfortunate rep. "for all members"? Tony (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh, and it doesn't specify how many seats each party has and which parties are in the governing coalition. I'd like to know whether GERB is reliant on just the "blue coalition" or needs the far right as well. Numbers? Tony (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of "Economy" ... hmmm ... "where a large private sector accounts for more than 80 per cent of GDP". So why "large" and "80 per cent"? I'm leaning towards opposing this FAC. Research is Bulgaria's top priority? Errr .... I haven't checked the source, but this claim sounds suspicious. Tony (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed the "large". And it was among Bulgaria's top priorities. You probably missed the "by the 1980s", source is Britannica. Any other specific concerns to be addressed ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was one small spot-check. What's the rest like, I wonder? Is this the third go at FAC? I'm surprised to find it in such a state. Tony (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, it might be good, it might not be. There's 250 sources out there and only about 20 or so have been spotchecked, about a half of them were added a few months back by me so they should be OK for the most part. This is the second FAC of this article done by me, and without a more comprehensive look I won't be able to know what needs to be changed or improved - I've strictly complied to all guidelines but there's always something coming up, so I rely on reviews. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose
  • "home of some of the earliest metalworking, religious and other cultural artifacts in the world." even though is in the lead I would like to have a reference to this.
  • Added some.
  • " The massive industrial expansion during the postwar economic boom established Bulgaria as the leading electricity and raw material exporter in Southeast Europe through its energy and mining industries." sounds just too pompous for the lead of a FA
  • Removed it.
  • I think the two subsection on the Bulgarian empires can be merged and trimmed.
  • I proposed it earlier, but consensus was reached that a 800-year period is a bit too large to encompass in a single subsection.
  • wikilink khan
  • Done.
  • " Bulgaria achieved high Human Development status." I think the HDI is relatively low for an European country
  • The HDI classification is "high", that's how it has been officially labeled.
  • "continues to improve its traditionally good ties with China[113] and Vietnam" this seems quite random
  • Define "random" in this case ?
  • "an industrial economy with scientific and technological research as its top priorities" what is this supposed to mean?
  • Clarified a bit.
  • doesn't Bulgaria have a relatively notorious organized crime for which the EU had imposed some penalties?
  • It does have organised crime, much like a number of other European countries, but the penalties were imposed due to mismanagement of cohesion funds.
  • how is "Some of Europe's last deserted beaches survive along the Bulgarian coast." from the reference transformed into "and the last remaining beaches outside the reach of the tourist industry" here?
  • Look above, other users claimed it's too unclear. It's perfectly clear under any formulation IMHO.
  • "make it a key European energy hub" is a complete overstatement of what the ref says
  • The ref pretty much states that Bulgaria is a critical location for pipeline projects in the EU; "Bulgaria's recent energy cooperation with Moscow, as it is, in the US view, undermining efforts to decrease Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas" is quite obviously underlining that there are some big interests in the energy issues here.
  • isn't Kozloduy past its designated life?
  • No.
  • "Bulgaria has the fastest average Broadband Internet speed in the world after South Korea" is misleading as the reference does not imply it listed all the ountries below S Korea
  • Third-fastest, changed + sourced.
  • "The oldest Slavic written language, Bulgarian is distinguishable from the other languages in this group through certain grammatical peculiarities such as the lack of noun cases and infinitives, and a suffixed definite article." should be probably be moved to the culture section
  • It fits better with the demographic composition in terms of ethnic groups, religion and languages. It would look misplaced in the Culture section at best.
  • What are the major cities in Bulgaria?
  • There's a nice map with provinces in Administrative divisions, it's mentioned that they're centred around the largest cities.
From reading the text the major cities were not very obvious
  • This is hilarious: from "Times have changed, and now 97 percent of the apartment units in Bulgaria are privately-owned (owner-occupied)." to "Bulgaria has the highest home ownership rate in the world; about 97 per cent of the population live in privately owned and owner-occupied homes"
  • Alright ?
The reference does not state that "Bulgaria has the highest home ownership rate in the world;"
  • Removed the highest home ownership rate bit.
  • "what is the meaning of this sentence: "Traces of Gothic culture also appeared in Antiquity, as evidenced by the Wulfila Bible—the first book written in aGermanic language, created in Nicopolis ad Istrum in the 4th century"
  • It means that Gothic culture was also a part of the chaotic soup of cultures on ancient Bulgarian lands.
Then why dont you simply state that, without the extra details?
  • Did so, separated statements.
  • From "Bulgarian scholars of archaeology consider Bulgaria to be the third richest country in Europe in terms of archaeological heritage after Italy and Greece." to "their total number is the third-largest in Europe after Italy and Greece" is a pretty big leap
  • Changed to "the size of local archaeological heritage is..." instead.
The point is that the reference states that BULGARIAN scholars consider it. Do you see how that is not a very repudiable source? You need to find an unbiased opinion for such a boasting statement
I changed it to "Local archaeologists claim...", but I still don't see how a statement by local archaeologists would be biased or considered unreliable. We're not talking about a Fourth World country here.
  • "The site revealed evidence of the first European civilisation" which one?
  • It has no name, generally called Old Europe by archaeologists.
  • "Bulgarian folk music is by far the most extensive traditional art " citation?
  • Bulgaria is pretty good at winter sports too
  • Hasn't marked any significant success in the last years, no.

Overall, the article is waaay too positive about the country to be regarded a FA. Many of the references I've checked say some positive things which are highly exagerrated here (leaving asides how reputable those references are for the strength of the statements they make). Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll find cites for the ones that I haven't addressed now. If it's too positive, what should we write ? It's the most corrupt ? Already written. Lowest wages and life expectancy, low quality of medical services, non-functioning judiciary, demographic catastrophe taking place ? Already mentioned. If other media, authors or any outlets in general covered the country more extensively, I'd use more "reputable" sources. But they don't, so I've used the most reliable of sources available.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an overview article, which means everything should be covered in a balanced manner. I feel like a little too much of the article is about the achievements of Bulgaria compared to the average situation. Plus, I have checked only the references for the boasting statements and I found that a large part of them are tweaked too much here. That makes it hard for me to asume good faith. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but I certainly don't think that the article is "positive" or displays that many achievements. The only things that might be seem a bit exaggerated are in the Military section, which sort of presents Bulgaria as a noticeable player in international relations, while in fact it isn't. As for the statements on archaeological heritage, earliest artifacts and the like - they might seem exaggerated simply because they're not well-known nor researched, and punch the reader as something unexpected. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by GrahamColm 07:23, 9 June 2012 [5].

Zanzibar women's national football team

Nominator(s): LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is meets all the criteria for featured article and represents the best article about a women's national football team in Africa despite the lack of recognised FIFA status and recognised international matches. The article underwent a lot of scrutiny both at the DYK level and the GA level. I have gone to the Australian National Library and the National Sport Information Centre to make sure I have any offline sources that might be available. I've also searched extensively through various databases and the web to make sure it is as comprehensive as possible. Given the short playing history, the article is shorter than most featured articles but it should still be comprehensively covering the team. No pictures beyond the logo because I cannot find any free images. LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1a: comments on the lead ... not encouraging, I'm afraid

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't doubt that sources on the topic are scarce, but the article does not give the impression of comprehensiveness. It comes across more as an article about Women's football in Zanzibar than one specifically about the national team. It lacks basic facts about the team. What colours do they play in? How have they fared in their matches? We are only told about a single friendly against a Swedish club.

Specific comments:

  • The team soon played an unofficially recognised international game against the Swedish women's club side Terresso FC – If it was against a club side it wasn't an international match at all.
  • At the time the team was created, there were few opportunities for it to compete against other women's team inside Zanzibar Why would a national team play against domestic opposition?
    • Because this is a team in Zanzibar where the women's game has limited funding, domestic opposition for their existence, etc.? A similar situation exists for Sudan women's national football team and other national women's football teams in certain parts of Africa where there is little support, cultural reasons that deter female participation and political instability. --LauraHale (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead we are told that Zanzibar "is neither a full member of CAF nor FIFA", and in the body that the Zanzibar FA "is recognised by the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations, but not by FIFA or the Confederation of African Football". The infobox is different again, saying that it is an associate member of CAF. The membership status for each body needs to be laid out more clearly.
  • Given that Zanzibar is part of Tanzania, and we are told "National team players are eligible to play for Tanzania...", why does the team exist at all? Is it a national team, or a sub-national one? This is not clear.
    • It is the national team of Zanzibar. Players are eligible to play for Tanzania just like people from Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas Islands are able to represent their national teams but also to represent the United States on the international level. Beyond that, they have played in a CAF sanctioned competition. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's why I think this needs clarification: players can only represent one FIFA member in international competition. Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are all FIFA members. A (say) Puerto Rican is also eligible to play for the USA, but has to choose between one or the other (articles 15–18 of these FIFA statutes). As Zanzibar is not currently a FIFA member, this may well be different to the norm, and so could do with explanation. What would happen if Zanzibar faced Tanzania in a CAF competition? Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the state of the team in question and that they have yet to play a full fledged FIFA recognised international owing to their lack of FIFA recognition, this point seems moot. The national team coach for Zanzibar is also the assistant coach for Tanzania so it would suggest involvement with one does not preclude or disqualify the other. (Though this is a bit of conjecture based on available sources.) They just aren't playing recognised matches near as I can tell for this to be an issue. --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zanzibar has unique problems relating to the development of the women's game Such as what? Oldelpaso (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what happened here. :( In the GA level, things were moved from the development section the team section so those issues are there instead of in that paragraph. In any case, fixed that sentence. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not so sure these are unique to Zanzibar, or Africa. Like on the hijab issue, there was a high profile incident last year involving Iran, which resulted in Iran forfeiting an Olympic match ([6]). Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can remove the statement and just leave the better sources problems for the whole of Africa section as the unique to them stuff has basically been integrated into the team section. --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For a featured item I would expect at least some summary table with the results that the team has played throughout the years. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tables added. Were not originally included because putting zeros and zeros and did not participate for every single event seemed a little bit pointless. --LauraHale (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not what I ment. How many games did the team play? how many goals it scored, etc. Infobox would be a fine place to put these numbers. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article basically says it: They have played in local competitions and only have played one game against a foreign club side. Thus, not sure how that would be put in the infobox. Do you want the Swedish club side there as the team's only international match and that as the loss? Which article text do you want put into the infobox? --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – There are just too many little things that point to this article not being our best work.

  • Surely "The" should be the first word of the article in this case? It is in Germany women's national football team, a similar FA.
  • CAF and FIFA should be spelled out in their first usage, like CECAFA is.
  • "as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is a full member of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations and CAR, but Zanzibar Football Association is not recognized by FIFA as an independent national association." Absolutely no need to repeat the association's name in this sentence. That's three excessive words, which is three more than I'd expect, particularly for an article so short.
  • Team: "which eventually became the national team, and the team was created...". Again, a redudancy in the writing, this time "the team". That doesn't need to be there either.
  • Also, a space needs to be removed before a block of four refs here. Are that many really needed to cite this?
    • Fixed spacing. Four citations are needed because of the complexity of the facts being presented and cited: The Women's Fighters are the national team. They have become the national team known as the Zanzibar Queens. They were founded in 1988. They were founded by Nassra Juma Mohammed of Tanzania. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What stadium did they play in in the game against Tyreso? If it was the largest stadium in Zanzibar, it's worth mentioning this fact.
  • "the" should probably be added to "from Zanzibar Football Association", and at the start of the section's next paragraph.
  • Another space needs removal, before ref 17.
  • You don't need to link CECAFA twice in this section, and I don't understand why the abbreviation appears in the second usage and not the first. By using it the first time, you can reduce the second usage to just the abbreviation.
  • "The federation is an member...". "an" → "a".
  • Why was the 2007 CECAFA Women's Challenge Cup canceled? That isn't clear at the moment. Also, we have "canceled" in the lead and "cancelled" in the body; those should be made consistent throughout.
  • Remove space before ref 21.
  • Background and development of women's football: Kind of surprised that this isn't the first section of the body, as it would provide context for everything that follows. That's what a background section normally does.
  • "Another problem with the development of the game throughout the continent is that higher ability players leave to play in Europe or the United States." Is this really a problem, or a positive? The players are likely improving by playing in bigger leagues worldwide, which may end up improving the team in the long run. Personally, I've never felt that American players leaving to enter European leagues has hindered development here, but maybe that's just me. Is it due to a lack of players? If so, that seems well worth noting.
  • The first sentence of the section's second paragraph has multiple items repeated from the Team section, which isn't optimal. Makes it look like the material is being stretched to the limit, which it probably is.
  • For newspaper refs, the name of the paper should be italicized. Refs 3 and 18 stick out as needing them; there may be others too. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm afraid that I cannot see this article reaching FA level in its current state. An international team that has not played any matches? Even if all the available information is included here, can it ever reach the required level of comprehensiveness for a FA? Putting this question aside, there are several other issues which make me oppose, and there is some way for this article to go. And generally, it is rather confusing and lacking in focus. I've read to the beginning of the "Team" section and commented in detail on the lead and first section. But these comments are examples only and there are plenty of other issues which need addressing. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Founded in 1988, the team has limited recognition as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is a full member of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations (CECAFA) and Confederation of African Football (CAF), but Zanzibar Football Association is not recognised by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) as an independent national association": Long, convoluted sentence which does not quite make sense. Maybe better to split after "recognition" then remove "as". And should there be "the" after "(CAF) but…"?
  • "The national team was supposed to have its first international matches": Clunky. Possibly "The national team should have played its first international matches".
  • Last three sentences of lead all begin "The", which is not ideal.
  • Background: The first paragraph seems a little thrown together, as if we are just cramming in whatever seems relevant, but is not really about the Zanzibar team.
  • "Women's football in Africa has not developed compared to elsewhere because of a variety of factors, including limited access to education, poverty amongst women in the wider society, and fundamental inequality present in the society that occasionally allows for female specific human rights abuses.": This seems a very sweeping claim about an entire continent, particularly when referenced by a football book. And why does Africa need linking?
  • "Another problem with the development of the game throughout the continent": Clunky, and unnecessarily re-states the opening of the previous sentence.
  • I agree with Giants' comments above that top players playing overseas does not necessarily mean a problem exists.
  • "According to Kuhn": Who is Kuhn? Some indication should be made in the text, otherwise it is just a name.
  • "According to Kuhn, funding for the game on a regional level is problematic as national associations do not fund the women's game adequately": What does "regional level" mean here? And is this not about a national team, not a regional one, which makes this irrelevant. And this a wordy way to simply say "The women's game [in Africa? In Zanzibar?] is not well funded by national associations".
  • "Zanzibar has unique problems relating to the development of the women's game": I find it extremely hard to believe that these problems are unique to Zanzibar. I can think of many places where this may be a similar problem.
  • "There is minimal support for the game at schools, with the national federation not responding to requests from the national team coach to work harder to get girls to play the sport in school.": Long and clunky sentence.
  • "A national women's league was created in 2004 after a twenty-six year effort": Can we not detail the 26 year effort? (And it should be 26, not twenty-six)
  • "however, the league has since collapsed": Why? When?
  • Are there no more details about the league, assuming it is relevant to the national team? For example, how many games were played? How well received was it by critics or the public? Who were the leading players?
  • "the Women Fighters, which eventually became the national team": When? Where? Why?
  • Refs in the wrong order at the start of the team section.
  • "and the team was created at a time when there were very few women's national teams in existence": How many? Some context would be good here. Although they were not a national team at the time, apparently.
  • "Prior to 1988, women had played informally or on men's only teams; several of these players, as well as those from other sports, including badminton, made up the inaugural team": Is this speaking of the Zanzibar team, or women's football in general? What inaugural team? When it says "several of these players", no players have really been referred to, just women in general.
  • "The national association, founded in 1926": Presumably the men's association? This should be made clear.
  • On a more general level: So, have the team actually played any games? It looks like they have never played. In an article like this, some details of performances should be given. And who are the players? Who are the officials? What colours do the team play in? If this info cannot be provided, I really can't see this being a FA. It is just too brief and does not give any of the information a reader would be looking for.
  • The article seems to be more about general women's football, not this team in particular. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by GrahamColm 07:18, 9 June 2012 [7].

Bloody Thursday (2011)

Nominator(s): Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first I attempt here. It covers of the events of the forth day of Bahrain Arab spring uprising when police launched a pre-dawn raid on protesters in Pearl Roundabout, killing four and injuring hundreds. I hope that the article which was reviewed by Malleus Fatuorum and The Rambling Man, might be TFA on the second anniversary (17 February).

About half of the references are in Arabic, most of which are from Al-Wasat, Bahrain's only independent newspaper. It and it's editor-in-chief have won several international awards following their coverage of the uprising. Other sources include news articles and international human rights reports, including the BICI report which was cited 26 times. Most images are taken from a website which claims to be licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Doubts were cast on whether the website really owns the copyright of images, and thus some were removed, however the "exclusive" images were kept, most of which are over 1000 pixels (some are over 4000) wide and have full metadata. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No offence to Bahraini Activist, who has done great work on the subject, but previous DYK experience suggests that close paraphrasing spotchecks will be necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on spotchecks.

  • "demands included the release of those detained during earlier protests" vs "demanding the release of those detained during earlier protests"
  • "asking citizens to stay away from gatherings in vital areas of the capital" vs "asked citizens to "distance themselves from gatherings in vital areas in the capital""
  • "disturbution by the violent means used to disperse demonstrators" vs "disturbed by the violent means used to disperse demonstrators"
  • "said he spoke with his Bahraini counterpart and stressed" vs "said he spoke with his Bahrainian counterpart and stressed"
  • "Key institutions such as banks did not open and workers stayed at home" vs "Banks and other key institutions did not open, and workers stayed home"
  • "that will enrage many of its people and cost the regime international prestige" vs "that will enrage many of its people and cost the regime international prestige". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Crisco and Nikki. - Dank (push to talk) 10:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a while. I've fixed the paraphrasing issues above which seems why it got 3 opposes so far. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by Ian Rose 00:00, 8 June 2012 [8].

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly worrying c 1430-40 Jan van Eyck diptych. If even half of its prophecies are correct, we're all in serious trouble. Has been a difficult article to piece together; thanks to the unflagging Truthkeeper88 for providing sources, and to Kafka Liz for the copyedits and advice. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks interesting; I've never reviewed an art article, but this piece looks quite compelling ... will put up a full review soon. Until then, I think the last paragraph of "Attribution" needs a citation. Sasata (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for spotting. Tks Sasata, looking forward to engaging. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Comparing with FAs The Entombment (Bouts) and The Magdalen Reading

  • The word "vulgar" in the lead seems inappropriate, considering its other connotations which are more common use as well as tone (vulgar is a colloquialism).
Personally I disagree, as van eyck so obviously stove to present them that way. But have removed and couched the description. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: some info is repeated. "The Crucifixion wing is divided into three horizontal sections" is in the start of the section and then again in "Crucifixion". IMO, Description needs to be reorganized into 3 parts with no repetition: a general para about the whole structure of the diptych and the specifics about the two scenes.
This has been heavily reworked, regiged and expanded since. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: "It is unknown if the work was commissioned ... " seems out of place.
Gone. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness: Details of the Latin inscriptions is needed.
Working. They are mentioned on the musueaum website, but in passing; I want to track thwem back to the origional sources. This is the reason for my tawrdiness, sorry. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, worked in several mentions and translations. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 19:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redtigerxyz; mostly done, I need to reintegrate some of the material cut from the decription overview, and make some additions re the inscrioptions. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holy Family" includes Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Only 1 of them is shown mourning: "members of the holy family writhing in loss and grief in the foreground" Confused???
Yikes; fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mourner's reflection can be seen in the shield ... " What reflection? Can't see any even in this version [9]...
You can see it in the gold coloured shield on the back of the dude in purple with the lance and curved sword standing in the area between the women and horse men. I've added a clarifier, but can put up a crop too it it might help. Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see it in close ups from the books. Its the guy in purple though I might have to clarify there. Ceoil (talk)
  • "Crucifixion": After lower section is discussed, there is no mention of the middle section with men on horseback etc. Suddenly the top section. ("The narrative of the panel reads broadly upwards")
Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inscriptions on cross, Michael's shield etc. missing [10]
A great deal added on these. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some historians believe the central panel may have been stolen by one of Tatistcheff's servants" No context about Tatistcheff. Prince DP Tatistcheff is not introduced yet.
Sorted (literally; I moved the paras about). Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok mentioned, with some context added. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on comprehensiveness and organization concerns. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apostles, seated on benches, not mentioned. A Google search showed that Burroughs (jstor) mentions them. Peter carries the Key, some others carry books.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nude humans seek shelter in Mary's rope - not mentioned. Then kings, popes?, clergy, monks etc. all different people in various attires... I am missing the details.
Working Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz, I'm not meeting you point for point as Im hearing you overall. Many tks for the close review, and bear with me if you dont mind. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simon is his first name; Seabag Montefiore his double barred family name. I dont see a problem? Ceoil (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All very good points, working through. We went on a source crawl and found a lot of material on JSTOR, adding, but nothing yet on the (many) inscriptions and free text across the panels. Bear with me and thank you very much for the detailed look. v happy with your input so far. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update The artticle has grown quite a bit over the weekend, with a lot of material added on the inscriptions in paticular. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read the whole article. Comments based on "Last Judgement" section.

  • "hell, the Earth and heaven": why a the here? In the convention followed, it should be earth OR Hell and Heaven for consistency.
Removed; it should be obvious. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthew 25:41: context of this inscription is very important. The article does not highlight the significance of the phrase. It is a reference to The Sheep and the Goats discourse by Christ.
Started on this. 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • " ... demons. Those assuming recognisable forms include those shaped as rats, snakes, pigs, as well as devils in the guise of a bear and a donkey. " So rats, snakes, pigs are demons, and bear and donkey are devils. Right?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adoravi tetgrammathon agla: meaning ?
Explained as far as possible. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of The Virgin, can please use the common name even known to non-Christians: Mary, mother of Jesus.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venite benedicti patris mei is Matthew 25:34 (The Sheep and the Goats). Significance missing
  • a lance and crown of thorns, a sponge and nails are Arma Christi. Significance
Well, they were already linked, but now made more explicit. Ceoil (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things not mentioned: [11]
    • On the right end of Peter's bench, Fall of man is carved
    • In the crowd, a pope, a cardinal, an emperor, a king are seen
Mentioned. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michael: sword, peacock feathers

Though the article has improved, it is not comprehensive still. The paintings are filled with iconography and inscriptions, allusions to the Last Judgement narrative, which needs to be highlighted. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Ceoil (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and disclaimer - I've done a lot of work trying to find sources in regards to the iconography and symbolism, and basically the sources for this painting have been bled dry. In my view it's not necessary to mention each piece of symbolism in the painting because there is so much of it. Although Ceoil wants this to be archived, just wanted to mention, that I can't see what more can be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, I've fixed these. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please archive, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question for delegates - although Ceoil has asked for this to be archived, I'd finish the review for him. Would that be that okay? Truthkeeper (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this one yesterday and saw the archive request, but also your suggestion that it was in fact comprehensive, so decided to wait a bit longer and see whether there were further comments in response. I have to say that given it's been open the best part of a month with one oppose and no declarations of support, I have to lean towards archiving. If your comments are likely to be more in the nature of advice for a subsequent run at FAC, then that should take place on the article talk page, not in this nom (I'm not trying to assume, more querying). Sasata also indicated he would be doing a full review, which might have helped keep this alive, but that doesn't seem to have occurred. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case I'll let it go and let you archive. It is comprehensive though; certainly there's no more in the sources, and at the risk of OR or synth, I think all has been done that can be done. Thanks for the reply. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw - completely unclear what you mean in regards to my comments being taken to the talk page. At any rate, I've struck my comments. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for the FAC to remain open to make further comments, and I indicated (sorry if it wasn't clear) that I was leaning more towards archiving and that any further review comments could be placed on the article's talk page. Given there's been no further input from reviewers, and Ceoil's request still stands, I'll be archiving it shortly. If you and Ceoil would like to work on it further, it can be nominated again at FAC after a minimum of two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I was more or less waiting until Redtigerxyz's considered his concerns resolved, as new information was still being added. Sasata (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by GrahamColm 15:18, 2 June 2012 [12].

Stones Brewery

Nominator(s): Farrtj (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it seems to be up to a decent standard. Farrtj (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (spotchecks not done). The references are a total mess, to put it bluntly. Some might not care all that much about the nitpicks of formatting, but in this case the references are formatted so badly and so inconsistently that it makes it impossible to verify any of the article's content. Although it is not required, I strongly recommend using the citation templates in order to make the citations clearer and more consistent. The following list gives some specific concerns, with ref numbers based on this version of the article:

  • All items which are available online should have hyperlinks, even if they are behind paywalls.
  • All books should provide ISBNs.
  • Be consistent in use of "p5" vs. "p. 5" for page numbers. What does the "p. [1]" notation mean?
  • Be consistent in use of commas for large numbers: "12,345" vs. "12345"
  • What makes Ref 2 a reliable source? They specifically state: "We are not professional researchers". Even if they are somehow reliable, the citation is just the link and page title. More information needed!
    It's a transcription of an historical document, not original research, so it's fair game to me.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of publication is Ref 3? Might be a book, but I really have no idea.
    Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 is blatantly incomplete. It doesn't even give a title!
    Sorted.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing should have been done before the FAC began, and will need to be addressed before it can continue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose same reason as last FAC. Reference cleanup needed version

    • Ref 49, 23: bare link
    • 10: Author, location, title missing. Newspapers' pages change according to the location in some cases
    • 70: Campaign 18 December 1987 New campaigns, what is this??? Book/magazine/news???
    • 33: "William Stones Llimited." [sic] Financial Times [London, England] 24 November 1966: 6. Financial Times. Web. (what does this mean?) 20 August 2011. V/S William Stones Ltd The Financial Times (London, England), Friday, 1 December 1961; p. 4; Edition 22,561: Inconsistent formatting
    • 73: questionable reliabilty

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted the above.Farrtj (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference formatting may not be perfect but I can vouch that they are all accurate in the information that they refer to. Given that the article is entirely my own work I can vouch for this.Farrtj (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, just as Essjay vouched for the material that he contributed. The reader needs to be able to verify the information for themselves, as that is one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. Currently that is impossible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well very little of my material is available freely online. Most of it is behind a paywall.Farrtj (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not strike comments written by reviewers. Instead, leave a note explaining what changes hace been made to address the issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments. In addition to the referencing problems I pointed out above, there are some problems with the prose. In general, the tone feels more like a documentary than an encyclopedia article, and in some places it seems to assume that the reader is familiar with brewery lingo. Here are some specific issues: Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "leaving Stones as the sole partner." By "partner", do you mean "owner"? The current phrasing doesn't make sense to me.
  • "the modestly sized Cannon Brewery on Acorn Street in the Shalesmoor district of Sheffield" This level of detail about the brewery's location isn't necessary, in my opinion. I suggest removing "Acorn Street", as well as the "Rutland Road" that appears later.
  • "In 1880 Stones built two 90 quarter maltings in Worksop" I have no idea what a "90 quarter malting" is.
  • "William Stones became a limited company in 1895 with £275,000 of capital (£30 million in 2011)" The phrasing of the parenthetical is ambiguous. Does it mean that £275,000 would be worth £30 million in 2011? Or that the amount of capital had grown to £30 million in 2011? Assuming it's the first case, it should be made clearer that this is an approximation. Also, a citation should be provided for the conversion immediately afterwards, not at the end of the sentence. Also also, why is this conversion to 2011 values when the rest of the paragraph uses 2010 values? Shouldn't they all be 2012?
  • "best regarded business concerns in Sheffield" What is the difference between a business and a business concern? Also, "best regarded" is a WP:Peacock phrase that doesn't add anything worthwhile to the sentence.
  • "Annual shareholder's meetings were held at the Cutlers' Hall in Sheffield." Is this really important enough to be mentioned?
  • "In 1919 The Crown Inn opposite the brewery" Which brewery? Could be either the Cannon brewery or the Brunswick brewery.
  • "Such stagnation was common throughout the British brewing industry in the 1950s" I oppose the metaphorical use of "stagnation". Also, why did this happen?
  • "William Stones joined the acquisition trail" I have no idea what an "acquisition trail" is.
  • "In 1959 William Stones bought Ward & Sons of Swinton, local bottlers of beer and mineral water for £100,000" This phrasing suggests that these dudes bottled beer and water for £100,000. Presumably what you meant to say was "In 1959 William Stones bought Ward & Sons of Swinton, local bottlers of beer and mineral water, for £100,000." One little comma can make a big difference.
  • "The Ward bottling plant was superior to Stones' own, and capable of filling and labelling 8,000 bottles an hour." It's not clear to me what "superior" means here. My first guess would have been "more efficient", but the second clause discusses efficiency, so that's not it.
  • "High gravity brewing was introduced by the 1980s" I have no idea what high gravity brewing is. Link? Explanation?
Sorted all the listed prose issues with the exception of the citation positioning for the currency conversions.Farrtj (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Cryptic and Redtigerxyz. I agree with most of their comments. Regardless of whether references are freely avaliable or not, they should be presented in a professional fashion in an FA. Having references like numbers 45 and 46, where the reader cannot tell exactly what is being cited, is no good. Many refs to newspaper articles and such don't have proper titles, just the name of the publication. Also, annoying all caps are all over the place in the cites, and I don't see why word counts are important when some refs don't even have page numbers, which are more vital and should be provided when possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead Comments - As far as company leads go, this is one of the better ones. It sums up the company in a timeline format, by reaching and covering every major point in the company's history, yet still showing a variety in the summary. Bravo for the lead, if nothing else. Oakley77 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 by GrahamColm 14:47, 2 June 2012 [13].

Pilot (Awake)

Nominator(s): Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets criteria. If there are issues. I will fix them, so that it can be promoted. Thank you. Tate Brandley Stockwell 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oppose: The nominator opened a peer review a couple of hours after nominating at FAC, presumably in response to the above comments. One of the principal contributors has also suggested a peer review, a sensible step as there is no evidence in the edit history that the article has gone through any preparation for featured article nomination. Articles cannot be simultaneously on PR and FAC, so this nomination should be withdrawn and reviewer attention switched to the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Brian. The second, messy sentence drew me here: "with two parallel realities; : in one reality, his wife Hannah (Laura Allen) is alive and his son Rex (Dylan Minnette) is dead, ;while in an alternative reality his son is alive while and his wife is deceased." Tony (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2012&oldid=496743123"