Happy to review this article. I'm a rather slow reader (and I go extra slow for GA reviews) so I may review in chunks, I would recommend you wait for all the comments to come in before addressing/responding – but that's completely up to you. 07:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
*As a note, you are always welcome to disagree with any of the following suggestions or criticism, as long as you explain you reasoning.
MOS
The layout of the references is odd, I'm not sure that the different cites need to be headings as it seems to do nothing but make a longer TOC. I would recommend either a) replacing the three cited headings with a ";" (e.g. ";Cited bibliography) which will bold them or moving the sources to a new "Sources" or "Bibliography" section and using the ";" to create three sections for books, newspapers and websites. Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entire paragraph of: The following is a comparison of both countries in case unification took place. For convenience... is unnecessary when the sources are already individually cited in each table cell. I would recommend shortening to something simpler: "The following is a comparison of the modern-day countries of Bulgaria and Romania" Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the entire paragraph is useful, but I can remove everything after "20th centuries" if you prefer it like that. What I'd rather want to avoid is leaving the rest of the paragraph without any reference at its end. SuperΨDro11:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just remove "For convenience and data accessibility, the information is based on recent years rather than the 19th and 20th centuries." – you already say "modern day" Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the sentence and I think the prose is more fluid now. What do you think? If you still prefer to remove it I will without any complain next time. SuperΨDro23:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to minute things like this, my opinion is not very "strong" – if you think it's fine then that's fine by me
The 3rd column of "Bulgaria-Romania" is veering extremely close (if not too close), to WP:SYNTH and it might just be better to remove. The reader can already tell a lot by looking at the two independently sourced columns, the third is simply adding the data, which as I said seems dubious. Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, done. Is there a way to center the table in the article? On my screen now it seems to leave a large space on the right. SuperΨDro11:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do try to keep the lead brief, but "owing to differences between..." is especially vague, could a word or two be inserted here to clarify? (e.g. "Cultural differences" "different approaches"... etc.)
I decided to use "cultural and political differences".
Try and add some time frame to the first sentence/first paragraph – at the moment it's too vague. "Throughout the 19th century the idea had great support, especially..." – or something like that and I suppose preferably in the first sentence but at least in the first paragraph
Done.
"which extended its power north of the Danube" seems out of place here, what does that have to do with the union?
The territory north of the Danube from a Bulgarian perspective is Romania, now this is specified
The empire would also be dissolved, this time by the Ottoman Empire may be smoother as "The empire would (be replaced/dissolve into ?) the Ottoman Empire, which ruled..."
I think it is better how it is right now. Maybe I could use "defeated" or "conquered".
"Later" would be clearer with some time frame here... "In the __ century, a popular concept emerged..."
Done.
I'm not sure how I feel about labeling Romania's predecessors as simply "Romania" – it sounds an awful like calling the First Bulgarian Empire "Bulgaria"
Now Wallachia and Moldavia are mentioned. Bulgaria did not exist yet, here I am referring to it as a region.
"Gaining certain support" – well... it didn't happen so is "certain" the appropriate word here? (enthusiastic or eager maybe?)
I don't get your point here. There had to be some support for some proposals to appear.
Fair enough
during the search for the first modern Bulgarian prince, several Romanian nominations came out. if I was a reader who hasn't read the rest of the article yet I would be unsure about what this means. A Bulgarian prince for what? Why did Bulgaria need a prince? I hope you see my point here
I do, but I don't know exactly how to solve this. I have rewritten the sentence, hopefully that will do.
Yes that looks better now
Isn't "King of Romania" more common than "monarch?"
Agreed, replaced.
"attempted" may be more appropriate than "intended"
Agreed, replaced.
Not sure if Russophobe just be capitalized
It is capitalized in Nyagulov 2012 (the source for that sentence).
Carol I had interest in becoming ruler of Bulgaria as well, but Russia strongly opposed this I'm confused, this makes it sound like being a lead of a unified Bulgaria-Hungary is different than being the ruler of Bulgaria...?
I didn't understand this point.
Lol I have no idea what I meant – no worries here
"which could once again be considered in the future." is redundant to "revived the idea"
Removed. I also replaced "revived" with "revitalized".
Overall I'm not convinced that the history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Ottoman Empire need to be three separate sentences – such a division distracts from the actual proposed union, is there a way to make this into one sentence? perhaps just "The idea had its precedents; Bulgarians and Romanians had lived together in the First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Ottoman Empire" – what do you think about that?
I made it one sentence. What do you think?
Looks better now
next section soon
Background
Consider adding CE or AD for the first date (680) just to make sure the reader knows where we are in history, no need to repeat it for the rest of course
and it is now a matter of debate between Bulgarian and Romanian historians unclear what the subject of tension is here
I think now it's more clear. The source hasn't detailed much on that.
Yes, makes more sense now
"wars or revolutions" surely this should be "wars and revolutions"? The former makes it sound like we don't know if wars occured or revolutions occurred
Changed.
The main advocates were intellectuals, revolutionaries and politicians from both right and left wing I don't really understand the significance of this line, who else is there that could be supporting but isn't? The common people?
The sources says "Advocates of these ideas were revolutionaries, intellectuals, politicians from the right and the left political spectrum", the common people aren't mentioned. Before this, the objectives of such projects and through which political systems they would be achieved are discussed. I can't change much of the sentence other than the wording to make it a little clearer, and I don't know how to do this either.
I guess if the source says that, it's fine. My critique was that it seemed like such a list seems unnecessary as it sounds like everyone who had anyone influence supported it, so it could be summed up to "widely supported" or something – not a pressing issue though.
History
I believe that the Greek Constantinople Patriarchate is the same as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, at least what I'm getting from the text right before the history section in the latter (so link?)
Yeah it is, I've replaced the former with the latter. It is important to note its Greek, as relations between Bulgarians and Greeks at the time don't seem to be very good. SuperΨDro11:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some intro for Lyuben Karavelov would be helpful (e.g. "Another project for a union involving Bulgaria and Romania was that of the writerLyuben Karavelov")
I went with "Bulgarian writer".
accepted to give up on the recovery of former is weirdly phrased (mainly the "accepted to give up" part), what about just "relinquished recovery efforts of former..." or something?
How about "accepted to relinquish recovery efforts of former"?
Sounds good
Vasil Levski could use an intro along the lines of what I suggested for Karavelov above
Done.
"or other movements" why "or" here again, is it uncertain who encouraged this?
I wrote that to introduce "anti-Russian Polish emigrants", I didn't know how to do it in another way. I replaced "or" by "and".
"church and state questions." is rather vague here, do you mean "aimed to address the balance between the Bulgarian church and state" or something?
This is more problematic since the "Bulgarian state/church questions" seem to have been one thing. I think the first referred to whether a Bulgarian Orthodox church or an external one should be used for the Bulgarian people and the latter, I imagine, refers to the independence movement. If these articles were created I think it would be easier to explain, but that is not the case. Furthermore, the author of the source has not detailed anything about both. What can I do here? I can only think of leaving a link to the Bulgarian Wikipedia page or capitalizing them.
I would say using an interlanguage link to the appropriate Bulgaria Wikipedia page(s) would definitely help. In place or in addition to this I find that sometimes when the author is unclear it's best to quote directly so that you can't be blame for the unclearness :) Aza24 (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think I actually did that at first, as I didn't know what the author was referring to... I just found what it was a few days later. I added the interlanguage link not only for that church thing but for every other red link I could. SuperΨDro11:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This was encouraged" unclear what was encouraged: the unification or the "solving of problems" – if you will
The unification projects were encouraged, now its clear.
attack against Brătianu was this an assassination attempt? Perhaps alter to something like "unsuccessful assination attempt" if so – otherwise it's not clear what the result of this attack was.
The source uses "atentat", which apparently can be translated to as "assassination", so done.
Following the rejection of the Ottoman Sultan of a Bulgarian-Turkish dual state this sounds odd with the double "of" what about, "Following the Ottoman Sultan's rejection of a Bulgarian-Turkish dual state..." ?
Done.
informed on 15 June to Russia that he would not accept a Bulgarian-Romanian state without Russian consent, thus ending the union project I wonder if you mean to say he "announced on 15 June that he would not accept..." since I'm sure he told everyone, not just Russia
According to Nyagulov 2012, "This warning was immediately followed by a statement of Carol addressed to the Russian diplomatic representative in Bucharest that the Romanian king would not dare to ascend also the Bulgarian princely throne without the consent of the Russian Emperor", so not done.
Understood
"to the offensive actions carried out by" not sure what is being referred to here, unless I missed something earlier in the text
This referred to the Second World War, now it should be clearer.
Link rapprochement in its first mention
Oh so it has an article...?
Even though WP is supposably not a dictionary... I guess it does ;)
Aftermath
Couldn't find anything to say here, very thorough.
Source review
I mean, I guess it doesn't hurt but having page numbers for Madgearu in the biblio is rather pointless since they seem to cover the entire book
Super Dromaeosaurus, there's only one remaining point – this article is shaping up nicely so I am happy to promote once it is addressed. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
