Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1986 enlargement of the European Communities/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2020 [1].

1986 enlargement of the European Communities

[edit]
Nominator(s): Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Spain and Portugal joining the European Communities, now the European Union, in 1986. Their accessions were hugely consequential for both countries; both had just come out of dictatorships and were fledgling democracies, and being within the Communities had huge consequences in terms of solidifying their development into the states that they are today. When I came across the article in May, it looked like this, which I didn't think did the subject justice, so I decided to research it more thoroughly and write up a proper article - and I'm very pleased to have ended up here, with my first FA nomination!
As this is my first nomination, I popped a message over to Vanamonde93 about it, who pointed out that there was quite a strong reliance on primary sources in some parts of the article. In some places, that's unavoidable, by sheer virtue of the nature of the article - specific legal and political technicalities are often best sourced, for instance, to a parliamentary transcript. However, I've added other sources to what I can, and I'd love to get other people's feedback too, especially if there's anything I've missed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should note as well my huge thanks and appreciation to Lee Vilenski, who completed the GA review of the article, and made some really helpful suggestions for improvements! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

All images are free. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R8R review

[edit]

I'll start the review tonight.--R8R (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write a couple now and try to add more tonight.
  • Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC) -- as a rule of thumb, I try to write texts in such a manner that don't raise questions, and while reading this article, I needed to reread on the difference between the EC and the EEC. It would be great to explain this somehow in the text. This could even be done relatively simply here: "Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC), the principal institute within the European Communites (EC)"
  • it would not have been able to apply for full membership as a consequence of being under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. -- this is another fundamental matter that requires clarification. Why was this a requirement in the first place? What was the point of not allowing Franco's dictatorship to join if it was primarily an economic union? Also, I think this could be reworded: "being a dictatorship, Spain was ineligible for full membership."
  • However, the application was of some controversy -- this strikes me as possible but unnecessarily pompous. You could say, "However, the application caused some controversy";
    Unnecessarily pompous is my speciality! Change made :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • members of the European Parliament questioned -- without any further qualifiers, I consider we're talking about a majority of those MEPs. Are we?
    I don't have any evidence to claim that it was the majority - personally, I suspect it was, but I've qualified it with "a number of" (my intuition is probably not a WP:RS!) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • given the dictatorship Spain was under -- I should say that my advice on prose quality shouldn't be taken as the highest possible standard, but this, too, looks clumsy. How about simply "given the Spanish dictatorship"?
    I've changed it to "given Spain's dictatorship", which is just a slightly snappier version of the same change, methinks. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francisco Franco -- Franco hasn't been introduced so far. How about "Spanish dictator Francisco Franco"? More importantly, the previous header also mentions Franco so presumably he could be introduced there. I'd personally write something like "Spain asked for association with the EEC in 1962. At the time, Spain was a dictatorship led by general Francisco Franco; the EEC said a Spanish association was impossible unless the country becomes more democratic."
    Franco is introduced in the lead, along with the Estado Novo dictatorship. Do you still think it merits a separate introduction in the article text? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, of course it does. Readers may be directed to a specific section and you shouldn't assume they've read the lead. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My assumption has been that you treat the lead section and the body of an article separately. Most people who read the lead section won't read the article as a whole and often people who want to read the article as a whole will skip the lead section because for a sufficiently long article, it's only meant to summarize what's in the rest of the article. (By the way, did you notice how I started this review not with the lead section, but with the first section of the body of the article?) I am not aware of there are MOS guidelines on this and I know there are writers who expect a reader to read an article as a whole and thus think that acronyms, people, etc. should only be introduced once. It's fine in a written encyclopedia, but this thinking doesn't reflect very well the nature of our online encyclopedia and how its readership is different, etc., so that's why I'm opting to introduce things separately in the lead section and in the body of an article. I hope it makes sense to you.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That was also why I suggested you introduce the EC acronym one more time.--R8R (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That's entirely reasonable; this is my first FAC, so still learning the ropes on some of this! I've added a separate introduction. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "green veto" being used by France and Italy against its accession -- what's a green veto?
    This is a really good question. I'm a native English speaker, not a native Spanish speaker, and I'm genuinely not sure - "green" in Spanish has all sorts of connotations, ranging from success to sexuality to jealousy... I'm checking with a native speaker friend of mine, and will add it to the article when I have a more authoritative translation! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting; I thought it was something from the European bureaucratic slang :) I'll wait for clarifications then.--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out, I'm trying to read far too far into things - in the context of the article, it's a reference to the veto being based on agricultural concerns. Clarification done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • negotiations were opened between the European Council and Spain -- it would be nice to introduce the European Council, too
    I've added a brief introduction, and reworded the rest of the sentence to fit it - let me know if you think it works. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got one observation, which is that you can't use a hyphen, either a comma or a dash of your choice, and one question: why are Member States always capitalized? I suppose this must be the European bureaucratic slang, but you don't have to write Wikipedia like that. Also, from what I found in the corresponding article, it appears the council is formed not by heads of state but by heads of governments.--R8R (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the hyphen. Re (M/m)ember (S/s)tate - the capitalised version is specifically what's used in the European treaties, and is used by the EU Publications Office as a consequence. There's mixed existing usage across Wikipedia - some articles use member state, some use Member State, some use a combination of both. I don't see any particular reason to change it here, as we're talking about affairs related to the treaties specifically. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think these capital letters are unnecessarily pompous, but I won't insist on it. The comment on heads of state vs. heads of government, however, still stands.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt -- this sentence could use some re-writing. For example, at the beginning of the sentence I hear about a coup attempt, about which I knew next to nothing, and I was anxious about it until I heard an explanation later on. The text could go like this: "The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt, in which the Spanish Civil Guard to remove the democratically-elected government from office but failed, brought a lot of attention to Spain from abroad; particularly, from the EEC. The official statement from the Community during the coup expressed "concern" about the unfolding events; soon after the coup failed, the EEC expressed its 'great satisfaction at the reaction of the King, the government, and the Spanish people, faced by recent attacks against the democratic system of their country'."
    I've done some fiddling about and rephrasing there, and added in more of an initial introduction - what do you think? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks very well now!--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an urgent acceleration of the negotiations did not immediately come to pass -- this, too, sounds overly complicated: "this did not drastically change the intensity of the negotiations" or "this did not significantly boost the negotiations."
    I've gone for a change to In spite of this, the speed of the negotiations was not significantly boosted by the events - let me know if you think that works. I think it's important to specify that it is about speed, not necessarily about intensity, as those two can be different things. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uneasy about it because I think that you can either boost something or you can increase its speed, but you can't boost the speed of anything. Or can you?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Boosted its speed" sounds fine to me, but I'll change it to "increased" - makes no odds to my mind. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish Act of Accession eventually devoted fifty of its pages to fisheries-related matters. -- I'm wondering if this remark is needed. To begin with, is this a lot? I would expect the eventual act to be long by any means.
    I've clarified that this is significant, in that it's just over 10% of the entire treaty. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the end of 1983, the French government was pressing -- rather confusing. How about "In late 1983, the French government pressed"
    That's a change in meaning, though - it's a subtle one, but it is a change all the same. The French government were lobbying over a period of time for the closure of the negotiations, not just at one point in late 1983, so the continuous tense is apt here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I got this vibe, too, I just wasn't entirely sure if that was what you meant. Could you rephrase it somehow to make it clearer for people like me? Maybe something like "throughout the early 1980s, the French gov't pressed for a successful conclusion of the negotiations, with their effort reaching its peak in 1983"?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone back to the original source, and done some wordsmithing with it, which clarifies that it was an ongoing issue, but also better states the specific point at which the deadline was requested. How's it sounding now? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good!--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • more negotiations scheduled -- "were scheduled"?
    In this case, the version without "where" is grammatically correct; the "more negotiations" clause is part of a list in "with" - with questions [...remaining...], and more negotiations scheduled beyond the deadline. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; that one is on me, I'll try to be a bit more attentive the next time :)--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued.--R8R (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: Thanks very much - I've followed up on all the ones above, I think! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I probably won't be able to write any more or write back to your responses today; my forecast about how this review won't be quick is unfortunately coming true. To make it up for you for the time being, I'll mention one big thing about this article before I would normally come to it: The article reads rather strange given how it's about an EC enlargement but the body of the article does not mention the enlargement itself, only the events before and after it. There clearly should be a section about the process of the enlargement itself. You said in the lead section that the event itself wasn't very pompous and I'll take your word for it; I don't expect this section to be longer than a couple of paragraphs anyway, but there should be one. Something like "The documents were finally signed in 1985... On January 1, 1986, the Spanish and Portuguese flags were raised at the headquarters of all three Communities. Articles in Portuguese and Spanish press in January 1986 indicated that local citizens thought their country entered a new phase of their histories (or not)." I'm entirely making this up but it should give you the idea what kind of material I mean.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I get what you're saying; to some extent, the problem is that I've looked for that with little success. When it says in the lead there wasn't much pomp about the whole affair, it really does seem to mean it; I can't find anything in particular to write about in a section about the actual event of the accession beyond "it happened and the flags went up". I'll have another look around, though. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the government of Portugal published a report decrying the decision taken by members of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation to establish the EEC -- it would help a lot if you said that they decried in 1961 the decision that was taken back in 1957. This paragraph is rather confusing because it's hard to keep track of the dates. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph to produce something like this:
"The EEC was created in 1957. Sensing that the EEC was here to stay, the Portuguese sent in 1959 their first diplomatic mission to the EEC. However, Portugal didn't join for whatever reason they had; instead, they opted in 1960 to be a co-founder of the EFTA, which was meant to counterbalance the EEC.
The chronological order of events helps keep track of the events that are unfolding.
  • seeking entry as a member of the EEC would have been unlikely to end in success -- just in the last paragraph, the Portuguese opted for the EFTA; what changed?
    The fixes I've applied above clarify this - EFTA is a much looser arrangement than the EEC was. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks much better, thank you.--~~
  • There was also significant opposition to any meaningful agreement being made, as a consequence of the Portuguese authoritarian regime -- confusing. Please clarify that this opposition didn't come from Portugal
    Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be just perfect if you changed "There was also significant international opposition" to "There was also significant international opposition within the EEC".sorry, I missed the word "international"--R8R (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • units of account -- first of all, what is this? it is wikilinked later (why not here?) but that wikilink gives merely an explanation of the general term, not these units
    It's wikilinked in both places as far as I can see, but I've explained it further in this context nonetheless. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • bore their first fruits -- sounds nice but not very fitting for an encyclopedia
    Why? That reads formally to me; indeed, other articles use it a fair bit. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing wrong with this language in a great number of contexts; it's not frivolous or anything. I think it's absolutely understandable if the chief negotiator of the EEC or the chief historian of the EEC (let's suppose for a second that was an actual position) wanted to write "bear fruit": it's not perfectly neutral language, but the EEC itself is not expected not to have any emotion for its development. We in Wikipedia, however, are in a different position: we are supposed to be neutral, to write in simple and concise language, straight to the point. It is perfectly fine for many people to write that, but it's not for us: that's one limitation of the format of a neutral encyclopedia, which is that we write in simple language, not idioms.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, at the end of 1979, after the government collapsed several times, Parliament was dissolved and fresh elections were called, leading to the election of a new Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro. However, after having been in office for only a year, Carneiro died in the 1980 Camarate air crash. -- that's interesting but how exactly does this relate to the story at hand? what was Sá Carneiro's stance on the topic of integration into the EEC? was he maybe too busy to really consider it at all?
    Sá Carneiro has time to do very little prior to his death, but the governmental turbulence is hugely relevant - it's a significant factor in a reader's understanding of the context around the delay in the accession. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That could in fact very well be the case, the problem is simply that it's not very clear from the text right now.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portuguese Democratic Movement -- presumably most readers are not very familiar with Portuguese political parties. So some context would be nice. Was this movement important in Portugal back in the day? same for the Portuguese Communist Party
    Done some rewording around this and added a brief bit of context. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue later from "Greek veto."--R8R (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In total, Greece received US$2,000,000,000 in additional aid -- actual question: did the Greeks really receive 2 billion dollars? Not, say, the equivalent of that in Deutschmarks?
  • Eurobarometer surveys between 1985 and 1997 -- this could be useful for the upcoming section on the accession itself (no action here required)
  • the average per-capita income of Portuguese and Spanish citizens grew significantly, reaching 74% and 83% respectively of the EU average by 2003 -- to be fair, this doesn't seem very impressive for seventeen years. The inflation rate of just 4% for seventeen years straight gives a total growth of prices by 95%. Or do you mean real incomes as opposed to nominal ones?

Comments on the lead section and concluding remarks are yet to follow.--R8R (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spain and Portugal acceded to the European Communities, now the European Union, in 1986. [...] Spain and Portugal acceded to the Communities on 1 January 1986. -- it would be right to mention the exact date in the first sentence.
  • The mid-1970s brought -- I feel it would be better to give specific years here. I also feel that "brought" may not be perfect for the neutral encyclopedia of ours. How about "In 1974, Franco died in Spain and the Carnation Revolution occurred in Portugal"?
  • Membership talks began with both countries a few years later. -- similarly, why not give specific years?
  • Spain and Portugal acceded to the Communities on 1 January 1986. -- I will once again suggest following the chronological order. For that, you could simply move the last sentence in that paragraph to its beginning.

I think that would be it from me. I liked the article, and I'll be happy to support the nomination once all of my concerns have been resolved one way or another.

However, I will also note there is a comment below about the need of an introduction, and based on my past experience with the FAC process, it's going to need some resolution before the nomination as a whole could succeed.--R8R (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke

[edit]

Some minor issues I spotted on a read-through:

I'll continue later. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke: Thanks for having a look, these have all been really helpful comments so far! I've responded to the ones you've left above. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron comments

[edit]

I came to this article from its listing in ITN. It's an impressive piece of work, and an important article in the scope of EU integration history. However, I would like to make three comments/observations for the review:

  1. I'm a little concerned by the structure, however. I understand that it makes sense to keep the Spanish and Portuguese negotiations separate, but I would strongly suggest merging the pre-negotiation "background" into a single (perhaps separated) section at the front. There are obvious similarities between the two countries' pre-entry histories and at the moment one has almost forgotten of Portugal's existence by the time one arrives at the relevant sections!
  2. The current article takes quite a bit for granted from the reader. I was particularly taken by the first reference to Franco which reads: "Following the death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who had ruled over the country for 35 years, and the beginnings of the Spanish transition to democracy [...]" I think this must be padded out more. There will need to be a brief discussion of the Spanish Civil War, Falangism, the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, WWII neutrality, Spanish and Portuguese economic underdevelopment in the mid-20th century, Portuguese Colonial Wars, Spanish miracle, Spanish Question (United Nations), Spanish accession to NATO etc. These are all important subjects in explaining the motivations and concerns of the parties involved in the 1980s and could be addressed with a "Background" section similar to the one addressed above. I don't think they can be glossed over or taken for granted.
  3. The same is also true for the background history of the European Communities which is not really addressed at all. The Treaty of Rome is not even mentioned until the last third of the article. There is also little mention of previous enlargements, aims, tensions etc.

Would be interested to hear thoughts on these! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brigade Piron! With regard to merging backgrounds, I actually started writing the article initially with a single "background" section like that, split into subsections for the countries, but it quickly got far too unwieldy. The nature of the two countries' accessions is too different to make that viable, in my view; whilst the dictatorships are clearly an incredibly important factor, there are many others that seriously affect the both of them, and that are fundamentally different between the two. The Portuguese empire, the nature of Portugal's association to EFTA, and the relative isolationism of Spain at the time compared to the significantly more open economy of Portugal, even with a similarly-repressive state, I think makes doing that a very difficult task - which is why, realising that, I changed to the current way of doing it quite early on in writing the article.
As to the background histories, I'm all for giving the reader more information, but that's a lot of stuff for any brief discussion, in my view. I worry that the inclusion of such a comprehensive history would compromise the summary style of the article, as well as the on-topic nature of it, per FA criteria 4; I'd argue that it's better to direct readers to other appropriate articles for that information for both of those reasons. The Treaty of Rome is actually referenced in the first paragraph of the first section of the article, but it's not hugely relevant to the majority of the rest of the article, precisely because of what is observed there - there was no specific provision in the treaty establishing the EEC requiring that Member States be democracies. The Treaty itself contains little restriction on what countries could or could not be members of the EEC, and as a consequence, where the majority of the article talks about the challenges to the states joining, there's little opportunity for it to be mentioned further than to say "nope, not relevant here".
I'd love to know your thoughts on these points - and anyone else's thoughts too! Thanks for leaving a comment, it's nice to know that someone's reading the article from DYK :D Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naypta, thanks for your comments. I really do think some kind of background on pre-entry Spain/Portugal and the EC is essential for the article to "summarise the topic comprehensively" (see WP:ARTICLE), especially at FA level. The "topic" in question here is "how", "why" and "in what circumstances" Spain and Portugal joined the EC in 1986 and the link cannot be avoided. At the moment, there is a big chunk of content missing. I certainly accept it isn't straightforward to fit so much in, but I'm happy to help. It really can be brief, especially if it makes full use of wikilinks to other articles on the topic.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comment, here's an example I wrote up for Spain:

Francisco Franco took power at the head of a coalition of fascist, monarchist, and conservative political factions in the Spanish Civil War (1936–39) against the left-leaning Spanish government supported by communist and anarchist factions, installing a totalitarian regime which would last until 1975. The conflict resulted in the deaths of more than 300,000 people and lasting damage to the country's economy. His regime was sympathetic to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, though it remained neutral during World War II (1939–45). In its aftermath, Francoist Spain was considered a pariah state. It was not admitted to the United Nations until 1955. It also remained economically backward and largely agrarian despite a period of rapid economic growth from 1959 to 1974. An application to join the European Economic Community in 1962 was rejected on the grounds of the country's regime.

Does that give you any ideas? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Thanks, that's really useful as a starting point. Do you think that would be best to go at the start of the country sections, or in the lead of the article? It naturally feels like lead material, but then it also feels quite long for the lead. Thoughts appreciated :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'd suggest the following as structure:
  • "Background"
    • "Portugal and Spain" - 3-4 paragraphs introducing the pre-1980s history of Spain and Portugual together
    • "European Communities" - 2-3 paragraphs on the history and values of the EC
  • Negotiations with Spain - current text under "Spain" heading
  • Negotiations with Portugal - current text under "Portugal" heading

etc.
Does this seem sensible? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it's a wonderful idea. I was feeling, too, that the introduction could be better made differently, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. To me, your suggestion seems great and I'd take it if I were writing this article.--R8R (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I'm going to add this to the urgents list, but I'm leaning towards archiving this if there isn't some support soon, it's been on the FAC page since 20 July and still hasn't attracted any support. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naypta has not edited since 3 August. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2020 (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/1986_enlargement_of_the_European_Communities/archive1&oldid=978279825"