Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Union of Bulgaria and Romania/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2021 [1].

Union of Bulgaria and Romania

[edit]
Nominator(s): Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a proposed union between Bulgaria and Romania. There were several proposals to achieve this union but they were never applied in the end. When I found that such proposals existed, I found them very interesting and simply felt like working on an article about this proposed union. This article is one of those in which I have been the most motivated to work on and one of the few in which I feel like everything is near the most perfect state it could be. For this reason, I am nominating this article to FA. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Union of Bulgaria and Romania/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a comment to inform the two reviewers that have appeared that I have seen their points, but I will address them later, as I don't have too much time now. I'll also finally end with the image review as well, which I delayed for so long because it was somewhat difficult for me. Super Ψ Dro 10:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you need; I'm in no rush. Please ping me when you are ready to continue the review. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size. You can scale up images relative to preferences using |upright=. Would suggest doing that to increase the relative sizes of the maps in Background, Bulgarian crisis, and Bulgarian northwest controversy
Done, I think. I am not sure how does this parameter work or what does it exactly do. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|upright=1 will produce an image that is as wide as default per user preferences - ie no different from setting no size at all. |upright=1.2 would produce an image that is 120% as wide as user preference default, so if for example you had set a default preference of 200px it would display at 240px. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've restored the sizes of the images prior to the nomination with the upright parameter. Super Ψ Dro 22:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi-Rakovski.jpg is tagged as lacking author and source information, and needs a US tag
I've replaced the picture by one that has an author, source and now a US tag. Super Ψ Dro 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Carol_I_King_of_Romania.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Replaced as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stefan_Stambolov_by_Georgi_Danchov_Zografina.jpg needs a US tag
Done. Super Ψ Dro 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When/where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the cited website at the file's description is enough. It was first published before 1908 as it is the year in which the author Georgi Danchov died, but I don't know if that is a valid thing to do. Super Ψ Dro 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We know it was created before the author died, but created doesn't necessarily mean published. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the year 1894 on the file's description and linked a website that stated this date. Is this valid? Super Ψ Dro 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the date we're looking for is publication, not creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After some extensive research, I couldn't find any clue that might talk about the origin of the image other than it was made in 1894. I might say something extremely ignorant, but isn't the date of creation the same as that of publication for artists? Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - see this source for the official definition of "publication" for graphic works under US law. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi_Dimitrow.png: when/where was this first published and what is the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?
  • Regarding this edit. It doesn't make sense to have Bibliography as a heading, and then a subheading of "cited bibliography" - the whole thing is a bibliography that is cited. Also using semicolon markup in this case is inappropriate per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD - you could alternatively use regular heading markup and limit the depth of your TOC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added subsections and limited the TOC. "Cited bibliography" is now called "Cited books and journals". Super Ψ Dro 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, sorry for this seriously delayed answer. I'm having some problems with the images that are left. I've requested help from the uploader of File:Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png (the only one that's still active) to find a new link, and I've researched as in depth as possible about Stefan_Stambolov_by_Georgi_Danchov_Zografina.jpg. I can't find much of Georgi_Dimitrow.png, although I have found a possible replacement from Encyclopedia Britannica (at here, I don't know why but now it asks me to subscribe to show the full article, something that didn't happen to me when I first visited the page, I don't know if it will show up to you), but I don't know if I can just take it from there under a free license or not. Do you know any trick or method to be able to find information about files or some possible replacements? Super Ψ Dro 22:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can try using a reverse image search to see if any sources have additional information. Go to Google Images and click the camera icon next to the search bar, or use a dedicated search like TinEye. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything new. I think the oldest websites that used them are now dead. Super Ψ Dro 10:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super Dro and Nikki... Can I get an update on where we're at with the images -- I'm not sure if everything's resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the images are missing details of first publication yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I just cannot find data, I've been thinking of removing some images (right now I am waiting to see if Dudley decides to support this article or not, my plan is to end before this review is 3 months old). Is Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png okay? I managed to talk to the uploader and they gave me so help ([2], I actually pinged you but I guess something wrong happened). Super Ψ Dro 08:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one is still missing details of original publication - it has a tag requiring it to have been published before 1926. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was planning to address it yesterday but I had to get myself involved in a discussion with an editor. It will take me some time as I wanna do a last exhaustive search of data, which I'll do most likely tomorrow, before the 3 month timestamp no matter what. Super Ψ Dro 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria:
I can't find anything about File:Georgi_Dimitrow.png, so I've removed it.
I corrected the license of Georgi-Rakovski-Blegrade-1862.png, but I don't know if it's valid for Commons. Is the image good now?
I can't find the publication date of File:Stefan Stambolov by Georgi Danchov Zografina.jpg so I've removed it too. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the claim for the Blegrade image that Europeana is the copyright holder, or that the image is PD for some other reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do I see whether they hold the copyright or not? Super Ψ Dro 12:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it would say on the description page there... I doubt this is the case here, because the image was originally from a national library, but I don't read the language in which the description is written on either site. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are unsure I removed it too. I guess I'll restore it in 2025 if I am still around so that PD-old applies (Paskov died in 1954). I guess we are done here. Super Ψ Dro 12:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this image review over? Super Ψ Dro 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias

[edit]

I had reviewed this article at the Peer Review, and offered some extensive comments there. I'm glad to see it brought here, and am happy to support it for FA. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Super Ψ Dro 22:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]
Done (it looks better!). Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Please consider me a non-expert in this topic.

Prose review - Lede

In general, the lede feels too long. There were places where I could say the same information in fewer words, and other places went into too much detail for the lede, which should summarize the most important points of the article's body. Please copyedit the lede and consider places where you can use fewer words or remove details. Some examples are listed below:

  • "This idea had its historical precedents" Remove its
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which defeated the Second Bulgarian Empire and conquered and ruled territories populated by Bulgarians and Romanians for centuries." Too many ands, replace with "Second Bulgarian Empire to conquer and rule territories populated by Bulgarians and Romanians for centuries."
I think it ends a bit strangely written this way but done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the end I disagree with this, it looks strange, I restored the old text but I agree to rewriting it if a new proposal appears. Super Ψ Dro 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notably, Georgi Sava Rakovski made one of the several proposals there were." This sentence seems really out of place, the grammar is dubious, and I felt confused by it. Why was it notable? Who is this person? I think you should delete it from the lede.
I think Georgi Sava Rakovski should remain mentioned somewhere, I rewrote that part. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relations between both were enhanced. In fact, during the search for candidates for the Bulgarian throne, several Romanian nominees emerged." Replace with, "relations between the countries were enhanced and there were several Romanian nominees for the Bulgarian throne". This says what you want to say in fewer words.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though he had good relations with Romania, after a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria caused by Russia, which attempted to extend its influence over the country, Alexander was forced to abdicate in 1886." Too many commas. Replace with "Although Alexander had good relations with Romania following a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria, he was forced to abdicate in 1886."
I added abother version that just keeps one comma. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While this crisis was taking place, Stefan Stambolov, politically a Russophobe, ended up taking power as regent." Replace with "Stefan Stambolov, who was politically anti-Russian, became regent."
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph has the tone of an essay instead of an encyclopedic entry. This paragraph should focus on why the union lost popularity in the twentieth century, proposals to unite the countries (if any) and the future possibility of a union (keep the last sentence about the EU). Be explicit in saying what time period you are talking about and why the proposal lost popularity/was not considered. It might also be merged with the previous paragraph.

I think this is a lot, so I will pause the review here. Once this is complete I will take a second look at the lede and continue the review. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that most of my comments for the lede have been addressed. For the lede's last paragraph I read through it again and the "essay" feeling might have been caused by the list in the second sentence and the beginning of the third (delete besides.) See if you can modify the phrasing to read more like a disinterested observer, rather than trying to prove a thesis. If you need help I can post some suggestions below.

I'd prefer some help as I am not sure how exactly should I rewrite it. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the lede's last paragraph, I don't think I have "essay" concerns anymore. I will doublecheck during my readthrough tonight. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "This state was nevertheless defeated in 1018." Delete nevertheless
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Vlachs (Romanians) counted with numerous participants" Do you mean countered? If not, I do not know what you are trying to say.
A Spanglish error, fixed. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being described as Vlachs by primary (contemporaneous) sources." delete being
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, Kaloyan was" Delete "in fact"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, Moesia, the region where the rebellion began" Delete additionally.
Disagree on this one. I think there should be a word like that to be able to go from talking about a particular person (Kaloyan) to talking about the Vlachs again. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial proposals

  • "Greeks and even Turks" replace "and even" with "or"
Mentioning "even" in this case makes sense since the Turks, who ruled over Bulgarians, weren't very liked by them, so it's a strange proposal. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Balkans to confront and liberate themselves from the Ottoman Empire" Delete "confront and" A reader can assume that people trying to liberate themselves will involve a confrontation, and thus doesn't need to be said.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, in 1864, in the bilingual newspaper Badushtnost (Viitorulŭ in Romanian)," Delete therefore
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "full of "brotherly love and union" and that cooperation between the two was necessary." Direct quotations should be cited, even if the citation is in the next sentence. The same goes for the quotes in the following sentence. If you can, remove the direct quotes so that you don't need to cite a source repeatedly
This is unnecessary. Is there a policy stating this? Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported a "Bulgarian-Vlach dualism" model. Why is Bulgarian-Vlach dualism in quotes?
It is in quotes on the original source. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deposed by a so-called "monstrous coalition" of conservatives and radical liberals" MOS:DOUBT has so-called on its list of words to avoid. It should be removed
Done, I have rewriten the sentence as well. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so they began searching for allies." replace with "so they searched for allies"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kasabov proposed Romania support a" Add "that" after proposed
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kasabov proposed Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire (since a Bulgarian entity did not yet exist)" Are you saying that a Bulgarian entity did not exist in the Ottoman Empire? I'm confused what you are talking about here.
Yes, there was no province or anything like it particularly made for Bulgarians, just the region where the two empires used to be, but readers would not think of Bulgaria as a region if they only saw the name without that note. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One document entitled the Act for Sacred Coalition between Romanians and Bulgarians was drafted for settling this." Document titles should be italisised
Disagree, I have not seen something like that in many other articles and it does not look too good in the preview. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Ottoman Empire's defeat, "autonomous and independent states" that would unite as one "confederation" were to be established." Are you quoting something, or are there MOS:SCAREQUOTES?
Those are quotes, used by the original source as well. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The use of quotes for a couple words makes it seem like you are using scarequotes. Also, the terms in quotation marks (autonomous, independent, confederation) are common political descriptors and not specialised to this article, so don't require the quotations. Either use a larger quote from the original document (and cite that document) or remove the quotation marks as it is quoting Nyagulov, a scholar, and doesn't require quotes (and with the later solution, you can take out autonomous as it is redundant to independent.) If you are worried about too-close phrasing you can always use alternative terms, which I can suggest later if you need them. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotes, it looks better this way and is less complicated. Super Ψ Dro 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was that of the Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov." replace with "was proposed by Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov."
I would like to avoid using the word "proposal" and the like as much as possible as they are already used many times throughout the article. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and with Constantinople as a "free city"." Again, are you quoting something, or is it MOS:SCAREQUOTES and should be removed?
That's a quote too. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "free city" is a political term, and doesn't require quotes. I would either remove the quotes (and possibly wikilink to city-state) or spend a sentence defining what a free city means in this context.
Removed quotes. I think Independent city is the best option for linking the text. Super Ψ Dro 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with an "equal population" made up" I don't think equal population needs to be in quotes.
Done, although I am not sure how to emphasize that he meant that all those peoples (not simply the population) were to be equal to each other. Is it enough by leaving it like that? Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I rewrote the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and state questions." I don't think state needs to be wikilinked here.
It is a link to a past political and intellectual problem about the establishment of a Bulgarian state, similar to the Eastern Question. It has potential for an article so it should be kept. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They were encouraged by the Russian Empire, the Western powers and other movements (such as certain anti-Russian Polish emigrants)." Name and describe these movements.
The source does not mention another movement. I have rewrotten the text in the parentheses a bit and added a person as example. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an action that Bulgaria later appreciated." Remove that.
I don't think it's necessary. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that I'll continue the review once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search for a Bulgarian prince

  • "Some had already viewed Prince Carol I of Romania" Remove "had already"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which say Carol I, "had wanted to be elected in Bulgaria"" remove "had"
It is a quote, so I don't think I can. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "which say Carol I "wanted to be elected in Bulgaria""? Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed on second thought. Super Ψ Dro 19:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the sentence to "notes published by Ignatyev himself which say Carol I wanted to be elected in Bulgaria and that Prime Minister Ion C. Brătianu supported him in this". I feel like "that" is wrong or doesn't fit for some reason, do you have any other suggestion? Super Ψ Dro 19:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was Prince Alexander chosen over the Romanian options? A one-sentence explanation would suffice
There is no particular part that explains this in the original source, but I have added that both found opposition. The sentence's prose can probably be improved. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote it, I think it's good now. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian crisis of 1886–1887

  • "Russia and Austria-Hungary again disapproved of this" What does "this" refer to?
The candidates of neighbouring countries of Bulgaria to become the Bulgarian prince. It is now more specified. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Communist period

  • "over Romania, Greece and even Turkey" Delete "even"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 1946, the Romanian journalist Gheorghe Zaharia interviewed the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Georgi Dimitrov. The Balkans' situation eventually came up and Dimitrov said Romania could join a possible future Balkan Federation." Combine the sentences to, "In an interview with Romanian journalist Gheorghe Zaharia in November 1946, Bulgarian Prime Minister Georgi Dimitrov said Romania could join a possible future Balkan Federation."
Done, I finally got rid off a problematic sentence... Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under these[59] circumstances," The footnote is in a weird spot, can it go after the comma?
Yes, done. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • I agree with CMD that aftermath is a weird title because the union didn't happen, so what is considered "after"? Some suggested names are "Post-communist relationship" or "Legacy".
I will consider this. I don't see "Legacy" as a bad idea, but I'd want something that fits more, so I'll search a possible better name. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some other ideas: "Post-Cold War and European Union", "Yogoslavia and EU influence" "Union within EU". The name of this section will not cause me to oppose, but I do want to brainstorm alternatives. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've googled some synonyms for "Aftermath" to see if I could find a better option and haven't found anything except "outcome", which could perhaps work. I think that these long titles that you have proposed are a bit ineffective and do not fit with the simple names of the other sections ("Background" and "History"). "Legacy" could work, but doesn't it give the same problem as "Aftermath"? Using "legacy" implies that the idea was realized and that it has consequences that still exist today. I think "Aftermath" or "Outcome" are the best option. Super Ψ Dro 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "Aftermath of the proposals/idea" or "Proposal/idea aftermath" would be a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when this is finished. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I ended replying your points. Notice that I have not addressed some points, I have disagreed with some or in others I have asked questions, saying this just in case you want to answer them. Super Ψ Dro 09:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to some points above (the lede's last paragraph, the scarequotes, and alternative names for aftermath) Let me know if I missed something. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the rest. The only pending point is the Aftermath section one. Super Ψ Dro 19:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns are addressed, so I will support. As for the Aftermath section, my preference is "Outcome". Z1720 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks for your review! I will ask the reviewer below about this option. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by Chipmunkdavis

[edit]
  • The way the first line is structured makes it seem like the title is a formal name, but it seems more like a descriptive title. The line should be restructured per MOS:REDUNDANCY due to this, and the translations are probably not needed.
The first line was rewritten in the last few days, how is it now? And I agree that translations are not totally necessary, but I think it isn't harmful to keep them. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the translations of a descriptive title are to be kept they need to be sourced. The first sentence still feels warped around trying to squeeze in the article title, especially talking about it as a singular when the article covers multiple proposals. CMD (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I removed the translations. Is the first line better? I do not know what exactly should I put to improve it. Do you have any suggestions? Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Currently it attempts to fit the title in as a singular, which doesn't match the article, and is a bit redundant. I would tentatively suggest, "Several failed proposals were made during the 19th and 20th centuries to unify Bulgaria and Romania into a common state, under either a federation, a personal union or a confederation." If you want to keep the article title, "Several failed proposals were made during the 19th and 20th centuries to create a union of Bulgaria and Romania', under either a federation, a personal union or a confederation." CMD (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of removing the bold title, but it really is the best solution, good idea! I went with the first suggestion. Do you have any other one for the short description? It currently is "Unsuccessful historical proposal to unite Bulgaria and Romania". Super Ψ Dro 11:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shortdesc should be a plural too, but otherwise seems fine to me. I'm not too familiar with the shortdesc process and what they're meant to have. CMD (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the end I changed it, I think it is now closer to the best version possible. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be useful if the two maps in the lead had the same base, it's odd one has lakes the other doesn't.
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth considering separating the historiography (eg. "Stoenescu thought this powerful Bulgarian–Romanian state...") from the History section and the Failure section into its own section.
Disagree, I don't think there is much to say from the few historians who have spoken about the proposal. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aftermath" doesn't seem to work as a section title, as no proposal happened. Much of the text currently in "Failure" seems redundant to prior text in the article.
The proposals did happen, but they were never applied. I can't think of a better, more precise and shorter name than "Aftermath" for the section. The text in "Failure" intends to give a brief summary of the reasons why a union between Bulgaria and Romania were not made, so it is expected that some parts are redundant and have already been mentioned in the History section. I emphasize that the section is not OR, Nyagulov dedicated the last pages of his work to do this. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a comparison of the two current states and a controversy in Vrasta province are "Aftermaths" of any of the union proposals covered in this article. Two paragraphs in "Failure" are coverage of the European Union which reads as quite tangential to the failure of previous proposals, and don't seem to be Aftermaths of the proposals either. CMD (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the controversy part is not too needed, this was discussed in the previous GA and peer reviews, I can remove it if needed but I would like to hear the opinion of the other reviewers first. However, I think a comparison section between both countries makes sense in this article. Lastly, those two last two paragraphs at the "Failure" section are not that related to the article's and section's topic but they speak of a possible collaboration between Romania and Bulgaria or the resurgence of the federations in the Balkans, so I think they are needed too. Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, in the end I did remove the Bulgarian northwest controversy. Super Ψ Dro 21:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, what do you think about "Outcome" as a better name for the Aftermath section? Other options are "Aftermath of the proposals" or similar, or any that you might think of as well. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if there's a wider sectioning issue, regarding putting most of the article into a history section. On Aftermath however, I'd suggest slitting the two subsections apart into their own level 2 sections. I'd call Aftermath/Failure "Hinderances" perhaps, to remove the specific temporal aspect. CMD (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with that most of the article is in the history section. Trying to make more sections or making the sections with a similar length would be a lot of unnecessary work and the result would be worse in the end in my opinion. I am not very convinced with using "Hinderances" because I did not know that word until now and a large part of the readers of this article (which I expect to be Romanians and Bulgarians) probably won't either. And I don't know about splitting the section into two. Maybe I could connect the Comparison subsection with the Failure one instead? By this I mean adding at the Comparison subsection something like "In case the union had happened" or "to show what the union would have looked/been like" (these are just some examples I just thought of). Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, now "Aftermath" is called "Conclusion". Super Ψ Dro 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Background section feels a bit anachronistic regarding ethnogenesis and concepts of nationalism.
What do you mean exactly? Not much detail is put into some disputed theories such as the Daco-Roman continuity one. Although the last paragraph is admittedly somewhat problematic. It could be rewritten but I would like to keep the main ideas there. Super Ψ Dro 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They assimilated with the Slavic culture brought there a century earlier, giving rise to the modern Bulgarian people" feels quite immediate for a process the source notes wasn't really complete until the 10th century. Romanian ethnogenesis is thought to have occurred at about the same timeframe (page 19 same source). Thus it's a bit misleading to use the terms before that period, as the words mean something different to their current usage. Perhaps mentioning the ethnogenesis events would help clarify the meanings in this regard. Later, it seems a bit odd to note a debate about whether the Second Bulgarian Empire was of Bulgarian or Romanian heritage, and then in the next sentence refer to it as a "Bulgarian state". CMD (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CMD (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I thought the article said "eventually" regarding the appearance of the Bulgarians when I first wrote it or at least at some point of its edit history. Fixed. When talking about the First Bulgarian Empire, the article mentions "the Romanians' ancestors", not the Romanians, so there is no problem with that I believe. And about the last thing, you're right, I removed "Bulgarian". Super Ψ Dro 11:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I'm trying to end all stuff I have to do fast, I might have a few free hours tomorrow, but if not, it is likely that on Friday I'll address these points. Super Ψ Dro 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has now been open for over seven weeks and has only attracted a single support - and that based on its PR - and has yet to attract source reviewer. Unless there is significant progress with this over the next couple of days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis and Z1720, pinging just so you're aware that I already replied or addressed your points. I am aware that I delayed on doing it so I don't blame you for having forgotten to take a look to this review. Super Ψ Dro 19:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super Dro, I'll take a look at this later today. If I don't respond in 24 hours, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Gog the Mild, I remember there was a place where users could request source reviews for FAs (or just common articles, I think) but I can't find it now. Do you know how is it called? Super Ψ Dro 19:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's here - Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests, but read the header in bold before posting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright, thank you, I'll wait until the reviewers above are done then. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed. It could also do with another general review or two, in case you are owed any favours by experienced reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listing it. I didn't understand what you meant with the second sentence. Do you mean for it to pass? Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The minimum needed for an article to be promoted is three reasonably comprehensive general reviews followed by supports. (Plus source and image reviews.) This nomination currently has two supports. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. In how much time could this review be archived? Just to know how much time do I have left to attract a new reviewer. Super Ψ Dro 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]
Many thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 23:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aza24, sorry for bothering again, but I've added another source (called A concise history of Bulgaria) to address a couple of details. Could you check it to see if it has any problem? By the way, the "Aftermath" section was renamed to "Conclusion", what do you think about it? Super Ψ Dro 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No bother at all; the new source looks good. I don't immediately prefer either aftermath or conclusion over one or the other, though aftermath does sound more fitting for the context of a war or revolution, so perhaps conclusion is ideal here, but again, no preference really. Aza24 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I reviewed this article for GAN and found it extremely thorough, comprehensibility-wise. I've not looked closely at the prose (which I'm assuming has changed from the PR and FAC). Doing the source review now. Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, a question, in the only note of the article, it is stated that the number of people in Romania whose ethnicity was registered in the 2011 census is of "around 18,884,800". I've found that the exact number is 18.884.831. Am I allowed to simply add the number or do I have to cite another source for these few numbers? Note that the linked census right now is a general overview of its more detailed results, and they say that the number was of 18,884.8 thousand people. Super Ψ Dro 11:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly prefer that you cite the specific source if you want to include the specific number, mainly for verifiability's sake. But it may be worth keeping the general number, as this is a broad article and not about population or ethnicity really Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's appropriate to add another source just for that number, so I think I'll keep it that way unless I find a more appropriate source that includes the information from the census currently cited and the number. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting

Citations

  • Looks good

Bibliography

  • Is there a point in the Anghel link? It's not free so it's like linking to amazon IMO
I don't think it's better to remove the link. It would look strange if it was the only reference without it. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Aza24 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hitchins, Nandriș, Nyagulov refs should be in title case
Is this mandatory? I think they look ugly with the original capitalization. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed this wasn't a concious decision on your part—because Madgearu is in title case—but I don't think it's required. I would suggest it (as the de facto standard for FACs), but will certainly not delay the passing of a source review because of it. Aza24 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would then prefer not to. Super Ψ Dro 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized you meant I didn't do the same with Madgearu... I removed the upper cases, now the names of the sources are consistent. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackwell Publishing could use a link
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • including Iași as a location creates an inconsistency with the rest of the refs; I recommend removing. Alternatively, you could add locations to the other refs
Removed Iași. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the page ranges are unnecessary and quite odd; the ones for book like Petcu are unneeded, it kind of defeats the purpose of a page range to simply site more or less the entire book. I would stick to only using ones for journals, we're there actually given in the links
Do I remove them then? Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the ones which are unuseful (e.g. ones that have ranges of 100 pages like Madgearu and Hitchins) and keep for journals, since the entire journal is not being cited, just the article from that journal, which is the point of them. Aza24 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for doing this as I agree it's odd, but first I'd like to know what exactly am I supposed to put when citing a book. Do you have an example of FA (or GA) with "ideal" citations? I'd like to know what the best and most standard version of citing pages is as this has always been a problem for me through my time in Wikipedia. By the way, I think you didn't realize, but I left a question above, right below your message at the start of your source review's subsection name. Super Ψ Dro 14:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have addressed the above comment now; there are certainly many options in citations, so finding an "ideal" can be hard. I will (shamelessly) recommend the formatting of my Portrait of a Musician, and two recent TFAs, Greek case and United States war plans (1945–1950). Aza24 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the examples. I see that pages are not actually mentioned often. I removed them from the sources you told me and also from Stoenescu. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • retrieval date for Bâtcă?
Added. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No doubts here, all reputable publishers or subject-matter scholarly journals
  • Ok, thank you for your work here, congrats on a thorough and unique article! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability

Spotchecks below:

Spotchecks – Pass
[edit]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Proposals usually came from the Bulgarians, but it was the Romanians who were supposed to govern." I am not sure what this means. A whole people does not govern. Do you mean Romanian kings?
Not necessarily, it was just ethnic Romanian people. Perhaps I could rewrite the sentence to something like "but it was the Romanians who were supposed to hold the power/leading positions" or similar. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following a Russian-caused period of political turmoil in Bulgaria" This sounds clumsy. Maybe "following a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria caused by Russian interference"?
Done, although I changed the ending. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lack of actual interest or even opposition between each other prevented it" I am not sure what "between each other" means here.
Between the Bulgarians and Romanians. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "between each other" with "between these peoples". Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the conflicts at the beginning of the 20th century and the violent breakup of Yugoslavia" Do you mean the end of the twentieth century?
No, that refers to the Balkan Wars and the First World War. I think it is now more clear. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This state was defeated in 1018." By who?
This problem already arose in the peer review. None of the used sources detail that the First Bulgarian Empire was defeated by the Byzantine one, just that it was defeated in 1018, so I can't say which country did. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I had problems with this since the peer review, I added another source to clarify this and other missing things. Super Ψ Dro 12:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covered large parts of Romania's present-day territories. As a result, the Bulgarians strongly enforced Slavic and Christian influences and cultural elements over the Romanians' ancestors". I would delete "As a result". It was not inevitable.
Replaced by "there" as it looks strange to be without a connecting word/phrase. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by primary (contemporaneous) sources" I would just write "contemporary sources".
Sure. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over time, the Vlachs lost their relevance, just like the Turkic Bulgars in the first empire" What does "lost their relevance" mean? Also, you did not say above that the Bulgars lost relevance in the first empire.
It is said that the Turkic Bulgars assimilated into the Slavs above. Maybe "lost their relevance" is not the most appropriate choice of words. You can read the cited page (62) of the book used as source to understand what was the text supposed to say and propose a better change. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Over time, the Vlachs were assimilated by the Bulgars"
This is not too appropiate as there still are some in Bulgaria, unlike the old Turkic Bulgars which disappeared many centuries ago. Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supporters of a Bulgarian–Romanian union used the Second Bulgarian Empire as a common ground between the two" Supporters when? What does "common ground" mean here?
Supporters at any time. Common ground refers to something that both countries had in common (the empire). Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added "looked back to", but I think "common ground" is clear enough. Super Ψ Dro 00:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or the Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov" This should be "and the Bulgarian writer Lyuben Karavelov".
Done. Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romanians wanted to accomplish the independence, liberation and unification of the Romanian nation. Notable supporters were Nicolae Bălcescu, Dimitrie Brătianu, Mihai Eminescu and Aurel Popovici, who either suggested the integration of Romania into a larger Balkan state or the federalization of the Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Empire in favor of the Transylvanian Romanians." This is unclear as you have not explained how Romania was ruled at that time. You refer to unification, implying that Romania was divided. Presumably Transylvania was part of Austria/Austro-Hungary, but who ruled the rest? Also, I think "devolving power to" would be clearer than "in favor of".
I have rewritten the sentence a bit, now it should be clearer. I have tried adding sentences to say between which empires the Romanians were divided (it was between the Ottoman, Austrian/Austro-Hungarian) and Russian ones), but there is no way to say this in a summarized way that fits with the rest of the context of that paragraph and I also can't find excerpts from the sources that specifically say "Romanians were under X empire". This point became much more troublesome than I expected. Regarding the last suggestion, I never heard something like "devolving power to". What does it mean? Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if its adquate. The fragment of the original source talking about this says the following: "Given the paramount importance of the problem of the significant Romanian community in Transylvania, which was included in the Hungarian part of the Habsburg Empire, the federalist visions were focused primarily there." Is it adequate to say from this text that federalism was made for the intention of devolving power to the Transylvanian Romanians? I'm still not sure in what circunstances would it be appropiate to use that word. Super Ψ Dro 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about "who either suggested the integration of Romania into a larger Balkan state or the federalization of the Austrian or Austro-Hungarian Empire to benefit/in order to benefit/for the benefit/to favor (not sure if "favor" is a verb in English, it is in Spanish)/for helping out the Transylvanian Romanians."? I think "to benefit" is the best option in my opinion. I can't really think of ways of changing the prose beyond that part on a better way. Super Ψ Dro 17:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • federalising means devolving (passing down) power. The source could mean devolving power to the Romanians, or devolving it to the Hungarians as better able to deal with the problem, but that would not be in the Romanians' favor. My point is that if devolve is not a suitable word then neither is favor. I would just leave out any comment about who was to benefit. Alternatively, if you are satisfied that the source does mean devolving power to the Romanians, I think you should say so rather than using the vague "in favor". You could say "passing down" if you think the word "devolve" is too obscure. BTW "favor" is a verb in American English. In British English it is "favour". I am British but I use the American spelling here as the article is written in American English. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't say so in my earlier comments but I agree that "in favor of" can be replaced. I prefer the option "passing down", I rewrote the sentence as "in order to pass down power to the Transylvanian Romanians". Super Ψ Dro 11:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some information about between which empires were the Romanians divided and I added it. Super Ψ Dro 21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After seeing the policies against the influence of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" Perhaps "After seeing the resistance of the Romanian church to control by the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople"
Done, but I rewrote it a bit. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so they allied themselves with Ivan Kasabov [bg]. Being a former associate of Rakovski, Kasabov proposed that Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire" "Being a former associate" is not logical. I suggest "so they allied themselves with a former associate of Rakovski, Ivan Kasabov [bg]. Kasabov proposed that Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire"
Done. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, the Bulgarians aimed to obtain a state, while the Romanians already had their own; the Bulgarians belonged to the Slavic group while the Romanians identified as Latin; the Bulgarians intended to establish themselves in the Balkans while the Romanians had interests in Central Europe; and others." I would delete "and others". It sounds odd and it is already covered by "For example".
Done. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prince Bibescu was not a Bulgarian prince, but he would hardly be honored even to be a head of stable of the future Bulgarian prince". I do not understand this.
Rewritten. Super Ψ Dro 19:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Russia disapproved of these events, which made Alexander abdicate again on 25 August. Bulgaria, still controlled by Russophobes," This is not clear. Why did Alexander have to abdicate if Bulgaria was controlled by Russophobes?
The original source does not specify this, so I can't explain it. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is now explained with another source. Super Ψ Dro 14:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had Stefan Stambolov taking power as regent". You refer below to the regency as a collective body.
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Carol I was not among the leading candidate and then that it was agreed that the country would be under his rule?
It was agreed by the regents that made the negotiations, but I imagine the people favored more others. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it was an epoch when countries were fueled with nationalism" This sounds odd to me. Maybe "As people were very nationalistic in this period".
I rewrote it to "Due to the great presence nationalism had during this epoch". Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Ottoman Sultan's rejection of a proposed Bulgarian–Turkish dual state" This needs expanding. If the Bulgarians proposed unity with Turkey, this should be explained.
The source once again does not specify much about this, but I added a bit more of info. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They first offered the Romanian consul in Ruse" This is ungrammatical. What does it mean?
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the King of Romania would not want to "expose" Romania to the Triple Alliance for Bulgaria" I do not understand this.
My interpretation to that is that they considered Romania "siding" with Bulgaria could damage the country's relations with the Triple Alliance. Perhaps the text could be changed. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Russia, which saw the proposal of the Romanian monarch taking the Bulgarian throne as a violation of the Treaty of Berlin" This is unclear. You appear to say above that Stambolov did not make an offer as it would offend the Triple Alliance, but now you say that it was proposed.
There indeed wasn't, changed to "possibility". I'll change all the text in the article related to this issue once I can access once again the PC where is Stoenescu's paper. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got it back, Stoenescu did not say "offer", so changed (in the lead too). Super Ψ Dro 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he accepted the Bulgarian crown's offer" Presumably you mean the offer of the Bulgarian crown.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was elected prince as Ferdinand I on 25 June 1887" Prince of Bulgaria?
Yes, specified now. Super Ψ Dro 11:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both countries were in conflict again between 1916 and 1918 during World War I". It would be clearer to say "The countries fought on opposite sides between 1916 and 1918 during World War I".
Not done, I want to stress the idea that they were in conflict again, your proposal states this but indirectly. Super Ψ Dro 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear what you are saying. Your wording could mean that they were both in the conflict on the same side. If you want to say that they were fighting each other, you need to say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten to "Both countries were in conflict again between 1916 and 1918 when they fought on opposite sides during World War I". Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 1930s, conferences and the creation of the Balkan Entente in 1934 between Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey reactivated the federation idea". The article on the Balkan Entente says that its purpose was partly to present a united front against Bulgaria, so how could it have been a continuation of the improved relations of the 1920s?
That part refers to the Balkans, not Bulgaria. Specified now. Super Ψ Dro 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Communist period'. I find this section confusing. The first two paragraphs should not be in this section as they cover 1887 to 1944. I think you should make clear that before the Soviet invasion of 1944 Bulgaria was ruled by a right-wing pro-Hitler government, so proposals were confined to a few intellectuals with no chance of success.
Yes, but there is nowhere else to put the first paragraph. Taking into account that it is only a paragraph in a section with seven of them, I think it can be kept as an introduction without making any changes (the second paragraph is related, I see no problem with it). And regarding the last point, I think you refer to "Some intellectuals and politicians continued to want Bulgarians and Romanians to establish a larger and more powerful state". This is before Bulgarian or Romanian involvement in WW2, so it's unneccesary. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still confusing for readers to put the whole period between 1890 and 1945 in a section headed Communist period. If I understand correctly, this was fundamentally different from the periods before and after when union was a serious proposal of government figures, whereas in this period it was only advocated by fringe intellectuals with no chance of power. This needs to be made clear in a separate section even if a short one. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it would be strange to place a subsection of a paragraph after one of 7 and before one of 6. Maybe we can change the wording in a way that makes a transition between that paragraph and the ones before and after it so it looks better placed, although not I'm sure how to do this. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the wording. Super Ψ Dro 20:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, Bulgaria had already recovered Southern Dobruja earlier on 7 September 1940, when the Treaty of Craiova was signed.[49] During this period, both countries were diplomatically isolated, subordinated to the Soviet Union and occupied by its army." This is misleading as it implies that they were subordinated to the Soviet Union from 1940 whereas (as you will obviously know) this was not until 1944 and Southern Dobruja was handed to Bulgaria by Hitler.
I rewrote it. Is it better? I removed the Treaty of Craiova's signing date as it is uneccesary detail. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was probably because of the war waged by Romania on the side of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1944.[51][52][53] The Bulgarians' priorities were regarded as more important" But both countries sided with Nazi Germany.
Yes, but Romania had a much more notable participation and made much more damage to the USSR than Bulgaria. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that part, but couldn't find anything in the sources saying Bulgaria had a much minor role. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found information in the recently added source, now it's in the article. Super Ψ Dro 12:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole discussion of the period between 1918 and 1944 seems to me confusing and misleading.
In which parts exactly? Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This situation was common between Bulgaria and Romania." This sentence does not make sense. Maybe "There were similar problems with proposals for union between Bulgaria and Romania."
Rewritten to "Problems regarding the idea of federation also arose between Bulgaria and Romania". Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The European Union and its democratic values impose common visions for the development of its various societies, which may also include a future federation proposal." This comment seems over-optimistic in view of the rise of regimes which reject democratic values in Poland and Hungary.
Something similar is said on the cited source. It doesn't state it directly, but I image the author meant federation ideas in the Balkans, so that excludes Poland and Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while economic, geographic and military data originates from the CIA's reference resource The World Factbook" You should specify at what date.
Done. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did actually send the article to be copyedited by the GOCE, but I guess it wasn't enough. Super Ψ Dro 13:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article name is misleading. 'Proposals for the union of Bulgaria and Romania' would be a bit clunky but would make the subject clear to readers.
There is no need to do this. Other articles have titles such as Unification of Romania and Moldova or Unification of Albania and Kosovo that imply that these countries have already united, but readers can then see that this is only a proposal when reading the article. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Map of a Bulgarian–Romanian union in case it succeeded in 1887 (top) and in modern days (bottom)" I think "Map of a proposed Bulgarian–Romanian union in 1887 (top) and 2021 (bottom)" would be better.
I think keeping "in case it succeeded" is better as it implies that there had to be a proposal in 1887 (since at that point, the reader has just started reading the article). If we add "Map of a proposed Bulgarian–Romanian union in 1887", readers might wonder why 1887 was chosen as a year and only find out later. I also prefer not to cite in an article the exact year we are in and I do not see that this is a common pracice in other articles. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that other reviewers have pointed out that the 'Aftermath' heading does not reflect the content. The last two paragraphs of 'Failure' belong in a short section after 'Communist period' labelled 'Later history' and I suggest changing the 'Aftermath' heading to 'Conclusion' or 'Summary'. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Conclusion, it has convinced me, so changed. Again, I think the first two paragraphs serve as an introduction to the section and there is no need to separate them into another one. After all, those paragraphs have little to do with the proposal to unite Bulgaria and Romania, so it would not fit into the History section. Super Ψ Dro 10:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one outstanding issue, the 'Communist period' section. The heading is confusing for a section covering 1887 to 1949 as the Communist period was only the last four years. I also think that it should be made clear that in the inter-war years Bulgaria was ruled for most of the time by right wing authoritarian governments. It should be made clear in these circumstances whether the intellectuals and socialists discussed were fringe actors with no chance of putting their ideas into effect, unlike the powerful figures discussed in the rest of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten that part of the section. Hopefully the text now looks more integrated and appropiate for the section. The third suggestion is indirectly addressed now through "However, the only advances were made under communism". I think that there now is no place in the text where it could be included whether the interwar governments of Bulgaria were authoritarian or not or where this question could arise to the reader. Super Ψ Dro 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review. Super Ψ Dro 11:19, 11 April 2021 (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/Union_of_Bulgaria_and_Romania/archive1&oldid=1018995072"