Talk:SaarLorLux/GA Review

Good Article Review of SaarLorLux
I will draft the review here. Participants of the review may comment here. Gosgood (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial observations
In no particular order:
 * Though I Like the use of the overflow attribute of an HTML  tag in managing lots of references, its reproduction in all browsers is problematical. Many wiki users with old machines and browsers have trouble with this. Reproduces in my Firefox; it is being mangled on Internet Explorer. Both are current releases. (Check on VanTucky's MOS pronouncement. I can't find the pertinent guideline) (Declared fixed per WP:IAR).
 * What`s the problem. On Internet Explorer it's a list of one column, on Firefox, a list of two columns. I think, if an improvement for one browser means a worsening for another, it should not be done, but as long as it has no consequences, why not to use it?--Thw1309 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not found an objection to this form in the Manual of Style and I think it is useful. Therefore, I declare WP:IAR ;) Gosgood (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lead sandbagged with a technical definition of a Euroregio . (Fixed with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SaarLorLux&oldid=185869818 Revision 185869818])
 * I corrected this. I have to confess, I did not know the alternative term Euroreio, which actually means the same. The typical European problem. You come around the next corner and find absolutely new words for the same things.--Thw1309 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * misspellings (therm --> term) (Fixed with Revision 185704438)
 * That's easy to explain: English is not my native language. So, when I created this article, some mistakes were made. I hoped, that the other editors, correcting my bad English, had found everything.


 * infobox cleanup: 11,330,944(2006) (Fixed with 185869818)
 * formatting: {{Germany]] (Fixed with Revision 185693295).
 * link to Euroregion would be helpful. It reproduces the definition of a European region given in reference 4 . (Addressed Revision 185869374)
 * Grand duchy of Luxembourg &rarr; Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Fixed with Revision 185697642)
 * Scope: SaarLorLux is a Euroregion formed on October 16, 1980; the history ought to be about that construct, and not include the history of the geographical regions of which it is comprised. Also, the section seems misplaced; misplaced first, because I'm not convinced a temporal arc of narrative serves the subject matter. This article is telling me how something evolved before properly establishing in my mind what it is.


 * Congratulations! With these sentences, you described the whole problem of SaarLorLux (I'm not speaking about this article, but the real thing) and perhaps even of Europe. An article about a construct should show it's history, not the history of it's geographical regions. Absolutely right, but not here. If you do not understand the members, their political situation and their history, then you will never have a chance to understand, what SaarLorLux is. We are talking about a region, about half the size of the state of New York. Now you divide this into five parts, two small ones and three big ones. One of the small ones, Luxembourg, is an independent nation, with all rights. The other small one and one of the bigger are states of another nation. One of these (the bigger) (Rheinland Pfalz) is a quite ordinary state, but the other (the smaller) (Saarland) was a more or less independent nation (although it's foreign affairs were made by the European community and there was an economic relation to France). To know, what this means: I am living in this state, the Saarland. When my father, who lived there, for the first time went to the small village in Bavaria, where my mother was born, people first noticed, that he actually was able to communicate in the German language. I have to explain. German was his native language, because all the people here speak German and most of them do not speak French at all. He came from a region, which twice, after lost wars, had decided to come back to Germany, as soon as they were allowed, and for them, he was one of these French from the Saar.


 * The next region, one of the big ones, (Lorraine) is nothing more but an oversized school district. When about ten years ago, the French right wing populist lePen had great success especially in Alsace and Lorraine, French television asked people in the rest of France, how they could explain this. In the news, they showed an old man, telling them: You know, the Boches a swearword about Germans. This region is divided in four departements, which actually have more power, than the region itself, although this power is not much too. Then, there is Wallonie, the southern part of Belgium. Don't ask me, what this is. Anything between the part of something or something independent. (depends on how far the destruction of the Belgium state has gone) This is divided in two language groups. These five local authorities (I need such a wide term to be able to describe all of them) or the nations, they are part of (or they are) made several treaties. Other treaties were made by organizations of these five or administrative parts of them. Naturally those have different structures too. Not everyone of these five signed all of these treaties. To understand SaarLorLux, you have to understand them and their history.


 * You are absolutely right. An article can not tell you how something evolved before properly establishing in your mind what it is. It is a kind of international cooperation or a collection of international cooperations. You can compare this to a kind of building in construction. You can see, this is (or will be) a building, but you can not say what kind of building, because there is no plan. There are three main architects, but everyone of them wants to build something else. That's no problem, because everybody builds what he wants to build. On one side, someone constructed a wall of large bricks, on one corner, someone began to build a wall of small bricks. The same bricks are used on a part of the opposite side. On another part, only the windows were created. Later, two other architects join the project. Together with the others, they begin to add another wing to the building, working the same odd way as before.


 * You are standing in front of this building in construction. You know the name of the building (although they quarrel about this too) and you can describe, how and when they created single parts of the building. What you can not tell me, is something about the construction as a whole, because until now, nobody knows, how and what it will be one day. When it will be ready, you will be able to say, what it is, but while it is under construction, you can only describe the events of it's construction. Welcome in the middle of Europe. --Thw1309 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What a pleasant surprise. I find this a highly entertaining and useful piece of writing. Your English is a good deal better than my German. This brings me to the heart of the issue I have with this article (and why, I fear, I cannot declare an outright 'Pass!'): the arc of its narrative, a somewhat poetic reference to the underlying structure of a piece of writing. This article does not have a well constructed arc. It is an aggregate, and the pieces of the aggregate still track the themes of the underlying sources. What your comment tells me is that you have taken on an unruly subject matter, and it is not especially clear how to put together an article on the subject when the subject itself tends to different directions and themes. We Americans have similar struggles in coming to terms with our own Civil War, fought one hundred forty years ago, and still being fought, in words and articles, that attempt to identify its causes. You do, however, have a good sense of the narrative arc; your comment above has a distinct beginning, middle, and end, and I found the comparison of the region to a building being constructed without plan both apt and informative. The key challenge, I think, is to transfer your sense of direction and purpose about writing, as illustrated above, to the article itself. The subject matter is unruly; the article need not be. At present (midnight in Brooklyn, where I live), two organizing principles suggest themselves: (1) Stick to the basics, (2) Orchestrate the article along an organizing theme, so long as the theme has backing in the references, and is not (just) your own original research (i.e., just your opinion, quite apart from its cogency and intelligence).


 * Stick to the basics: Fortunately, a great many readers of Wikipedia are Americans, and we are, mainly, a self-centered, self-absorbed lot, without a great deal of insight about how the rest of the world works; we think everybody should speak American English, for our convenience, and eat at McDonald's. Occasionally, some few of us take a mild interest in Europe and turn to Wikipedia. For us you don't have to go into very great detail; a basic orientation is what is really needed. Here, the challenge is your proximity to the subject matter: what is so patently obvious to you that it is not worth mentioning is just what we Americans need in our basic orientation to the subject. Above, you wrote about SaarLorLux: "It is a kind of international cooperation or a collection of international cooperations..." that, by and large, is the sort of summary statement that the lead paragraph should have, and the expansion of that summary statement could very well serve as the article's arc of narrative.


 * Orchestrate the article along an organizing theme: Your comparison of SaarLorLux to a building being built without particular plan is a potential organizing principle of the article. As stated above, of course, it is just your opinion, which many would dismiss offhand as original research. But I wager you did not develop that opinion in a vacuum. What reputable, reliable sources echo that theme? The dispassionate, narrative voice of the Wikipedia article can (and does) comment on controversial, but apt, analysis so long as such is reflected in published, secondary sources. Here your grasp of of the subject matter comes into play: what sources augment your well-put analogy?


 * Well, it is after one A. M., and I should turn to bed. Later today I will fill out the boxes below, but the gist of my review, that a restructuring is in order, has been stated. That may be hard to pull off in the seven day grace period, but in the fullness of time, I'm convinced you are capable of pulling it off (presuming of course, you agree with my analysis). Thank you for your observations, above, and I shall try to wrap up my draft review in about twelve hours in the future. Take care Gosgood (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Terms creep in that are not defined or wikilinked. example Interreg. Referencing these are especially important to non-European readers, who have a very incomplete picture of EU and regional organizations. Akin to Euroregion, this article would be helped by interlinking with related EU articles.
 * Possibly relevant links:
 * Greater Region
 * Saarland
 * Lorraine
 * Luxembourg
 * Rhineland-Palatinate
 * Wallonia
 * French Community of Belgium
 * German-speaking Community of Belgium

Gosgood (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article alludes to, but does not establish, the distinction between the 'Greater Region' and 'SaarLorLux.' If possible, the distinction needs to be written in terms not heavily dependent on knowledge of EU terminology. Many (most?) English-speaking readers of Wikipedia are Americans, and many of us (this writer included) are blissfully unaware of the absolute basics of European organizations and institutions. Sad, but true, and this challenges editors who are aware of these institutions to educate "the unwashed masses."
 * I suspect that the list of short prose sentences that comprise The Future of SaarLorLux has been lifted, with little adaptation of prose, from Head of Saarland Chancellery of State, 2020, Vision for the future, Saarbrücken, July 2003. It is the prose of a policy directive directed to an audience of policy planners, and not written in summary style, for the benefit of Wikipedia readers.

Draft Comments

 * Commencing: 2008-01-19
 * Completed: Work in progress
 * Nominator: Thw1309
 * Reviewer: Gosgood
 * First pass based on: Revision 185460170 (as edited by Thw1309 (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 19 January 2008.)
 * Second pass based on: Revision 185649882 (as edited by Thw1309 (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 20 January 2008.)
 * Third pass based on: Revision 185869818 (as edited by Gosgood (talk | contribs) at 10:12, 21 January 2008.)
 * Final pass based on: Revision 187293780 (as edited by Chris the speller (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 27 January 2008
 * Criteria: Revision 184300095 as of 14:32, 14 January 2008