Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulgaria/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:04, 9 June 2012.

Bulgaria

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

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

Random drive-by comments I probably won't post a review, but I'd like to make the following comments:
 * The arty photo of 'The Black Sea coast near Chernomorets' has very little encyclopedic value. It's a nice photo, but doesn't show anything of interest.
 * The MiG-29 fighters in the 'Foreign relations and military' section aren't flying in a 'combat formation': fighter aircraft generally maintain a fair distance apart during combat operations. This is an airshow-style formation flight.
 * "Bulgaria remained free of foreign deployments on its territory until 2001" - unnecessary as it's later stated that this was the first time combat forces were stationed in Bulgaria since World War II. 'Remained free' is rather POV-ish.
 * "In 2006 Foreign Policy magazine listed Bezmer Air Base as one of the six most important overseas facilities used by the USAF." - what does the USAF use it for?
 * The tense of the last two paras in the 'Foreign relations and military' swaps around a few times. The para also would benefit from a stronger focus on the Bulgarian military - at present it seems to emphasise foreign defence relations.
 * What are the green circles in the map of 'Bulgaria (orange) and its largest export partners'?
 * Most of the first para in the 'Second Bulgarian Empire' section is unreferenced, as is "refugees who put additional strain on the already ruined national economy." a bit later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Replaced photo.
 * Changed image description of the jets, left out just "Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters"
 * Removed redundant wording
 * The Bezmer Air Base doesn't serve a significant purpose now, but the magazine claims it would be one of the principal supply and troop transfer airfields for an eventual war in the Middle East. Currently it's used for joint training and parachute/SpecOps drills.
 * Green circles represent the percentage of Bulgaria's total exports. Clarified it in image description
 * Sourced the first one, I thought the second one is a logical consequence of any war but I'll look for a source on it . Found source. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Initial comment A lot of the photos are very boring, though perhaps in the best traditions of Balkan tourist ads. Imported wind turbines, fighter planes & IBM super-computers look much the same wherever they are sited. The only cultural heritage photo shows a large Roman facade in that essentially trans-national style shot from an irritatingly fancy angle. Why not not use: File:Tomb sveshtari2-1-.jpg, File:Nesebar - Church of St John Aliturgetos.jpg or Image:Madara-rider-gruev CLOSE.png for something distinctively Bulgarian?  Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've picked them according to quality. Most are high-resolution with good contrast and colours. I'll replace the more standard ones with something else, though there's little choice when it comes to Science and technology and military. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed all pics in the Culture section, I think these are more descriptive and would be more interesting, especially the example of an early book in Cyrillic script. Replaced the wind turbines with one of the units of the MI thermal complex, it's pretty huge and I'm not sure if there's another such concentration of both mining and energy production activities in Europe. Left the IBM and the MiG-29s as they're not such pieces of equipment that one can find in just any country. Hope it looks a bit better now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Well-written, well-referenced, and very thorough. Inter  change  able  20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support ! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

These are my initial comments; I am contactable on my talk page if progress has been made. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is a unitary state with a high degree of political, administrative and economic centralisation, and is a free country" – the final clause connects poorly with the initial clause. Generally speaking, 'action' + 'and' + 'action' does not create great prose—there are a few others in the lead. You could enhance the above sentence by emending it to "A free country, Bulgaria is a unitary state with a high degree of political, administrative and economic centralisation".
 * "After 670, he led a horde of as many as 50,000 across the Danube" – 'as many as' is non-neutral language.
 * "By the late 14th century the Ottoman Turks had started their conquest of Bulgaria and most towns and fortresses south of the Balkan mountains were under their control." – silly question time: did the Ottomans control the towns and fortresses before or after their conquest of Bulgaria? The sentence lacks cohesion.
 * "Considering its relatively small size, Bulgaria has an unusually dynamic climate due to its location at the meeting point of Mediterranean and continental air masses and the barrier effect of its mountains." – should be "...owing to its location", as the phrase is adverbial, not adjectival.
 * "Bulgaria's relationship with its neighbours since 1990 was generally good." – until when?
 * "Bulgaria has an industrialised market economy in the upper middle income range, with a large private sector accounting for more than 80 per cent of GDP." – 'with' is a poor linking word, and present participles are generally avoided after nouns (see WP:PLUSING); you could change it to "Bulgaria has an industrialised market economy in the upper middle income range: a large private sector accounts for more than 80 per cent of GDP."
 * "Even though relatively poor in natural resources, local deposits of iron, copper, lead and coal are vital for Bulgaria's manufacturing sector." – grammar.
 * "It is the most ancient Slavic written language, distinguished from the other languages in this group due to certain grammatical peculiarities." – another 'due to' error; also, for us language mavens, it would be nice if you would mention what these grammatical peculiarities constitute—for instance, loss of noun cases, definite article at the end of nouns, no infinitive etc.
 * "Government estimates from 2003 put the literacy rate at 98.6 per cent; approximately the same for both sexes." – what follows a semicolon must always be a complete sentence, so you'd better introduce the subordinate clause with a comma.


 * Addressed pin-pointed examples and streamlined others that weren't mentioned but had similar constructions. The only thing I don't understand is why "as many as" is non-neutral language ? It just points out the highest possible estimate, the lowest estimates vary too much and I decided not to include them. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What information does 'as many as' give? Why not leave it out? Eisfbnore  (下さいて話し) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Progress seems to have stalled somewhat. I'm not yet ready to support it, but I won't oppose it. Here's the rest of my review:
 * "It is a European Union, NATO and Council of Europe member, a founding state of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and has taken a seat at the UN Security Council three times." – I suggest that you recast the sentence to: "It is a member of the European Union...", lest it read like Bulgaria is the EU.
 * "Prehistoric cultures in Bulgarian lands include the Neolithic Hamangia culture and Vinča culture and the eneolithic Varna culture (fifth millennium BC)." – use 'and' only once, at the end; commas are more appropriate.
 * "Under Samuil, Bulgaria somewhat recovered from these attacks and managed to conquer Serbia and Albania, but this rise ended when Byzantine emperor Basil II defeated its army at Klyuch in 1014." – what is the antecedent of 'its'?


 * Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 13:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, I'm currently rewriting some parts of the article where it doesn't read smoothly. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Improved flow and other grammar, hopefully this is good enough. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 04:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I believe the article has all what it takes to meet the FA criteria. It's neutral, informative and well-written. Nicksss93 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Putting my personal stylistic differences with the article aside, this seems to me to meet all of the criteria required of a FA. I commented in the Peer Review of this article, and have had it on my watchlist since that point. This article doesn't try to explode with pictures as many country articles do, it's very concise yet covers a lot of information, and has no egregiously short sections or paragraphs. As raised above there seems to be room for improvement, but no article is ever finished and Tourbillon responds excellently to all queries, so I have all faith that any issues will be resolved. Even if it doesn't pass, it's an excellent job to get it to this point. There's hope for Balkan country articles yet. CMD (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments. due to potential comprehensiveness issues. Also, I am not convinced by the organization of the article. I gave the article only a quick glance, but I see crucial potentially important pieces of information missing.
 * To what degree are there ethnic-social conflicts with Roma (hint: there are)? In what form is the pressure of the European Union on Bulgaria in this regard?
 * How is this of any significance ? Apart from several clashes that can be seen in almost any country in the EU, there is no general conflict. I will add a sentence or two, but this is of highly overstated significance.
 * What the heck? This is completely untrue! Romania, Bulgaria, followed by Slovakia are the countries having significant problems with Roma, at least to an extent that they are on an agenda by the EU. Saying that you won't add anything displays your ignorance. Nageh (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Missing information: Short note on plans by the EU to integrate Roma (e.g., mentioned here). Nageh (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The case of Bulgarian nurses which supposedly infected children in Libyan hospitals with HIV is not mentioned at all, despite it caused a huge stir in the European media and the case is still not closed officially.
 * Added a sentence.


 * The Bulgarian parliament's so-called Dossier Commission in December 2010 disclosed that almost half of the countries ambassadors (including other key persons as well as clerics) where members of the former Communist Committee for State Security, including now former president Parvanov, who refused to recall the personnel. This affair cause quite some ill feelings within and outside of the country. Here is a link.
 * This issue is one of the most hyperinflated problems inside the country, especially during the current government which keeps ranting about the ambassadors while having former State Security ministers in its own cabinet. I'll dismiss this remark, it's simply a poor observation.
 * Care to explain? Nageh (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What are the important/influential media in the country? Completely missing.
 * There was a media section, it was moved to Culture of Bulgaria.
 * Again, a few lines about the media is crucial for an overview article. Nageh (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Culture section seems to focus strongly on classical culture. For example, it completely omits the dominance of contemporary Balkan pop. On the other hand, traditions and folklore seem to be completely missing. Also, it might possibly help to introduce subsections (Literature, Music, Cuisine, Sports, etc.).
 * Subsections will be far too short. Modern Bulgarian music does not extend beyond the Balkans, I don't think it's popular enough to deserve mention here. Maybe in Culture of Bulgaria, but not here.
 * So you are saying, there is no contemporary music worthy a mention, and there are no traditions and folklore of relevance? I seriously doubt that. Nageh (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * John Vincent Atanasoff is probably the most notable scientist of Bulgarian origin. Not mentioned a single time.
 * He's simply of Bulgarian descent, was neither born in Bulgaria nor raised in a Bulgarian-speaking environment.


 * Infrastructure: What are the important transit routes? Which cities is the high-speed line going to connect? Do railroads connect to all neighboring countries? (E.g., it does not connect to Macedonia). Btw, there is a narrow-gauge railroad line famous in Bulgaria.
 * Seriously now ? There's enough on that in Transport in Bulgaria, won't add anything.
 * I do think mentioning transit routes is important (after all, this is the Economy section). I accept that mentioning the rest is undue. Nageh (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion of energy politics is very weak. How much energy does Bulgaria import/export? What about strategically important pipeline projects such as Nabucco and South Stream? What about the second planned nuclear power plant, at Belene? What energy is private, which is under government control?
 * Again, there's a respective main article for that. Won't add anything.
 * Maybe you don't get it, but these pipelines are affecting entire European energy politics, and are widely discussed outside of your country. Adding two lines is crucial information in an overview article this is supposed to be. Nageh (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What trade agreements does Bulgaria sustain? Which organizations is it a member of? For example, it is a member of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. What is the economical role of Bulgaria in the EU? (Where) does it get financial aid?
 * Given that it's a member of the EU, it's more than clear what trade agreements it has, where does it get aid from, and what its trading policy is. There's a membership template at the bottom of the page for those interested in membership. The major organisations it participates in - NATO, OSCE and the Council of Europe - are already listed.
 * Since when does EU membership imply membership in the BSEC? Does the article mention that Bulgaria gets financial aid, and in which size? You know, there is a reason why I am using question marks: it means that I don't know all the answers. Nageh (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, my question whether Bulgaria does get financial aid was hinting towards that European countries are either net receivers or payers, and Bulgarian is a net receiver, which should be mentioned together with the amount of annual funds it receives. Nageh (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this to be a serious issue - such information is not included even in the EU article. Nicksss93 (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stopping now. Nageh (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are all of these crucial? If I want to learn a general summary of Bulgaria, how on earth is knowing that some Bulgarian nurses may have given children in another country HIV going to help with that? How does knowing some ambassadors were formerly communist help me learn more about Bulgaria? There is some merit in a couple of these, but this list does not at all illustrate massive comprehensiveness issues. Articles are written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, there isn't space for every bit of newsworthy information. CMD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The nurses case was a major issue in Bulgarian foreign politics, and was widely reported in European countries. The extent to which each of these points should be covered varies, some may be addressed by a single sentence (and I'm open to debate). Note that this is a list of issues that I compiled in a short time. But it includes several items that are indeed crucial topics and are not covered by this article. In general, the article is very/too brief in many aspects. Nageh (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The nurse case was very widely reported, but that doesn't mean it needs to be covered in the Bulgaria article at all. In fact, I see few reasons why any single cases of a few civilian nationals being convicted of crime abroad should be included in any overview country article. The article prose is at 38 kB, which is basically right in the middle of the optimum range recommended by Article size. Some things, like the Roma, do deserve mention, but if your list of "crucial topics" includes things like an American scientist and a proposed nuclear power plant project that was never built and has been abandoned, I find it hard to take it as a serious objection to the article's comprehensiveness. CMD (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please let's be fair. There are 9 items in the list, and you are repeatedly objecting to the same ones. I already said that I'm open to debate, but there are a number of items that are crucial. I did not know the Belene nuclear power plant was abandoned, I'm not all-knowing or immune to mistakes. Nageh (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * John Vincent Atanasoff may be an American scientist, but he is celebrated as a Bulgarian born in Bulgaria, as far as I can see. I thought he was raised in Bulgaria, my bad. That reminds me, are there any acclaimed universities or higher education schools in Bulgaria? Nageh (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to every item on the list. I have repeatedly noted some make sense, and have specified that I agree with the point on the Roma. My point is that you call this a list of crucial issues, when quite clearly some of them are not only not crucial, but probably not worth mentioning at all, making the list as a whole quite weak. In regards to universities, that depends on what you mean by "acclaimed", which is a rather meaningless subjective word.
 * I'll leave this now for Tourbillon, who should be able to comment on the merits of these and address those that should be addressed. CMD (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I try to keep the article as brief as possible - more is less, remember ? There's no point in throwing a ton of facts that might not interest anyone. There are respective main articles for each of these topics, and I'm pretty shocked to get a firm oppose on something like this. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a great attitude. So in essence you are saying you don't bother. Nice. Nageh (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are completely missing the point of a summary article, like this ought to be. Your other replies are always like "it's moved to a seperate article, won't add anything". I'm not asking you to add entire new paragraphs to the article, I am asking you to spare a few sentences to these issues. Your reply is amazingly ignorant, and certainly won't change my vote. Nageh (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am just responding in kind. Summary style means excluding details that aren't significant. How is a narrow-gauge line famous or significant to be mentioned here ? Yes, there is a separate article on transportation and it should stay there. I don't care if you change your vote because it's not a serious opinion anyway, and if you have a degree of self-criticism you'd notice that too. I've added some info on the Roma and HIV issues, but the others are simply not anything that significant. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are bashing me because I set an oppose vote (which I only intended to hold the article until I get to review it, sorry for the misunderstanding)? This is a really constructive attitude for someone seeking FA status for his article. Nageh (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the hundredth time, I was hashing ideas, I was under the impression that the narrow-gauge line was famous (for historical reason, whatever). I was trying to be helpful, you just go respond in bashing me. Thank you, this is what you get from doing FA reviews. Nageh (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think suggestions such as these would weigh enough for an oppose vote, simple as that. The first time I nominated this, it got rejected because of commas and brackets in the sources and a single IPA transcription in the title. Now I'm being told that I've missed things which were actually there, but I omitted them because other guidelines stated that I should be as brief as possible. There is no way to be ultimately constructive when trying to handle contradictions. I'm not asking for support votes, just for a degree of rationality and flexible thinking, which are quite absent around here. And since this is actually my first - and probably last - FA nomination, I'll just respond: This is what you get from doing FA nominations. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are obviously a lot of misunderstandings. My mistake was to post an "oppose" when I only meant a "temporary oppose", to prevent the article from being archived/promoted prematurely. I corrected that mistake, and apologize for that. What concerns FA reviews, you are free to review my previous FA reviews (e.g., the last one is Giraffe), and I am certainly one of the thorough content reviewers. That many of my items in above list are admittedly of poor quality is a result of the quick nature in which I compiled it. However, when I ask for additional information it does not mean that you extend the article to the extreme but rather that you add concise additional information where relevant. Please review my commented list above. I'll leave it for a day to cool down the situation. Nageh (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I made some additions:


 * On the Roma issue - added three sourced sentences. I'm reluctant to add anything else first because it will add too much weight on the subject and that would require an expansion of the whole section, and second because it's a potential battleground for rampant antiziganists and human rights fanatics; I prefer not to leave such a loose hook.
 * State Security dossiers - as I said, this is a subject that is widely exploited by virtually all parties on opportunistic grounds. The current government itself has, and has had, former StaSec members despite the entire anti-Communist rhetoric it uses. It's really a Gordian Knot not worth the effort.
 * Pipelines and transport links - added a sentence on South Stream and info on rail links with other countries.
 * Added information on renewed recession and the amount of EU funds received.
 * Added some information on customs and folklore.
 * I couldn't find any reliable sources on pop music, so I just threw in some of the better-known Bulgarian performers.
 * Mentioned the largest media outlets.


 * I hope that covers the remarks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, the changes look satisfying. The one sentence on failed EU integration efforts is spot-on, and just what is needed to say about this within this overview article. I understand that the ambassador issue is more complex, and cannot be addressed in a convincing way in this article. As for the other issues, the coverage is in just the right detail. A minor one though that I mentioned above: Should membership in the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation be mentioned?
 * I still intend to provide another review, but I'll take my time to spare me another blunder. Nageh (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BSEC is in the International Membership template. It doesn't have much influence on regional politics; as long as I remember, the last time I heard of it was during the 2008 war in Georgia and their only activity was a statement calling for a quick resolve to the conflict. There's a ton of other organisations with similar weight (ex. La Francophonie) that could be added along this one. I think it's fine as it is now, down in the bottom. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the question is how much economical impact it has. But I really don't know, so I'll take your word. Nageh (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Image review
 * File:Mila_Rodino_instrumental.ogg needs a US PD tag for the anthem and a licensing tag for the recording
 * Added PD-Art (if that is what you mean under US PD tag) and PD-USN


 * File:Location_Spain_EU_Europe_1.svg (source of infobox map) lacks a source
 * Replaced map with another one based on a CIA map.


 * File:Krum1.jpg needs a US PD tag
 * Added.


 * Do we have any evidence that the uploader of File:Campaigns_of_Ivan_Assen_II.png owns the source site?
 * The site is a source for the map, is it necessary that the uploader owns the site ?
 * The uploader asserts that he owns the image, yet it appears on the external site. If the uploader owns the site, that's fine; if not, how could he own the image from another site? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as I see, it's not the exact same image. He just made his own map using the overall layout as a basis.
 * Anyway, to make sure there's no copyright problems, I made my own map using a free source from Wikisource. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag
 * Added.


 * File:Bulgarian_soldiers_with_wire_cutters_WWI.jpg needs to include evidence that the author never claimed authorship and when/where the image was first "made available to the public" (which is different than the creation date). Same for File:Bulgarian_photographers.jpg
 * Source site doesn't state when they were "made available to the public", there's creation date. It does however mention that they came from donated albums and archives. I don't know if that is sufficient.
 * Not according to the licensing tag used - need public date and further details of source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Used PD-Bulgaria, the photos certainly respond to at least one of the four criteria.


 * Because Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all images showing 3D works (including buildings) also need to include licensing info about the 3D objects/buildings
 * Don't know if there's any templates available for FOP-eligible, so I just added info on the architect of the Parliament and University library buildings. File:Downtown Sofia Boby Dimitrov 1.jpg is impossible to assess if it's FOP or not. Removed an image which doesn't have FOP.
 * None of the images are FOP-eligible, because Bulgaria does not have FOP. You need to define the licensing of the pictured buildings/3D artworks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lack of FOP, but only on buildings and 3D works whose author/architect has died less than 71 years ago . The architect of both buildings is the same and died in 1923, which means the restrictions do not extend to these two buildings.


 * File:Cape_Shabla_Lighthouse_3.jpg: author requests caption attribution
 * Would look ugly, so I replaced it with another image.


 * File:Bulgaria_Aministrative_Provinces_numbered.png: on what source is this image based?
 * Added.


 * File:Bulgaria_export_partners.png: on what data set is this image based?
 * Added.


 * File:Chasoslov_031.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
 * Added.


 * File:Location_NATO.svg: data source?
 * File:Euro_2008.png: data source?
 * File:Carte_du_Conseil_de_l'Europe.png: data source?
 * File:Balkan_topo_en.jpg: data source?
 * I don't get it, none of these is used in the article ?
 * They're in the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed naxboxes with problematic maps. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * "home of some of the world's most ancient cultural artifacts." such as?
 * They're mentioned in the culture section - oldest golden treasure in the world, one of the most ancient cities in the world, first Christian monastery in Europe. I decided not to include them in the intro in order to provoke some degree of curiosity.
 * According to WP:LEAD, "the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some basic details on the artifacts - crafts and religious work, and I mentioned the early literary schools as part of the culture, though I'm not aware of that will suffice.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see two instances of "marked by" in the second paragraph. Some variety of phrasing would be nice!
 * Changed some wording.

* The lead seems to be heavily focused on History, while saying very little about Culture or Geography. What kind of climate does Bulgaria have? What about music?
 * Will add some details on culture, economy and climate in a few hours, right now I'm having several assignments off Wikipedia.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 05:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. The lead is quite good in my opinion; there is certainly nothing about it worth opposing over. These are just some ideas to help make it shine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also added one more sentence on the economy to shift the balance off the history a bit. Pretty much free these days so feel free to make any remarks. :) - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "At the height of their activity from the 9th to the 13th centuries, Bulgarian literary and artistic schools have been instrumental for the development of Slavic literature and arts." The phrasing is a bit off here. The definite time frame in the first clause clashes with the use of the present perfect tense in the second clause. Perhaps what you meant was "At the height of their activity from the 9th to the 13th centuries, Bulgarian literary and artistic schools were instrumental for the development of Slavic literature and arts." Also, other than the time frame, this sentence seems really really obvious. Of course the art schools were instrumental for the development of art! This is not in any way unique to Bulgaria!
 * I think that in this sentence the focus is on the word Slavic, not art, i.e. the point is that Bulgaria was the cultural powerhouse of the Slavic world during this period. Nicksss93 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're quite right. I somehow forgot that "Slavic" and "Bulgarian" are not the same. Struck. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it, it's a tad off-place anyway, at least in the way it was formulated. It doesn't really fit, neither with the previous nor with the next sentences. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


 * All others are done. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bulgaria as the leading regional electricity and raw material exporter through its energy and mining industries." The leading exporter in Europe? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 21:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Southeast Europe *, sorry. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Spot check of "Politics". Hmmm ... did I happen upon a bad patch?
 * "which consists of 240 four-year[-]?term deputies elected by direct popular vote" ... better per MoS as "which consists of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote"?
 * Changed.


 * "The Acts of Parliament are the main source of law for the legal system, which is based on civil law."—particular acts we've just been told about? Or generic ... "Acts of parliament are the main source of law for the legal system, which is based on civil law." law ... legal ... law: can it be cleaned up? I mean, acts of parliament are in every country I can think of the ultimate source of law for anything. The legal system is based on civil law?
 * Changed it to "Bulgaria has a typical civil law legal system", it's already mentioned that the Parliament enacts laws a few lines above.


 * But here, surely we do need a "the": "Law enforcement is carried out by organisations mainly subordinate to the Ministry of Interior." -> "Law enforcement is mainly carried out by organisations subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior." It is a translation of the Bulgarian, I presume.
 * Sorry to go on about "the": "the most powerful executive position is that of the prime minister"
 * Cleaned up.


 * "for citizens 18 years of age and older" –> "for citizens 18 years and older" is good enough, or "for citizens at least 18 years old".
 * Changed.


 * "the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament" ... unfortunate rep. "for all members"? Tony   (talk)  10:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oh, and it doesn't specify how many seats each party has and which parties are in the governing coalition. I'd like to know whether GERB is reliant on just the "blue coalition" or needs the far right as well. Numbers? Tony   (talk)  10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added some figures on representatives by party; GERB is not in coalition with any of the parties.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Removed the "large". And it was among Bulgaria's top priorities. You probably missed the "by the 1980s", source is Britannica. Any other specific concerns to be addressed ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was one small spot-check. What's the rest like, I wonder? Is this the third go at FAC? I'm surprised to find it in such a state. Tony   (talk)  13:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it might be good, it might not be. There's 250 sources out there and only about 20 or so have been spotchecked, about a half of them were added a few months back by me so they should be OK for the most part. This is the second FAC of this article done by me, and without a more comprehensive look I won't be able to know what needs to be changed or improved - I've strictly complied to all guidelines but there's always something coming up, so I rely on reviews. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose
 * "home of some of the earliest metalworking, religious and other cultural artifacts in the world." even though is in the lead I would like to have a reference to this.
 * Added some.


 * " The massive industrial expansion during the postwar economic boom established Bulgaria as the leading electricity and raw material exporter in Southeast Europe through its energy and mining industries." sounds just too pompous for the lead of a FA
 * Removed it.


 * I think the two subsection on the Bulgarian empires can be merged and trimmed.
 * I proposed it earlier, but consensus was reached that a 800-year period is a bit too large to encompass in a single subsection.


 * wikilink khan
 * Done.


 * " Bulgaria achieved high Human Development status." I think the HDI is relatively low for an European country
 * The HDI classification is "high", that's how it has been officially labeled.


 * "continues to improve its traditionally good ties with China[113] and Vietnam" this seems quite random
 * Define "random" in this case ?


 * "an industrial economy with scientific and technological research as its top priorities" what is this supposed to mean?
 * Clarified a bit.


 * doesn't Bulgaria have a relatively notorious organized crime for which the EU had imposed some penalties?
 * It does have organised crime, much like a number of other European countries, but the penalties were imposed due to mismanagement of cohesion funds.


 * how is "Some of Europe's last deserted beaches survive along the Bulgarian coast." from the reference transformed into "and the last remaining beaches outside the reach of the tourist industry" here?
 * Look above, other users claimed it's too unclear. It's perfectly clear under any formulation IMHO.


 * "make it a key European energy hub" is a complete overstatement of what the ref says
 * The ref pretty much states that Bulgaria is a critical location for pipeline projects in the EU; "Bulgaria's recent energy cooperation with Moscow, as it is, in the US view, undermining efforts to decrease Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas" is quite obviously underlining that there are some big interests in the energy issues here.


 * isn't Kozloduy past its designated life?
 * No.


 * "Bulgaria has the fastest average Broadband Internet speed in the world after South Korea" is misleading as the reference does not imply it listed all the ountries below S Korea
 * Third-fastest, changed + sourced.


 * "The oldest Slavic written language, Bulgarian is distinguishable from the other languages in this group through certain grammatical peculiarities such as the lack of noun cases and infinitives, and a suffixed definite article." should be probably be moved to the culture section
 * It fits better with the demographic composition in terms of ethnic groups, religion and languages. It would look misplaced in the Culture section at best.


 * What are the major cities in Bulgaria?
 * There's a nice map with provinces in Administrative divisions, it's mentioned that they're centred around the largest cities.
 * From reading the text the major cities were not very obvious


 * This is hilarious: from "Times have changed, and now 97 percent of the apartment units in Bulgaria are privately-owned (owner-occupied)." to "Bulgaria has the highest home ownership rate in the world; about 97 per cent of the population live in privately owned and owner-occupied homes"
 * Alright ?
 * The reference does not state that "Bulgaria has the highest home ownership rate in the world;"
 * Removed the highest home ownership rate bit.


 * "what is the meaning of this sentence: "Traces of Gothic culture also appeared in Antiquity, as evidenced by the Wulfila Bible—the first book written in aGermanic language, created in Nicopolis ad Istrum in the 4th century"
 * It means that Gothic culture was also a part of the chaotic soup of cultures on ancient Bulgarian lands.
 * Then why dont you simply state that, without the extra details?
 * Did so, separated statements.


 * From "Bulgarian scholars of archaeology consider Bulgaria to be the third richest country in Europe in terms of archaeological heritage after Italy and Greece." to "their total number is the third-largest in Europe after Italy and Greece" is a pretty big leap
 * Changed to "the size of local archaeological heritage is..." instead.
 * The point is that the reference states that BULGARIAN scholars consider it. Do you see how that is not a very repudiable source? You need to find an unbiased opinion for such a boasting statement
 * I changed it to "Local archaeologists claim...", but I still don't see how a statement by local archaeologists would be biased or considered unreliable. We're not talking about a Fourth World country here.


 * "The site revealed evidence of the first European civilisation" which one?
 * It has no name, generally called Old Europe by archaeologists.


 * "Bulgarian folk music is by far the most extensive traditional art " citation?


 * Bulgaria is pretty good at winter sports too
 * Hasn't marked any significant success in the last years, no.

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


 * I'll find cites for the ones that I haven't addressed now. If it's too positive, what should we write ? It's the most corrupt ? Already written. Lowest wages and life expectancy, low quality of medical services, non-functioning judiciary, demographic catastrophe taking place ? Already mentioned. If other media, authors or any outlets in general covered the country more extensively, I'd use more "reputable" sources. But they don't, so I've used the most reliable of sources available.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an overview article, which means everything should be covered in a balanced manner. I feel like a little too much of the article is about the achievements of Bulgaria compared to the average situation. Plus, I have checked only the references for the boasting statements and I found that a large part of them are tweaked too much here. That makes it hard for me to asume good faith. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I realise that, but I certainly don't think that the article is "positive" or displays that many achievements. The only things that might be seem a bit exaggerated are in the Military section, which sort of presents Bulgaria as a noticeable player in international relations, while in fact it isn't. As for the statements on archaeological heritage, earliest artifacts and the like - they might seem exaggerated simply because they're not well-known nor researched, and punch the reader as something unexpected. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.