Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive3
Partial self-nom and Support. This former featured article had failed to be re-featured for the following reasons:
- Ugly pictures
- Bad English
- Too many lists and short paragraphs
- Lengthy history section
The reasons can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium/archive2. It has been since reviewed by JoJan, Tony, and Nichalp. Some comments can be found in Wikipedia:Peer review/Belgium. I have put a lot of work into this article to make it comprehensive and well balanced with respect to the Belgian communities. I think some equilibrium has now been reached. I hope you will have fun reading it. Vb 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- If I hadn't edited it, my vote might count: it would be a 'yes'. One point:
- It is a very complicated governmental system, and I hope that it's described as simply as possible; we need to understand this attempt to mollify the squabbling Dutch/French-speaking communities. (I wonder why it's been so much easier for the Swiss? And other European countries have similar communities: 20% of Finns are Swedish-speakers. Would brief comparisons be useful (maybe not)?) Tony 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Reply. The Swiss system is not that simple either. It is also much older. The Belgian federal system is only 30 years old and is still evolving. I think comparing with similar federal systems is a very difficult task which should require its own article. The answer to the question why this system is so complicated could be the following: One of the problems is the (legitimate?) frustration felt by the Flemings because the French segment of the population was dominant and arrogant during the first 150 years of the country. The problem is also due to different interpretations of the Belgian splitting. Is it due to some ethnic, cultural, economic or linguistic variety? The answers to this kind of questions is usually different in Flanders, in Wallonia, or in Brussels and leads to distinct interpretations of the Belgian federal structure. Vb 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I guess, the 60/40 split makes both factions powerful players, so long-term assymetry would be untenable. But there's hope: the recent Franco-German love-in, within the EU, bodes well for Belgian harmony. Tony 08:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Reply. The Swiss system is not that simple either. It is also much older. The Belgian federal system is only 30 years old and is still evolving. I think comparing with similar federal systems is a very difficult task which should require its own article. The answer to the question why this system is so complicated could be the following: One of the problems is the (legitimate?) frustration felt by the Flemings because the French segment of the population was dominant and arrogant during the first 150 years of the country. The problem is also due to different interpretations of the Belgian splitting. Is it due to some ethnic, cultural, economic or linguistic variety? The answers to this kind of questions is usually different in Flanders, in Wallonia, or in Brussels and leads to distinct interpretations of the Belgian federal structure. Vb 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is a very complicated governmental system, and I hope that it's described as simply as possible; we need to understand this attempt to mollify the squabbling Dutch/French-speaking communities. (I wonder why it's been so much easier for the Swiss? And other European countries have similar communities: 20% of Finns are Swedish-speakers. Would brief comparisons be useful (maybe not)?) Tony 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Support-Its for the most part a very good article and I believe it deserves FA status. My only issue is the Culture section. The writing's flow is broken up with several short paragraphs. Falphin 19:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to support, but I would prefer the first map to be removed. Its too complicated to be there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed but I can't find a good map to replace it. What would you suggest? Falphin 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll try and draw my own map tomorrow, are there any online resources I can base it on? (copyrighted maps will do) =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it is true one could make a simpler map. I however personally think it is not that easy to make it better. You'll find many historical maps of the region at this time on the site: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/lowcountries/haxbelgium.html One of the difficulty you're going to meet is that it is difficult to establish the exact border at an exact time. Those borders were not very stable depending on the alliances and wars with the neighbouring states. It is also difficult to know how to count the 17 provinces. Have a look at the article Seventeen Provinces and its discussion page for details about the controversy. I think what should appear clearly on the map is the following:
- The internal borders in order to show that there is no border corresponding to the current Belgo-Netherlandish border
- A clear different color for the bishopric of Liege which does not belong to the 17 provinces
- About the culture section. I have seen Falphin is taking care of Culture of the Netherlands. I think the Netherlandish culture is also quite difficult to describe in a few paragraphs. In my opinion this is because both cultures are quite rich. It is therefore difficult to merge paragraphs on music and literature or on food and sports or folk festivals. However if you should see a way to improve the flow without reducing the containt of this section please don't hesitate to copyedit. Vb 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it is true one could make a simpler map. I however personally think it is not that easy to make it better. You'll find many historical maps of the region at this time on the site: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/lowcountries/haxbelgium.html One of the difficulty you're going to meet is that it is difficult to establish the exact border at an exact time. Those borders were not very stable depending on the alliances and wars with the neighbouring states. It is also difficult to know how to count the 17 provinces. Have a look at the article Seventeen Provinces and its discussion page for details about the controversy. I think what should appear clearly on the map is the following:
- I'll try and draw my own map tomorrow, are there any online resources I can base it on? (copyrighted maps will do) =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed but I can't find a good map to replace it. What would you suggest? Falphin 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good to me. Ambi 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak object – 1. The politics section needs a summary 2. 16th and 17th century in the lead should be spelled out. 3. The =Communities and regions= paragraphs on the governments should be sumamrised into prose. 4. Text such as " these figures must be interpreted cautiously,.."; " Nevertheless, in recent years, concern..." need to be copyedited. 5. Text in parenthesis needs to be merged with the text to maintain the flow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am very sorry Nicholas but I am not able to do the change you request. Not because I don't want to but because I don't feel they are required. 1. I don't see how to summarize this section. 2. I did it to make you a favor even if don't understand why you ask for this or why you didn't do that yourself (that's so easy); 3. I oppose to this change. This poltical system is so complex that it really required such a tabular presentation in the French article, this is even presented as an array. I think the version here reads much easier. 4. I am not fluent enough in English to understand why these sentences could be copyedited in a positive way; 5. I have checked all parentheses in the text and I don't think I am able to improve the formulation. I am not disturbed by the parentheses and any alternative wording I can imagine is worst than the present version. I have seen how you did that for eigenvalues etc... I am not able to do this as well as you can. Vb 21:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe its too difficult to summarise the politics. Speak on general instances, not specifics. You'll have to turn that section onto prose and I don't see why you're opposing the change. I see a great scope to summarise the section. I'm sorry but I'll be only free to copyedit the article over the weekend. I'm too busy during the week. I'll try and summarise on Sat/Sun. I know I promised a map, but I can't find the time to make one. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- The structure of the section politics is in my opinion very standard. This is very similar to South Sfrica or Australia.
- I know the section "communities and regions" is special. This is also a very specific system which is difficult to understand for strangers. The structure as it is now is due to Tony and I think it has reach an optimum in its concise and precise presentation. I really think this section should not be turned into prose. This would diminish the value of the section. Vb 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am very sorry Nicholas but I am not able to do the change you request. Not because I don't want to but because I don't feel they are required. 1. I don't see how to summarize this section. 2. I did it to make you a favor even if don't understand why you ask for this or why you didn't do that yourself (that's so easy); 3. I oppose to this change. This poltical system is so complex that it really required such a tabular presentation in the French article, this is even presented as an array. I think the version here reads much easier. 4. I am not fluent enough in English to understand why these sentences could be copyedited in a positive way; 5. I have checked all parentheses in the text and I don't think I am able to improve the formulation. I am not disturbed by the parentheses and any alternative wording I can imagine is worst than the present version. I have seen how you did that for eigenvalues etc... I am not able to do this as well as you can. Vb 21:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia.Logophile 07:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- Suppport, although the positioning of the images in the History section really needs to be changed - they force the entire section beneath the infobox.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- I know. I agree with you. Ask =Nichalp «Talk»= why he did it like that. He seems to be dogmatic on this point. And basically I don't mind. Vb 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's more of a browser bug perhaps? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how it could be, as it occurs in at least two different browsers (IE and FF) and with and without text justification. It's happening because the image won't align against the infobox (which would look horrible anyway) and forces itself and the text beneath it.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's more of a browser bug perhaps? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I know. I agree with you. Ask =Nichalp «Talk»= why he did it like that. He seems to be dogmatic on this point. And basically I don't mind. Vb 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Object Generally a very fine article, but several quibbles. First, the history section is constrained. Some mention of confessional politics needs to be made, given its importance to the development of the country's identity. Second, the importance of language politics is insufficiently covered given the degree to which it informs national (and local) political debates. If these could be amended, or if reasons for their exclusion could be provided, I would change to support since overall the article looks very good. Dottore So 12:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: I will be copyediting the article on 2005-11-13 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)