Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bulgaria/archive4

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2018 [1].

---

Bulgaria

Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The article underwent significant improvement since the last nomination:

• Many of the old sources have been updated or replaced with more reliable ones;
• Prose and flow have been improved;
• Fresh details have been added without noticeably expanding the article or changing its structure;
• Outdated images have been removed;
• The lead section has been rewritten for better flow, but all the major points have been preserved.

In its present condition it is (arguably) better than some country articles that already have Featured status, so I'll be happy to get any feedback that might improve this one further and bring it the star. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the revolts map and both diagrams

Done; changed the map, even at 300px the revolts map wasn't clear enough.

New map needs a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's posted in the description: Map based on Lalkov, Milčo (1997). Rulers of Bulgaria. Kibea. ISBN 954-474-098-8..

• File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg: no reason why uploader would have a copyright on this image, it's too simple to warrant protection

Only administrators can edit the license, I've posted an edit request on the talk page.

Replaced with PD-ineligible.

• File%3AMila_Rodino.ogg needs a US PD tag and a separate tag for the performance

Removed it. The performance was downloaded from the website of the National Assembly, which has no licensing information for any of the content it has published, so it is presumed copyrighted. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• As Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all 3D works will need explicit tags for the original works

Removed the National Bank image as its architect died in 1957. The Rectorate and National Assembly building should be free (their architects died in the 1920s and 1930s).

When specifically did the architect of File:Sofia_University_"St._Kliment_Ohridski"_(37849719131).jpg die? The following images also need tags: File:National_Palace_of_Culture_(23997858848).jpg, File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg, File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg

According to the University's website, the Rectorate was designed by Yordan Milanov, who died in 1932. Removed the National Palace image, the chief architect died 19 years ago.

• File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:BASA-3K-7-342-28-Boris_III_of_Bulgaria.jpeg

Will PD-1923 do? I don't believe they've been published in the US prior to 1923, especially the latter.

When and where were they first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any information on that. The author of the painting died 101 years ago so it should be PD everywhere. The Archives Agency released a number of materials under PD a few years ago, so I'm not sure which US PD applies to them. Same concern about File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg (Medieval building) and File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg (ancient item).

If we can't find information to support an appropriate PD tag, the images will need to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure the relevant information can be found, what I don't understand is how the PD tags should be implemented in File:Sofia - Odrysian Wreath from Golyamata Mogila.jpg and File:20140621 Veliko Tarnovo 002.jpg. The former can use a PD tag under the FoP rules as the building is Medieval so there is no copyright on it. The latter is not a painting, has no author, is not a building and may or may not be considered a work of art. Either way, the images are released under CC2.0 and CC-SA 4.0 respectively, so a PD tag would contradict these licenses. My question is therefore, is the PD tag necessary for the item depicted, or Featured Articles are limited to using public domain images only? I'm sorry for the question, I'm just at a loss. The Commons pages aren't really helpful in that regard. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction to have both a CC and a PD tag - it's a recognition that there is more than one copyright at play. For example, if you are in a place without freedom of panorama and take a photo of a copyrighted sculpture, even if you release your photo under a CC license we still wouldn't be able to use it here. You should be sure to indicate which tag applies to which copyright, but we do need to reflect both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, in that case I'll see what the most relevant PD tags are for the images and will place them. Unfortunately a user insists on placing a city population template with four images that are definitely outside FoP but I'm attempting to resolve that conflict in the direction of removing the template, so no action will be taken on those.

To add to Tourbillon's comment, i will ask the same question i asked him, are you sure that freedom of panorama applies when in the law it is stated that "Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". " (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Bulgaria). As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is a non-commercial informational website, and uploading images to wikipedia is a non-commercial activity. What do you think? - Bowler92 11:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, any license with a non-commercial requirement is considered non-free. See WP:NFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ok, understood. -Bowler92 07:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Done on the above mentioned images. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Tourbillon Why isn't File:Bulgaria-demography.png up-to-date? I could not get the source to load. Is that the most recent data available? Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also strongly suggest working on citation formatting before someone comes to review that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific on the formatting issues? Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar sources should be formatted similarly. For example, some books include publisher locations while others do not, newspaper names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Tourbillon (inserted here) UGH! This is so, so true. I have a FAC article here too, undergoing review right now, and an advisor made me go through my references--and my article had 179 references to begin with--five separate times to be sure every reference had all the correct information: chapter headings for collections with different authors, names of the locations of all publishers, and accurate isbn numbers all written in the same formatting style--for me that was 13 digits. Source disparity was not an acceptable excuse in his view. I spent hours and then more hours using the isbn converter, checking for accuracy, looking up publisher locations on the web--as I said, 179 references--5 times--eventually eliminating nine references I couldn't find info on--so, NOT an easy requirement, but absolutely necessary for an encyclopedia. I want to encourage you to go the extra mile on this one. I'll help if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Book references here are not that many - about 50 when I last counted them, and journal references are only a handful. I'll go through them again and find whatever additional information I can. What worries me more is that in some past country FACs, Encyclopedia Britannica was not considered a good enough source for some reason. It's practically the only good, up to date and easily accessible general source on Bulgaria. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for the review! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, noticed that earlier, working on it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

{{cite book}} and {{cite web}} have been standardized, a few {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} remain, working on them now. Also replaced or removed a few redundant sources. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Updated those too, will make another pass if I've missed something (likely). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Done, standardised journal, book, news and web citations. Some parametres (volume, ISSN) are not available for all sources and I've left those blank, so there may still be a discrepancy but it's because of source disparity. A few poor-quality or outdated sources have been scrubbed or replaced with better ones. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

• I would suggest a clarification in the following sentence: "Flora includes more than 3,800 vascular plant species of which...", because that number includes only the vascular plants; mosses, lichens and algae are not included.

Corrected.

• In the "Religion" section it should be noted that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church gained autocephalous status in 870, and became a patriarchate in 927. --Gligan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

All sources I read point to 927 as the year of autocephaly, and 870 (circa) as the year of autonomy. The former seems to be the correct year. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the correct year is 879. I am citing in Bulgarian the text from "История на България. Том I. Божилов, Гюзелев", стр. 191: "На заседанието на събора от 24 декември 879 г. обаче било взето решение, което имало голямо значение за придобиването на автокефалност на Българската архиепископия; то било формулирано така: "Отсега нататък константинополския патриарх да не ръкополага в България, нито пък да изпраща омофор. Дори като те [българите] се откажат от това и дойдат при негово светейшество [константинополския патриарх], да не получат благоволение." Чрез това Константинопол се оттеглил от върховенството си над Българската архиепископия и й предоставеил автокефалия." --Gligan (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the passage states that a decision was taken in 879, however it seems like the recognition by the Byzantines and therefore actual autocephaly was not attained until 927. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 prose review -- Support

This is a genuinely interesting and well done article. I support this FAC. I believe it deserves to be a Featured article.

extended review completed with all issues addressed

The second sentence in the lead that begins with "organised" in the British spelling: that's certainly okay, and consistency is the only real requirement concerning that choice, but you might want to consider changing it to "-ized" even though it is not actually wrong. In the body of work coming out of Britain since 2002, about 60% use -ise but 40% use -ize, and it looks more correct to anyone who learned American spelling and not French, so -ize can please everyone while -ise can only please some. This has a good discussion of it: [[2]]. I don't count it against you whichever way you go--it's entirely a style thing--and would, of course, mean changing it throughout the whole article. Changed, although I fear that it might serve as a hook for someone else to perceive this as inconsistent use of British and American spelling. Yikes--consistency is the most important thing. Well, if someone else comes along and complains, you can revert the changes. And be doing this back and forth till it's accepted! Hah! Organised prehistoric cultures appeared in Bulgarian lands during the Neolithic period should more accurately read: "In the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." They can't appear in something that isn't there yet even though you know it's coming. Corrected. In Antiquity, the region was a battleground... give dates in parenthesis for when "Antiquity" was. Yes, we all know--but the sophomore doing a paper probably won't. Added, however I've only added the centuries when most of this warfare occurred, generally the time span discussed further down in the History section. I don't see why that won't be perfectly okay. The Eastern Roman Empire lost some of these territories to an invading Bulgar horde, which founded the first unified Bulgarian state in 681 AD. which one founded the state? The ERE or the Bulgar horde? Be careful of pronouns: It dominated... when they refer to a whole sentence in front of them. Better to be specific with nouns. For the sake of clarity, you might consider dividing these two sentences somewhat differently. Taking the first part of the previous sentence, and putting a period where the comma is now, then beginning the next sentence with the second half of that first sentence "The Bulgars then founded..." and connecting the next sentence with the "which" so it reads "The Bulgars founded...in...which dominated...etc" would be clearer, less ambiguous, and yet no longer. All corrected, I also clarified Eastern Roman and Byzantine as the latter is mentioned in the next sentence. After numerous exhausting wars and feudal strife, the Second Bulgarian Empire disintegrated in 1396 but...but...when did a second Empire appear? Remember your two guiding principles of writing are clarity and specificity--the research provides the accuracy--but it's the writing itself that has to communicate clearly. Assume your reader doesn't know what you know. Added a new sentence about the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC) It's an excellent sentence! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I think the rest of the lead is good and will pass my inspection with these few adjustments. I will move on and do more if these are responded to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Excellent. More later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I like everything you did in the lead, except we created a new problem doing it: now that "In the Neolithic period" begins the first sentence, there are two sentences in a row beginning with "In..." Making one change often leads to another. In this case, I like altering the beginning of the second sentence--maybe--"By the 6th-3rd centuries BCE, the region had become a battleground..." You decide. You can go back and put the "in the Neolithic period" in the middle of the first sentence, with commas, if you prefer--it was the "Bulgarian lands" that was the issue with that one, and you have fixed that. But one of them needs adapting to the other one now. Try not to be too frustrated--I have one sentence that has been rewritten about 14 times I think. :-) Been there already, the previous (failed) FACs were harsh, but the article has improved this much largely owing to that. I just changed it to During the Neolithic period... which should be fine! Saw it--it's better than fine. That paragraph is a really good short synopsis of the history section. It reads well. This is a very interesting and informative sentence: The meaning may be further extended to "rebel", "to incite", or "to produce a state of disorder", i.e. the "disturbers". In my view it might read a little better if it said "...to rebel, incite or produce a state of disorder, i.e. "the disturbers." That's entirely personal preference though. I placed the period inside the quotation marks because it ends the whole sentence, not just the fragment. Corrected, was a bit choppy anyway. It does read better without the extra "to"s. I personally don't like all the quotation marks either. Those are single common words so I don't think they are necessary--but don't change them if you think they are needed. That's entirely personal preference on my part. In the last sentence beginning "Alternate etymologies..." There are three groups mentioned between this sentence and the last mention of the Bulgars--perhaps clarify that last sentence about which you are referring to without depending on the reader to make the right assumption. Clarified that. "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." Excellent sentence. What does gold exploitation mean? Linked to goldsmith, which is where "gold working" redirects. It's metallurgy specifically focused on gold and jewels. I think that needs explaining. Maybe something along the lines of "... with inventing goldworking and the metallurgy necessary to work it." Something like that--feel free to put that in your own words--but for the ordinary reader, it's generally better not to use jargon (words specific to a field). Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I've changed it to gold metallurgy, that should be clear enough - otherwise a lengthy explanation will have to be added, and that will look out of place. Except the term "exploitation" is still there with no explanation. People won't know what it means, and it's a cardinal rule of good writing not to use specialized words you don't explain. It's confusing to the reader. If they have to stop and get out a dictionary and look a word up, what are the chances they will bother to finish reading? Either remove the word "exploitation" or explain it. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Is the treasure not monetarily valuable as well? In current gold value, comparatively not so much - it's less than seven kilograms in weight. Hmmm-I'm not striking this one yet either. I want to know that--"While it is not valuable for its gold, which is less than seven kilograms in weight, it has been highly valuable for..." or some such thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I'm inclined to think that the monetary value is of marginal importance in a historical subsection, which is why I decided to leave it out. I follow your reasoning, however--your reader doesn't know that and will wonder. This isn't about what you know and think as much as it is about what your reader will not know and wonder. It's an interesting piece of information too. So I don't agree this is a good decision. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The Iron age--which was when? Difficult to say. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. I've added an early before Iron Age because the late Iron Age in Europe goes as far as 800 AD. Then you can't say it. Even adding 'early' makes a claim you can't back up. If it's difficult to say, then say that. Actually, the two sentences you have right here would be perfect. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) "Early Iron Age" is the most accurate approximation of when they appeared; the alternative would be to remove the era of origin entirely, which wouldn't be exactly informative. No, the alternative is not to remove it, the alternative is to say it accurately. You really must do this one. It effects the accuracy of the article. You must explain "early iron age" (with years) is the best approximation--you can't just claim it is when it happened if no one really knows. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Prehistory and antiquity: I know nothing of Bulgaria and I followed this whole section easily. Well done. Thank you! I added one more sentence about the Thracians that clarifies the link between their kingdom and the Persian invasion. First Bulgarian Empire: I got a little confused here. I had to go back and think through The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains as referring to what you've been talking about--I hope--but is that modern Bulgaria? That first Bulgarian empire? The territory the tribes fought over? All of the above? Or what exactly? And this is the first I've heard of "Old Great Bulgaria"--where did that come from? I think this first sentence needs to be reworked with some additional explanation. The other two sentences are clear and informative. The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes fought; the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is part of that region. That's where the First Bulgarian Empire was established. Old Great Bulgaria is a previous majority Bulgar polity in what is now Ukraine. It is politically unrelated to the First Bulgarian Empire, where the Bulgars were a minority. I think the confusion also stems from the fact that Bulgar and Bulgarian are not quite the same thing; the former refers to the Asian tribe, whereas the latter refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. I changed it to something slightly more detailed, hopefully it's clearer now - but let me know if otherwise! Also, spotted three ISBN-less cites at the end of the first subsection, looking for additional data. Added one to the FBE subsection. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC) I think you are going to have to add some of this in. You have three sentences here that are pertinent, provide a broader foundation for understanding what you are talking about, and seem necessary for clarity. I understand wanting to leave out everything unnecessary due to length, but when that absence creates confusion, length is just unavoidable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC) What about something like you have here: "The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes had fought. The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is the section of that region that became the First Bulgarian Empire. It was that area, between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains, that was again invaded in 680, this time by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects. Bulgar refers to the Asian tribe, whereas Bulgarian refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. " Or flip things around, as you wish--but it needs fixing because it is not clear enough the way it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC) I made a slightly more subtle change: Added a new sentence in the second paragraph specifying the locale of Moesia, and then changed the first paragraph of FBE to refer specifically to Moesia as the region that the Bulgars invaded. The reason I abstained from adding the Bulgars as a leading ethnos and generally avoid delving into the "ethnic" topic is that it often becomes an edit battleground. Let me know if it is clear enough as it is now. Following the arrival of the Slavs, Moesia was invaded by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh.[39][40] The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire.[23] The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects.[34] This is worse, not better I'm afraid. First, a reader will wonder "Who the Hell is Moesia and why are we talking about them now?" You completely removed the geographic connection which was a good inclusion--it just did not explain what it referred to--that's all you needed to add for that one. The rest of it is choppy and disconnected now. It jumps from "Old Great Bulgaria" to "Byzantine" for no apparent reason. This is not a good revision. I do understand it is difficult to write for someone who doesn't know what you know, because you can't "un-know" stuff, and it's hard to imagine and put yourself in their shoes. That's why reviews from people who don't know your topic are important in a different way than reviews from those who do know it are. Some high school kid will use this to do a report for school, and that kid will not be able to make sense of this paragraph--and will move on over to Encyclopedia Britannica instead. The rest of this is too good to lose over a couple of rough paragraphs. Please, try this instead: "The entire region of the south-eastern European continent had been settled by the Slavs, including the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan mountains, that was the cause of so much tribal war. This geographic area, which would become the First Bulgarian Empire, was once again invaded in 680, by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh fighting for the Byzantines. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity, situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects." I said European continent instead of just Europe because there is no Europe at this time, but there is a continent. It adds back in the valuable geographic information--with explanation and connection--that did not need removing. Is "fighting for the Byzantines" correct? Without that, there is no explanation as to why a treaty with the Byzantine empire would stop a war with OGB. And it avoids the ethnic discussion and isn't too long. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I followed all the rest with no trouble. It was clear--and really interesting! More after this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Moving on with next section. payment in kind best to say what that means Linked to tax in kind, which explains it in a simple way. OkayJenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) And the next Ottoman rule really good! I personally would like a very short--maybe one sentence--explanation of why the Battle of Shipka Pass is important. Providing the link is good, so I can go read more if I want--after I know why it matters. But if it isn't possible to explain in a sentence, just leave it. Expanded the sentence, should be clear now! Perfect! Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) And the next the executions of thousands of war criminals and dissidents Adding another sentence as explanation might be good--Stalin killed millions in Russia --how many "dissidents" and "war criminals" died in Bulgaria? Specified and also rephrased the first two sentences. It reads well and is clear and specific now. Well done. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) These are such picky little points, I almost hesitate to mention them because overall this whole section is brilliant. It's easy to follow and interesting--really, really good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC) In the section that opens: The Treaty of San Stefano was signed on 3 March 1878 by Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and included a provision to set up an autonomous Bulgarian principality roughly on the territories of the Second Bulgarian Empire This is a good clear sentence--but notice it assumes we know what the territories of the empire are--showing yet again the importance of explaining that "Danube and the mountains" phrase up in the First B.E. Addressed that - the territories in question are Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia; the Berlin Treaty state only included the first one. No, you didn't address it--you just changed the name as though any reader will know where Moesia is, and what it means, without explanation from you. This change made things worse not better. Jenhawk777 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Let me rephrase--it did add clarity here in this section--it is the previous section--the FBE--where the addition of Moesia made things muddier and less clear Jenhawk777 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I'm going ahead and moving on to the next section because of time. I did some minor copy-edits--things like commas and prepositions--but I don't want to rewrite your material without your agreement. This paragraph in politics needs a slight reworking. Political parties gather in the National Assembly, a body of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote. The National Assembly has the power to enact laws, approve the budget, schedule presidential elections, select and dismiss the prime minister and other ministers, declare war, deploy troops abroad, and ratify international treaties and agreements. The president serves as the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the authority to return a bill for further debate, although the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament.[100] Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments. It would solve its problems if the third sentence became the opening sentence: "In addition to a Prime-minister, Bulgaria has a President who serves as the head...etc." Then go with the sentence you have as the opening: "The National assembly is a body of 240..." The reason for this is that you refer to the President before you say there is one. Add a sentence either in this or the previous paragraph that explains the difference--(if there is one, or say so if they're the same)--between the Parliament which you refer to here, and the National Assembly, as Parliament has not been defined. Don't make references to things that aren't defined. Is the Prime minister the head of Parliament? Is the President the head of the National Assembly? I do not have a good idea of Bulgarian government from this yet. I would move the last sentence--Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments--from the end of the second paragraph to begin the next paragraph as it opens a new idea which is discussed in the next two paragraphs. The rest of this section is good. Good points - reordered those sentences. Now it flows better. Also clarified that the prime minister is head of government. That is a definite improvement. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I'm down to 'economy' but I have to quit for awhile--real life interferes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Alright! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) The changes you made to these sections are excellent. Jenhawk777 07:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

New Section, Jenhawk777, prose review continuing

all issues resolved

This has gotten too long, so I created a new section. It does not mean the things left undone in the previous section no longer matter.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Economy but the social consequences of these measures have been "catastrophic" please explain. A single sentence will do.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Added a bit of info on that one, should be clear now. Infrastructure Biomass has become the primary source of renewable power after more than a decade of growth in the sector.[285] I know it's linked, but include an explanatory phrase anyway. Biomass, fuel produced through biological processes, has become the primary source ... Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Demographics Clarified this one as well. The PISA study of 2015 found 41.5% of pupils in the 9th grade to be functionally illiterate in reading, maths and science.[315] Average literacy stands at 98.4% with no significant difference between sexes I don't see how these two statistics can fit together--perhaps think about what percentage of the population 9th graders are--and/or--make sure and say "However, the literacy rate of the overall population stands at..." Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) They're related. The 98% have basic literacy (which is reading), but a large percentage lack functional literacy (reading with understanding). I rephrased it in a way that relates the two, Culture with millennium-old folk traditions. one millennium? If so, it should say "a" millennium-old folk tradition. If it's older than one thousand years, it should say millennia-old folk traditions. Millenia* corrected! Many of these are personified as witches, I would have changed this one myself, but I had to assume you mean the spirits referred to in the previous sentence, and I am unsure if that assumption is correct. Once again, pronouns ... These actually refers to both spirits and diseases. Both are personified as witches or other kinds of creatures/phenomena. I'm not sure what the correct word to emphasise that would be, though. The Middle Ages were marked by the literary schools of Preslav and Ohrid does this refer to their founding? Some accomplishment of some kind? How many people went there? What? It referred to their body of work, which consisted of both Bulgarian-language translations of Byzantine religious texts and original works. Those were the first scriptures in a Slavic language so they served to bring most Slavs under Eastern Christianity. extended rhythmical time is it possible to explain this without going into too much detail? Unfortunately no, and I've long considered this one problematic. It's a very specific detail of Bulgarian folk music, but it can't be explained without delving deep into musical terminology. A fair use audio file would be great as an illustration, but it's beyond risky. Sports when it was represented by Charles Champaud who played what? Did he win anything? Whether he did or not--he went--an achievement by itself. Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) He was a gymnast (linked to the 1896 gymnastics events), but did not medal. Which isn't such a big issue, those were the first modern games after all. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I have now finished the article. It is truly good with only a couple rough spots. It made me admire much about your country and want to visit! Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) You're most welcome! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: We have one support so far, but I think we need to see something happening in the next week or so as this has been open for a month now. I will add it to the urgent list, but if nothing happens this FAC will be archived. Sarastro (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "During the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." I do not think you need the word "organized". What is an unorganized culture? Also the statement is too vague to be useful. I would suggest something like "The Neolithic Vinča culture in Bulgaria dates to around 5000 BC." (assuming you can find a cite for this.)

Changed it, hopefully it makes more sense now. I replaced Vinca here and further down the text with Karanovo, which is centered on Bulgaria, unlike Vinca, which is largely on Serbian territory.

• "a tribe of Turkic origin that established the country" I think founded would be better than established.

It is.

• "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." This is again too vague to be useful. See [3] for paleolithic Bulgaria.

• "Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to 100,000 BC, or the Middle Paleolithic." I see that the link I gave you was not very helpful. This clarifies that early occupation goes back over 100,000 years and was by Neanderthals, not modern humans, which should be stated. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I did read the link though I didn't notice it mentioning Neanderthals. Cited the paper you provided and changed that sentence somewhat, hopefully it's less ambiguous now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Organized agricultural societies, like the Vinča culture, arose in the Neolithic." I suggest deleting organized and adding an approximate date.

Both clarified.

• eneolithic - few readers will understand this term. It is usually called the Chalcolithic or Copper Age.
• "appeared on the peninsula" This is the first time you have mentioned the peninsula - presumably you mean the Balkans but this should be explained.
• "Even though they excelled in metallurgy and gave the Greeks the Orphean and Dionysian cults, Thracians remained tribal and stateless." I would not say "Even though".
• "The Achaemenid Empire" The Persian Achaemenid Empire would be clearer.

Corrected all of the above.

• "The first Christian monastery in Europe was founded in 344 by Saint Athanasius near modern-day Chirpan," The source looks like the website for the monastery. This is not a reliable source for such a claim.

Used a Bulgarian National Radio source, which should be more reliable.

• Bulgarian National Radio is not a more reliable source. The Oxford Dictionary of Saints says that he was patriarch of Alexandria and was in exile in Rome in 344. It does not mention any connection with the Balkans. This should be deleted unless you can find an impartial and reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to find a more heavyweight source confirming it, at least not online. Athanasius was in the area at the time, he took part in the council of Sardica. The monastery claims the statement is based on documents from the Vatican, but I'll remove it until I find a more reliable source to back it up. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Moesia should be linked.

Done.

• Ref 37 needs a page number.

Could not obtain it - the book is available in Google Books but no page numbers are displayed. Furthermore, the other sources support the same statement so I removed this one.

• "The Asen dynasty's downfall in 1257" You refer to the downfall here as if you have previously described it.

Changed, also broke up the sentence.

• "Domestic defence is the responsibility of the all-volunteer Bulgarian army, branched into land forces, navy and an air force." I would say "composed of" instead of "branched into".

Changed it.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)'

Looking forward. Thanks for the review. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Bulgaria also has the third-lowest public debt in the Union at 28.7 per cent of GDP in 2016.[211] Strong economic performance in the early 2000s reduced government debt from 79.6 per cent in 1998 to 14.1 per cent in 2008." This is confusingly arranged. Maybe something like "Strong economic performance in the early 2000s reduced government debt from 79.6 per cent of GDP in 1998 to 14.1 per cent in 2008. It then increased to 28.7 per cent in 2016, but this is still the third lowest in the EU.[211] "

Should be fine now.

• "It includes the capital city and the surrounding Sofia Province, which alone generate 42 per cent of national gross domestic product." This is not much help without stating the proportion of the national population.

Pointed that out - it's 22% of the total population.

• "a per capita gross domestic product (PPP) of $26,580". This is PPP but the salary figures above are apparently not. Citing figures which are not comparable is confusing, although I realise this may reflect the sources.

Wages and GDP per capita are different indicators altogether. The latter shows the value of goods or services produced per person, not how much they get paid.

• "Although cereal and vegetable yields dropped by 40 per cent between 1990 and 2008,[248] output has since increased, and the 2016-2017 season registered the biggest grain yields in a decade." I assume you mean production rather than yield per hectare. I think it is better to avoid the word yield if you mean output.

Corrected, it was referring to total output and not yield per hectare.

• "death rates are among the highest." The figures in the international death rate table look strange and may reflect the age structure of countries more than the health of the population. Life expectancy is a more reliable measure and Bulgaria comes in the middle.
• "Mortality rates may be amenable with timely, adequate health care" Presumably this means may be improved, but this is true of every country. I would delete.

Mortality rates in Bulgaria are three times the EU average and among the highest globally precisely because of an uneven, dysfunctional healthcare system. I've rewritten that part to better reflect the impact of poor health services on death rates.

• I am not questioning that there is a dysfunctional healthcare system, but you would need a much better source to prove that the death rate is one of the highest in the world taking into account the population structure. The source has a death rate for Germany three times higher than Gaza, West Bank, Syria and Libya - and only 24% lower than Bulgaria. The figures appear to reflect the proportion of young people more than the quality of the health provision. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• The figures on religions do not look right. 75% orthodox, 10% Sunni, 3% other religions, 12% no religion and 12% do not say. This is well over 100%.

The 21% who refused to answer are not part of the final mix, so I've removed them. Interestingly enough the sum is now 99.9% - there's a 0.1% lost someplace in the official statistic.

• "Ivan Vazov - it would be helpful to give his dates.

Added.

• "Bulgaria's first Olympic appearance was at the 1896 games" This sounds odd as 1896 was the first Olympic games.
• " Grigor Dimitrov is the first Bulgarian in the Top 10 ATP Rankings" You should say tennis.

Both corrected.

• This needs some more work but it seems to me not far off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the time taken to review. If you have any other recommendations to improve the article, I'll work on them. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Dudley Miles, was there anything further here? I'm minded to archive this, but if you were happy it was close to FA standard, I would keep it open a few days more to see if we can find another reviewer. Sarastro (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think it is close to FA but there is still one issue which seems to me crucial. The article says that Bulgaria has one of the highest death rates in the world - which is extremely unlikely - and cites a nonsensical table which says that Germany has a death rate three times higher than Gaza. The nominator has not replied on this. I would however keep the FAC open for a few days both for a reply on this point and to see whether other reviewers can be found. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I think if we give this until after the weekend then. But after that, I think we would have to archive if nothing is happening. Sarastro (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, had some research and travel to do and didn't really have much time to check in meaningfully. I wouldn't refer to the CIA table as nonsensical; arguably their methodology may not always be the most accurate, but it is true that Bulgaria is close to the top in terms of death rates. According to OECD stats, Monaco ranks higher (9th) than Bulgaria (10th). However, many of the developed countries with high death rates also have high median ages and exceptionally high life expectancy rates; Monaco's median age, for example, is nearly 54 years, and life expectancy is a staggering 89.4 years, while in Germany median age stands at 43.7 and life expectancy 80.8. This isn't the case in Bulgaria, where life expectancy is among the lowest in the EU, even though median age is actually lower than the EU average. A relatively younger population that lives less is a direct result of uneven healthcare provision; according to the European Commission health report, cutting down avoidable cardiovascular deaths (which are three times the EU average) alone would drop general mortality rates to sub-EU average levels. This is a great indicator of just how dysfunctional the healthcare system is, hence the liaison between the healthcare paragraph to the previous one describing the demographic crisis. The sources on that section are universally reliable (European Commission, World Bank, FT, CIA), so I'm not sure if there's anything better they can be replaced with. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Your arguments compare Bulgaria with other EU countries and it is no doubt true that it has one of the lowest life expecancies in the EU. That is different from saying it has one of the highest death rates in the world and citing a source which says that Germany has a death rate three times higher than Gaza. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I pointed out life expectancy figures only to explain the (seemingly) unusual death rate figures provided by the CIA source, specifically your example with Germany and Gaza. My point is, the CIA source isn't unreliable. You will find similar death rate results in all other reliable sources. The World Bank has one of the most in-depth statistical databases out there, and its crude death rate table also ranks Germany higher than Gaza in terms of crude death rates. In fact, Germany's death rate here is almost four times higher, and Bulgaria is ranked first. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I said that the table is nonsensical, not unreliable. Saying that the death rate is one of the highest in the world without providing the context - Bulgaria 14.5 per thousand per annum compared with Gaza 3.1 - wrongly implies that the crude death rate is an accurate measure of the health of the population. List of countries by life expectancy#List by the CIA (2016) provides a reasonable measure with a life expectancy of 74.5 compared with an EU average of 80.2 - low by European standards but well above the world average of 69. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a direct indicator of the health of the population, but it is related to both demographic decline and quality of healthcare. Do you have a proposal on how it could be stated otherwise? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest using the CIA figures on life expectancy as in my previous comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here: high death rates often occur when the population is aged; it is, for example, also quite high in Germany. The article mentions it together with the low birth rates, which makes sense in this context. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That is OK so long as the high death rate in Germany is mentioned as well. Otherwise, someone who is not an expert on demographics will be given the impression that Bulgaria is comparable with third world countries which do not have a functioning health system. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

How about "Bulgaria has one of the highest death rates in the world due to combination of many elderly people and a weak health system. Average life expectancy is 74.5 years compared with an EU average of 80.2 years and a world average of 69 years." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Just dropping in for a minute, that's a good proposal. I'll take it into account, and will address the rest of the comments below tomorrow morning. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added comparative life expectancy figures and reworded the section somewhat. It should be less biased as it is now.

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Reading through now, prose is good, queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Bulgaria has a dynamic climate - what does this mean?

One that is not steady or firmly cyclical, but often shifts because of terrain features and geographic position. Maybe "diverse" would work better? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The word I would then use is "changeable" - it sounds like Melbourne, they say, "if you don't like the weather then wait five minutes..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Changed it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, missed this. no other prose clangers seen Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

• There is no proper map in the article, making it difficult to get an overview over the geographical features of the country. The featured article Germany, for example, includes a nice physical map. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I've added a topographic map and removed one of the images to avoid clutter. Labels on the map aren't very visible at this size, but increasing it sufficiently for that purpose would take a lot space.

Looks good! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "To mix" or "of mixed stock" is a disputed interpretation of the word referring to the supposed mixing of the Oghurs and the Huns that initiated the Bulgars' ethnogenesis. – Reading flow would be slightly better if it would be clear from the beginning that this is a different, alternative interpretation. One possibility would be to start the sentence with "Alternatively".
• Scholar Sanping Chen – Regarding the overview character of the article, I would mention his name only when the person is very notable regarding the topic; at the very least I would link him.

Reworded those two and removed the scholar's name - he has no Wiki page and it seems like he's narrowly specialised in the history of Inner Asia, so it would be better to leave the name out of that section.

• a proposed division within the Utigurs or Onogurs ("ten tribes").[13] – I can't follow this part, can this be made clearer? I would also add a brief explanation who those tribes are.

I tried explaining that without elaborating too much - let me know if it's understandable now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, understandable now, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fauna is primarily represented by owls, rock partridges, wallcreepers,[125] red deer, pheasants and jackals.[128] – This sentence has to be replaced. This is more of a random list of some species which occur there, but they are for sure not the primary components of the fauna. Wallcreepers, for example, only occur in some regions in the mountains. Instead, a sentence stating the total number of species of some major groups (maybe mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish) along with numbers of endemic species would be much better, and the same was done for plants and fungi.

IUCN figures unfortunately don't cover fungi, but they give a good idea about biodiversity. Formatted the fungi source.

• Normally, the prime minister–elect is the leader of the party receiving the most votes in parliamentary elections, although this is not always the case.[106] – Question: Is the president elected directly, or do Bulgarians only vote for a party?

Directly, which I pointed out.

• Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments – As you write "governments", you seem to be referring not only to the current one. Maybe give the approximate time frame?

That's a good question. With the exception of Boris III and Zhivkov, few governments in Bulgaria's modern history have been stable. Borisov is the only one since 1990 to win a consecutive mandate and that says a lot. Most other cabinets either resigned before their mandate ended or never got reelected. Maybe add "unstable governments since 1990"?

• However, his first government resigned on 20 February 2013 after nationwide protests caused by high costs of utilities, low living standards, corruption[147] and the failure of the democratic system. – I would be more prudent here: A resigning president is not characteristic for an democracy that literally "failed". It obviously did not fail yet.

That was the premier resigning. Then-president Plevneliev (previously part of the Borisov cabinet) assembled caretaker governments which prepared the elections Borisov won, and some of the interim ministers went on to serve in subsequent Borisov cabinets. Of course, it's not just him abusing authority, the amount of political fraud and violations is large enough to make a separate article of this size and more. But since all of this would weigh too much relative to the rest of the section, I've just added "perceived" before "failure of the democratic system" to add a nuance that can be elaborated on elsewhere.

• The legal system is one of Europe's most inefficient, and the lack of transparency and corruption are pervasive. – Puh, here again, I would be more careful. Disregarding if true or not, I would always say that this is the opinion of somebody, e.g. "is regarded … by both national and international media". I doubt that the government itself is of the same opinion, or that there are official EU sources stating this? This should not stand as fact, as this information is subjective since there is no objective measure for inefficiency, or is there?

The government doesn't really have a position on corruption. The current premier has consistently downplayed corruption allegations. Some government ministers go further by saying that corruption is merely a "newspaper item" in the country. Some former ministers in the Borisov cabinet admitted there is corruption and set up bodies to counter it, but Bulgaria has already set up an arsenal of such bodies that either don't investigate fully or ensure that judicial procedures don't go through, resulting in a disproportionately high number of acquittals. Either way, in a country where a tenth to a third of the population have, in some form, been associated with corrupt transactions (as consumers, benefactors, initiators or others), I think foreign media sources and analyses are far more reliable than anything the government would come up with as a statement or policy. But I've changed the statement to clarify that we're talking about opinions.

• EU institutions refrain from taking measures against Bulgaria because it is not seen by Brussels as a "problem country" like Poland or Hungary.[229] – Here I would not repeat the polemical language of the media ("problem country") and formulate it more objectively.

" EU institutions refrain from taking measures against Bulgaria because it supports Brussels on a number of issues, unlike Poland or Hungary." - kind of softer.

• of whom 6.8 per cent are employed in agriculture, 26.6 per cent are employed in industry and 66.6 per cent are employed in the services sector. – No need to repeat the "employed" here.

Fixed.

• Mortality rates can be significantly reduced with timely and adequate access to medical services, which the current healthcare system fails to provide.[310] – Again, I would take a step back and reformulate with a bit more distance. This wording ("fail") is not used by the EU source. The wording is quite absolute, and thus can't be precisely true (it might by substandard and not as good as it should be, but it surely does not fail completely in providing access to medical services).

As per above, I've changed wording in the paragraph to follow the source more closely. It does state that mortality rates can be slashed to sub-EU averages, which would be quite something if the system provided them adequately - but it does not.

• while death rates are among the highest.[308] – can you link "death rate"?

Done.

• Education in primary and secondary public schools is free – But it is mandatory?

Yep, added "compulsory".

• I think population density would be good to add; also how population compares to other European countries.

Quite low for Europe, it's mostly Nordic countries that have lower densities. Added.

• All in all, a well-written article, and one of the better reads I saw lately here on FAC. I learned a lot and feel well-informed. I do not think this norm was premature, as the remaining issues are of a sort that is difficult to detect without input from more extensive reviews. There are some issues with neutrality and subjectivity in some sentences as specified above. I however think that these are relatively easy to fix, and would therefore suggest to leave this nomination open for a little longer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully open to any further recommendations and remarks! - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the quick and throughout addressing of the points! Looks very good now, and I'm happy to support. Only one more thing: The partridges are a larger genus containing many species. Could you specify which species is meant? Is it the Grey partridge which is common throughout Europe? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! The source doesn't say. This article lists several types of gamebirds of which Grey partridges (яребица) are the most numerous. I did a search but no reliable sources come up other than the Statistics brochure. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

1a, lead:

• "Since the adoption of a democratic constitution in 1991, Bulgaria has functioned as a unitary parliamentary republic"—how can it be simplified? "Since adopting a democratic constitution in 1991, Bulgaria has been a unitary parliamentary republic"?

Sounds better.

• The lead tells us twice that Sofia is the capital and largest city. Why not just "Sofia" the second time?

Indeed.

• "The predominantly urbanized population of seven million people mainly inhabits the primary cities of the 28 provinces."—What are "primary cities"? If it's a technical thing (like state capitals), can you use a simipler wording? What about "mainly" instead of "predominantly": English is more elegant when it's plain and simple. Do we need "people" in this context? We're not referring to pet dogs, right? "inhabit" -> "live".

Those are provincial capital cities. Removed those words,

• "is largely based on services, agriculture, and a sizeable industrial sector focused on mining and machine building"—I'm going to be fussy here. Convince me that "largely" is needed; "based on" doesn't mean it's totally the list. Why is the industrial sector "sizeable"? Is that compared with what you'd expect as a proprotion of GDP/employment/whatever for a similar economy? By "industrial" I guess you mean "non-service", which is a good epithet nowadays.

Considering that services, agriculture and industry are the only three GDP composition markers, "larger" wouldn't be needed so I removed it. Same goes for "sizable", it arguably makes up a good chunk of GDP, but nothing unusual for an industrialised country. I reformulated the entire sentence, but kept industry and agriculture separate to keep in line with the rest of the article.

• "It is also notable for its biodiversity, its achievements in sports and science,"—we could dump "also", right? The claims on biodiversity, sports, and science are relative to other, similar countries, are they? "Notable" is a strong claim. Convince me its biodiversity is strong compared with Turkey's or Macedonia's.

Sorry for jumping in: According to this article, the biodiversity seems to be higher than average but not outstandingly high, I would therefore also suggest a slightly more prudent wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The IUCN source points out that 26% of European species and 2% of world species can be found in Bulgaria, which is a decent percentage. But it's still a bit peacocky. While Bulgaria did punch way above its weight in space exploration and the Olympics, that's relative to other countries and not an absolute value, so I've removed those from the intro. Cyrillic script is undoubtedly a significant contribution so I kept that but moved it in the historical paragraph.

• "However, it continues to struggle with crippling corruption and severe demographic decline." Is this proposition unexpected coming after the "notable" claims? Let's be precise about logical flow here.

Broke down that sentence and put the statements elsewhere.

How good is the rest of the prose?

It's been here for six weeks, with 123 edits by 23 unique users. Methinks it was a premature nomination. But that's water under the bridge now.

Just a meta-comment: I looked at articles on a few of the neighbouring countries and found evidence of templated, standardised structure, sequences of propositions, etc. ,,, at least in the leads. It would be nice if WP worked toward making country-articles less stratified. But that's not a formal part of my review. Tony (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Manual of Style. It's not the first time I'm nominating this article for FA so I've decided to follow the template and make it similar to other prefabricated FA country articles. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• "A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire with the minority Bulgars forming a ruling elite." Comma required before "with", unless there was more than one such empire. More seriously, though, is the claim that the Bulgars formed a ruling elite. Not all of them, surely. Every ethnic group has the usual human inequalities. Do you mean that the ruling elite comprised (?exclusively) members of the minority Bulgars?

Not all Bulgars were equal or at the helm, of course. But considering that they went as far as building their own settlements separate from those of the Slavs is telling. Bulgars were essentially a superior caste that governed a much larger, but poorly organised, ethnic Slav majority. Replaced it with "The minority Bulgars formed a close-knit ruling caste".

• "pushed the country into political turmoil as the war turned against Germany and the communist guerrilla movement"—to avoid our need to read on to get the right meaning, perhaps a comma before "and"?

Yup.

• "Bulgaria suffered little war damage and the Soviet Union demanded no reparations; however, all wartime gains, with the notable exception of Southern Dobrudzha, were lost." It's not a crime to use "but", even at the start of a sentence (not too much, though). You know you're itching to. The one after "royal elite" would be plainer and nicer for readers.

A bit too much? Maybe the first one should go.

• "political repressions were lessened"—bit clunky. they "eased"?

Done.

• "Both national and per capita GDPs quadrupled by the 1980s,[96] although severe debt spikes took place in 1960, 1977 and 1980." Quadrupled from what year-baseline? And both just happened to be quadrupled? Was there no population growth? Does this account for inflation? Suggest scrutinising the source(s) critically.

Compared to WWII levels. GDP per capita quadrupled, but upon reviewing the source more closely, national GDP increased five-fold. The figures are in 1990 international dollars, and over a population increase of some 20-25%. The source is based on Madison's work (the Historical Statistics segment), where similar growth rates are shown.

• "The Communist Party gave up its political monopoly on 10 November 1989 under the influence of the Revolutions of 1989." No one in history has ever given up power just because something influenced them. Rulers either die or are forced to give up power.

"Forced to give up"? Will address the other two in a bit.

• Ref 109: is "Voice of America" a reliable source? Whose concerns about corruption: I suppose Brussels' concerns?
• "The Constitution of Bulgaria also ..."—you could pipe it to "Constition" to avoid yet another iteration of the country-name.

Replaced it with another source and clarified that - the European Commission has been grilling all governments on that issue, to no result. Done. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As above, I do believe this should have been withdrawn and resubmitted ages ago. But now it's this far, power ahead (quick as you can, please). There are good things about the article. Tony (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Streamlining text whenever possible, but any additional feedback is more than welcome.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

• It looks like some work has been done by reviewers re. source reliability and formatting (e.g. by Dudley Miles) but is anyone prepared to sign their life away on that?

• I have checked when I had a query on the text, but not a general source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Also -- and I should've picked this up sooner -- I gather that this would be the nominator's first FA if successful, so I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Again, if any reviewer has done this to their satisfaction already, pls let me know.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I can add a quote to each citation if that would help with a source check. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Tks Toubillon, I'll leave it to the spotchecker, when they come on board, to respond to that.

@Nikkimaria and Tim riley: could one of you pls undertake a source review and spotcheck? Or perhaps split the two reviews between you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do a spotcheck, but it will have to wait till Wednesday, which is the next day I can fit in a visit to the British Library. Tim riley talk 12:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll go through the source formatting again because some content was added by other users during the FAC and I noticed some of it isn't formatted. Should be done by Sunday evening. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping me when that's done and I can take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Tks Tim and Nikki (and Tourbillon for your update). We've left this open quite a while but I felt it's been making steady progress to promotion, provided these last hurdles are overcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm thankful that it has been allowed some more time. A lot of the issues aren't difficult to address - I've just been short on time since two weeks or so, hence my slower response rate. I've gone through the book cites and purged a few sketchy sources while keeping the rest in line. Taking care of the other citations now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 05:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber and Nikkimaria: can I just check if you wanted to add anything here? I think we might finally be about done otherwise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Still a few outstanding points on the source review - mostly formatting but some missing authors that need to be tracked down. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just added all available authors. Some pages from a single source have an author while others don't (Britannica), so that's as far as consistency goes there, I'm afraid. All original titles have also been added, removed a few redundant sources and restored a link that had gone dead in the meantime. I'm on a limited time budget and don't use any tools to speed up editing or comb through the volume of text, hence the few lapses. Went through all sources and they should be alright now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08

I do not intend to provide a full review and give a support or oppose. Just a couple comments as I read through it:

• Per cent and percent are both used, probably best to choose one.
• Rewrite this "information and communication technologies sector" to this "information and communication technologies (ICT) sector" since you use the acronym later
• I am a space nerd, and I did not recognize B1029 at a first glance. You could remove it from the caption since it is a bit of excessive detail for this article. If you want to leave it you can, personal preference. "using a B1029 reusable booster, 2017"
• Did I miss something? Any reason this has five citations? "Bulgaria is also the largest producer globally of lavender and rose oil, both widely used in fragrances."

Let me know when (and if) you have addressed the issues. None are major, just some nits as I read through the article. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these, looking into the demographic chart now. It seems to be going up until 2013-2014, which is fairly recent for reliable data, but I'll try updating the chart if newer data is available. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated the chart with World Bank data. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The article looks great, I was not able to find any other issues with it. Kees08 (Talk) 19:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it!- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Source spot check

I have not, I probably needn't say, checked the few sources in Bulgarian. Of those in English, I have checked the following for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrase and found no problems: 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 41, 44, 48, 88, 90, 163, 225, 272, 349 , 357 and 360.

A few queries:

• Ref 200: lacks a link to the source, so can't easily be checked.
• Ref 271: the link doesn't take me to "The Golden Decades of Bulgarian Electronics" but to something in Bulgarian.
• Ref 328: wrong page number given. It should be p. 258.

Straying slightly from my present task of spot-checking, I cannot work out the rationale for when to quote the source verbatim in the citation (e.g. 18, 20, 26, 39, 337 etc) and when not to (most citations).

I may add that some of the piping has made checking quite difficult. I suggest that in an English Wikipedia article it is unhelpful to pipe a familiar name like Boris Christoff as "Boris Hristov" at ref 349 (And incidentally, while we're on opera singers, what happened to Ljuba Welitsch?) I can't say I'm wild about such links as those for Chen (8 and 12) which take you to a page mostly in Bulgarian when a perfectly good English alternative is available.

All that said, I found no serious cause for concern in the accuracy with which the sources are represented, nor did I find any over-close paraphrasing. – Tim riley talk 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added a source on ref 200. The titles of Bulgarian-language books/sources have been translated in English as per the previous FAC, hence the title on ref 271. Quotes are normally used for text that is not easily accessible, though in this case they've (probably) been added to strengthen a bolder statement. I could remove them if they're taking too much space. I've addressed the rest of your points - thanks for the spot check. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review - deferring to Tim on spotchecks.

• FN353 is dead and FN30 doesn't link anywhere
• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced, such as the % water
• For the See also section, if you're going to comment out some entries you should also comment out the bullet points

• Providing translated titles for Bulgarian works is great, but if you're going to do that you should do so consistently, and use |trans-title= rather than overriding the original

• Looks like this isn't yet being done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Still some not doing this, eg. 117. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There were a few of those, went through them.

• {{sfn}} cites to multiple pages should use |pp= rather than |p=

• Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links, and such links should be trimmed back to page

• FN16 is a section of a larger article

I've linked to the specific subsection whenever a URL tag/anchor is available.

• Publications like Britannica or New York Times should be consistently italicized, check throughout

• Not yet done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Italicized the several sources that were inconsistent. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Still some not yet done, eg. The Sofia Echo and The Telegraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Both are italicized?

They should be, but see for example FN237 and 343, among other examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ellipses at the beginning and end of quotes aren't needed

• Not yet done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed them - it wasn't using a quote= parameter so I hadn't spotted it in my previous search.

• Why so many citations to Britannica?

It's arguably the most neutral source on a number of historical topics and its easily accessible. It's also a much better alternative to far less reliable sources on sports and culture. There are 24 Britannica pages cited, which isn't much in a body of 350+ sources. Still, replaced some of them with Crampton's 1987 source. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• How are you deciding what ends up in Bibliography and what does not?

Books that are only used to source a single statement don't need to end up there, IMO. Bibliography is suitable for different chapters of a single work (LoC Country Study) or books with detailed information that can be further extracted to support a statement if need be. Alternatively, all books can be sent to Bibliography but it would then fill up with narrow sources, like those on space.

• FN58: author format doesn't match other refs

There was one "website=" that didn't match, but it was on a previous ref.

• Not yet done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The 1911 edition had an author, removed it.

And it's there again, to keep in line with all the authors added to other web sources.

• Brill or BRILL?

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated, and ranges should use ndashes throughout

• Not yet done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether book titles use title or sentence case

Fixed.

• FN95 is missing publisher

It's there - Siela.

Siela is 96, I'm looking at 95. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Edited it.

• FN100 is missing author, same with FN107, check for others

The LoC authors are listed in Bibliography; 107 is a web cite with no known author.

100 is not an LOC source, and opening the link provided for 107 shows an author listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Added author on all Reuters articles (whenever available).

Still some missing authors, eg. 143 (which appears to be the same as 144?) and 140. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added all available authors for all web citations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Still some missing, eg. FN342 and 353. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• What makes MeteorologyClimate a high-quality reliable source? 8 Magazine? Internetworldstats? Ertl? Lob and Smash? Karatay?

Ertl kind of seems okay, his book was published by Universal Publishers which seems fairly notable. Not so sure about Karatay. Removed 8 Magazine and the entire sentence, was redundant anyway. Replaced the other two sources with National Statistical Institute and ATP World Tour, which are far more reliable.

Notable doesn't necessarily mean reliable. What's their fact-checking process? What is Ertl's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed statements sourced by Karatay - a quick digging doesn't show any other authors agreeing with his hypotheses. Replaced Ertl with a book by Florin Curta.

• FN124-125: why is language here given outside the template?

• 124 not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• FN207 has odd italicization

• University of Chicago Press or University of Chicago press or The University of Chicago Press? Westview Press or Westview? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Working on these. Replaced all Google Books links with tag and page number using the {{Google Books}} template. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed these remarks, with some comments above. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Should be alright now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Repaired a few links along the way. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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