Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Union of Bulgaria and Romania/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Union of Bulgaria and Romania

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This article is a recent GA and I'm planning to nominate it to FA, so I will need a peer review. This page is currently nominated to be copyedited by the GOCE.

Thank you in advance. Super Ψ Dro 14:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) And please add the sidebar to your userpage so you can help out at Peer review! Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, what exactly do you mean by "add the sidebar to your userpage"? I have looked at the userpages of several other users that have nominated an article that is on that sidebar and no one seems to have added it. Super Ψ Dro 23:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was just a suggestion, you are of course, not required to add it to your userpage. Glad to see you're pursuing this one further Super Dromaeosaurus. Aza24 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was only a suggestion, as you get as good as you give on Wikipedia. The sidebar template is brand new, and has been added by five editors so far. The idea is to re-invigorate peer review. You can see the problem by scrolling down the PR column at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. My userpage is kind of compact and I don't think I have anywhere to add it, so I think I won't. Super Ψ Dro 14:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

edit

My general advice for FA aspirants is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. Although it is oriented mostly towards medical editors, the generalities and advice apply across the board. The additional links are must reading!

  • The image at the Initial proposals section is facing off the screen; if the image is moved to the right, it will be facing the text. Ditto at Bulgarian crisis of 1886–1887 section; that image could be moved to the left.
I do not understand this exactly. Do you mean it is sandwiching the text? Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not raising a sandwiching issue. It is preferable for the eyes of subjects to be facing the text rather than off the page ... that is solved, where possible, by just moving the image from the right to the left or vice-versa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 23:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed ... I am not sure why I am not making myself clear :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On non-English-language citations, please use the |trans-title= parameter in the citation template to provide an English-language translation to help out the English reader.
Personally I have never liked doing this and I have always preferred to leave the original titles. There is no example here but sometimes translating articles with long titles looks pretty bad.
I am not suggesting you should not use the original title. I am suggesting you should also provide the translation, by augmenting the |title= parameter with the |trans-title= parameter. See WP:NONENG; we should tell readers what the source is about. ~```
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 23:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Преброяване 2011 (окончателни данни)" (PDF) (in Bulgarian). National Statistical Institute. 2011. pp. 1–50. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2018. Fifty pages is a lot to look through; can you provide page ranges or section names (which can be added via loc= parameter).
Did you mention this for the 64th and 65th citations? There, I did not intend to cite any particular page.
I do not number footnotes in a review, as those numbers change as the page is edited. Instead, I list the specific citation (which is VERY hard to locate because it is not in English, while the short note is in English, saying Bulgarian census, which is confusing). How is the reader to go through 50 pages to find the cited information? Especially when it is not in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All those 50 pages are the Bulgarian census, it is not a section of that website. Super Ψ Dro 23:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the reason we provide page numbers is to satisfy WP:V policy. Let's take this example: "The number of people whose ethnicity has been registered in the 2011 censuses is 6,611,513[70]". I am guessing that is the number found on page 28, but since I can't read the text, it's a guess. Page numbers are needed for a 50-page document. Sample only. It is easy to put page nos in with sfn refs. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see the detail in the tables does include the page nos, so I think we're good and I missed it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 23 uses of the word however: see the top of User:SandyGeorgia for helpful links to reduce this scourge of Wikipedia.
I have removed a lot, there are only 6 left, but I would prefer if you took a look to see if the words and expressions I have used instead are valid or if it is better to go back to "however" in some cases.
  • There are 21 uses of the word also, which is almost always redundant: see the Tony1 exercises linked in my essay.
I've had more difficulties with "also", I only can think of using already used expressions like "as well" or "furthermore". Do you have any website like this one for "also"? It was useful to remove "however" in many of the cases.
  • Have a look at WP:WAW and MOS:BADITALICS; I did not spot any instances on a quick glance, but these are always an issue at non-English-language articles.
I have given a quick full read to the article and would say that there is no problem with this.
So,sorry, I gave the wrong link above ... should have been MOS:WAW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good use of Interlanguage links!
Thanks, it was actually another user's idea...
  • Have a look at MOS:LQ, logical quotation.
Good to see that there is a policy on this! I always hate to see "word." instead of "word".

I can't comment much on content or sources (not my area), but the writing (except for the howevers) is competent, and the article appears well prepared. I do suggest taking the advice in my essay and combing through WP:FA to find someone familiar with this area and approach them about a review. I am unsure if this is in the territory of Kaiser matias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Sandy. I'm far from an expert on the topic, but have a passing understanding of the region, and it looks like an interesting topic so I'd be happy to offer some comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your advises for FAC nominations (and the whole the page) and I have to say it is pretty helpful. I have already written a FA, so I do not see it necessary to ask for a mentor, but I have requested a review on the MOS because I have never paid too much attention to it (one of the few rules I remember is not to add periods at one-sentence image thumbnails or something like that). Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaiser matias, you said that you would perhaps take a look on this. Are you still interested in doing so? Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it slipped my mind. I'll go through it later today, thanks for the reminder. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kaiser matias

edit

As you are planning to take this to FAC, I have gone through as I would there. I'll also note again that while I have a basic knowledge of the region, I'm far from an expert.

I've got a problem here in which you might help. Alex Mihai Stoenescu, when mentioning that a Bulgarian-Romanian union could have prevented WWI, says that to this can be added the preservation of Greece in the Western sphere of influence and "formațiunile statale iugoslave". This translates as Yugoslav state formations, but I don't understand what did he exactly mean. I have thought that he meant the formation of Yugoslavia, but he says "formations" in plural, so it is possible that he meant the states that were formerly Yugoslav when he published the book (aka Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc.), but this doesn't make much sense. Do you have any idea what it could mean?
In case you need more context, the full sentence is "Existenţa unui astfel de stat tampon, un stat mare, care ar fi controlat tot malul estic al Mării Negre, formaţiunile statale iugoslave şi conservarea Greciei în sfera de influenţă occidentală, ar fi împiedicat probabil declanşarea primului război mondial" ("The existence of such a buffer state, a large state, which would have controlled the entire eastern shore of the Black Sea, the Yugoslav state formations and the preservation of Greece in the sphere of Western influence, would probably have prevented the outbreak of World War I".). Super Ψ Dro 19:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also unsure whether to use "Bulgarian–Romanian" or "Bulgarian-Romanian". Is there any policy regulating this? Super Ψ Dro 00:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Yugoslav state formations" that could just mean the single Yugoslav state. It did go through a process to become one state in the post-war era (what with Serbia incorporating Montenegro, and acquiring Croatia and Bosnia, and starting as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes before renaming it). That could be what he is referring to, but I am not familiar enough with it to say for sure. As for the name of the article, whatever the sources use would be most appropriate, though I am curious if that is influenced by the origin of the sources (do Bulgarian sources put Bulgaria first, and Romanians do the same for Romania?)
It still feels weird to me... Of course the formation of Yugoslavia would prevent WWI, it is what caused it (indirectly) in the first place! Not sure what to do here. And yes, Romanian sources usually put Romania first and vice versa with Bulgaria. In fact, I had to be careful when writing the article because I wanted to follow an alphabetical order but I almost always wrote Romania first. But I don't mean the title of the article, but whether I should use "-" (a dash) or "-" (a hyphen) in the body of the article. Super Ψ Dro 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian principality in 1878, relations with Romania were enhanced." Feel you should also mention Romania was made independent in 1881 as well here, seeing how it was earlier noted to be part of the Ottoman Empire.
Done. By the way, in 1881, the kingdom was declared, but Romania gained complete independence in 1878. Super Ψ Dro 14:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While this crisis was taking place, Stefan Stambolov, a Russophobe (name of any Bulgarian who opposed Russian policies), ended up taking power." The part in italics seems out of place here, and may be better served to note later in the article; you can get into the anti-Russian sentiment in Bulgaria there. I also note the following sentence says Stambolov became regent; if that is true I would amend the first sentence to be clear on that: "...Stambolov, a Russophobe, ended up taking power as regent."
I did that last suggestion, but it is better to keep the explanation of what a Russophobe meant then so as not to portray Stambolov as some kind of racist against the Russian people.
  • " Carol I would be the head of such state..." Don't need the link to head of state there, for two reasons: head of state is a fairly common term; and I initially thought it would link to an article about a Bulgarian-Romanian head of state, and feel many others would too (see WP:EASTEREGG for why that is not so good).
Removed link.
  • "Again, a German prince, Ferdinand I, was elected prince of Bulgaria in June 1887." This should be reworded, as it currently sounds like another German prince was elected in 1887; something better would be "In June 1887 a new German prince, Ferdinand I, was elected prince of Bulgaria."
The prince that was elected in 1879 was a German, hence the "again".
  • "...crossed the Danube and later established a state in the area, with capital at Pliska." Need a definite article relating to the capital: "...with (a/their; either one works) capital at Pliska."
I went with "its".
  • "They began to assimilate into the Slavic culture brought there one century earlier..." Reword to "They began to assimilate with the Slavic culture..."
Done.
  • "However, this state disappeared in 1018." States don't traditionally "disappear". If I'm reading correctly it was mostly subsumed by the Byzantines, and if so that should be clearer.
I cannot find any sentence directly saying that the Byzantine Empire defeated the empire in Madgearu's book, but I changed "disappeared" to "defeated".
  • "One of the earliest proposals was that of the Greek with Aromanian origins Rigas Feraios during the 1790s..." Reword: "One of the earliest proposals came during the 1790s from Rigas Feraios, a Greek with Aromanian origins, ..."
Done.
  • "On the other side, the Bulgarian liberation movement of the 19th century, with similar goals to the Romanians, was very focused on allying or uniting with practically all its neighbors to accomplish them, be they Romanians, Serbs, Greeks and even Turks." This reads awkwardly. I'd suggest something like: "The Bulgarian liberation movement had similar goals as the Romanians, but looked at allying or uniting with nearly all its neighbors, be they Romanians, Serbs, Greeks, even Turks, to do this."
I wrote a sentence mixing elements of the original one and the one you suggested.
  • "...he started perceiving the country as a favorable option for the Bulgarians." This can be improved: "...he started to see the country as a favorable option for Bulgarian liberation."
Done, but I changed that sentence a bit.
  • "...but future historians have described that he sought a "Bulgarian-Vlach dualism" model." Can omit the word "future" here.
Removed.
  • "...Kasabov proposed that Romania supported a Bulgarian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire (since a Bulgarian entity did not yet exist) to divert attention from the coup in Bucharest." Two things: the tense should be changed: "Kasabov proposed that Romania support a Bulgarian rebellion..."; and the parenthesis seems redundant here, as it's already been made clear Bulgaria is still part of the Ottoman Empire, so it doesn't need to be repeated here.
Fixed the first. I'm not so sure that it is clear whether a Bulgarian state or province or something existed or not, I think it is better to keep that part since at the end of the background section I mention the principality of Bulgaria, which might confuse readers.
  • "...relations between Bulgarians and Romanians considered the option of unification several times between the 1860s and 1870s..." It wouldn't be "relations" that considered the option of unification, as that isn't a group or person; who is this referring to?
I checked what did the original source say and I have rewritten the sentence.
  • "With the emergence of Bulgaria as an autonomous (but yet not independent) principality in 1878, the mostly federalist proposals with Romania were replaced by the possibility of a personal union. Bulgaria, which appeared after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 and 1878 against the Ottomans, was looking for candidates for the Bulgarian throne." These sentences should be reversed to go chronologically: start with noting that Bulgaria became an autonomous state in 1878, and then go into the relationship with Romania as well as the Bulgarian search for a prince. An example: "Bulgaria was established as an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire in 1878, a consequence of the Russo-Turkish War. The emergence of the Bulgarian principality saw the federalist proposals with Romania replaced by the possibility of a personal union, as Bulgaria began to look for a suitable prince."
Done. I have made some changes to say that Bulgaria was no longer directly part of the Ottoman Empire. It was not an "autonomous province", but rather a vassal.
  • "Carol I, Prince and later King of Romania since 1866..." This reads like Carol was king since 1866, when he did not do so until 1881. If you want to note he became king this needs to be clarified: "Carol I, Prince of Romania since 1866 (he was proclaimed king in 1881)..."
Done.
  • "... Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev, Russian diplomat in the Ottoman Empire..." Wasn't Ignatyev the Russian ambassador? That could be made clearer there.
You're right, done.
  • "According to Romanian sources, during the end of the war, Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev, Russian diplomat in the Ottoman Empire, this allegedly never happening due to the Romanian-Russian dispute over Southern Bessarabia." I'm confused by the use of "allegedly" here; you state "Romanian sources" for this quote, so who alleges otherwise?
Removed, I guess I thought it was necessary to specify "allegedly" when I wrote that part.
  • "Before the election of the first Bulgarian prince started, Carol I was among the nominations." Can be fixed up: "Carol I was a nominee in the election of the first Bulgarian prince."
Not done, Carol I did not participate in the election, he was only a proposed candidate before it happened.
Thanks for clarifying.
  • "Later, it was also proposed that Carol I adopted Alexander to unite the two countries..." Should be adopt here.
Done.
  • "Between 1886 and 1887, Bulgaria would suffer a crisis. Russia accused Alexander of opposing the country, effectively dividing the population of Bulgaria between Russophobes (supporters of Alexander) and Russophiles (supporters of Russian policies)." The first sentence has an odd tense, and can be merged with the second to be clearer: "Between 1886 and 1887 Bulgaria faced a crisis as Alexander was accused by Russia of opposing them. This effectively divided Bulgaria between Russophobes (supporters of Alexander) and Russophiles (supporters of Russian policies)."
Done.
  • "The crisis began on 9 August 1886, when Russophiles made a coup that forced Alexander to abdicate, this being followed by another coup by Russophobes that restored Alexander as monarch. Russia disapproved all of these events, which made Alexander abdicate again on 25 August." Reword: "The crisis began on 9 August 1886 when Russophiles launched a coup that forced Alexander to abdicate; this was followed by a Russophobe counter-coup that restored Alexander (note: when did that happen? It's not clear). Russia disapproved of these events and forced Alexander to abdicate again on 25 August (note: how did they do that?)."
Done.
I just realized that I did not answer the questions here, sorry for that. The source doesn't specify when so I can't put it, but it was in 17 August. I have added "immediately" (as used in the source) to clarify that it happened shortly after the first coup. Regarding the other, apparently Russia simply by disapproving of the events made Alexander abdicate. Perhaps Bulgaria was so dependent on Russia at the time Alexander realized resisting could have negative consequences or something... The wording was changed by the copyeditor, is it clearer? Super Ψ Dro 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bulgaria, still controlled by Russophobes, had Stefan Stambolov as regent, who took power." Can be improved: "Bulgaria was still controlled by Russophobes, and Stefan Stambolov, who was regent, took power."
The copyeditor rewrote the sentence. Is it better? Super Ψ Dro 13:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks.
  • "The initiative of a Bulgarian–Romanian union was received with enthusiasm in Bulgaria, either by the press, by politicians or by the citizens themselves." Try: "The initiative of a Bulgarian-Romanian union was received with enthusiasm in Bulgaria, including the press, politicians, and population at large."
Also fixed by copyeditor.
  • " Negotiations were held in 1886 to determine how would a dual Bulgarian–Romanian state be like." Reword: "Negotiations were held in 1886 (note: with whom? It isn't clear who is negotiating) to determine how a dual Bulgarian-Romanian state would work."
Fixed by copyeditor. Source doesn't specify who negotiated with whom.
  • "... but would be the first step towards a future strongly anti-Russian Balkan confederation." This can be improved: "...but would be the first step towards a strong anti-Russian Balkan confederation."
Fixed by copyeditor.
  • "Whether this was true is questionable." Why? Should clarify this.
Done.
  • " It is thought that Russia could have been involved in this..." Simplify" "It is thought that Russia was involved in this..."
Not done, I think that using "was" implies more force in the belief that Russia orchestrated the act, which is not known.
Fair enough
  • "...since it happened shortly after the events in Bulgaria." Does this mean the coup attempts? A little unclear what "events" are.
Yeah, changed to "political events".
  • "Regarding Bulgaria, in November 1886, Russia broke relations with it until 1896." Again can be simplified: Russia also broke off relations with Bulgaria in November 1886; they would not be restored until 1896."
I think the current version is fine.
  • "Such was the position of a Romanian minister whose identity was never revealed." I'm not sure what this means. I think it is about the Northern Dobruja question, but as it is seems irrelevant; I think it could be removed completely.
Yes, it refers to Northern Dobruja. At that time, Dobruja was still a complicated subject between Bulgaria and Romania, perhaps comparable to the Kosovo problem but on a smaller scale. I think it should be kept.
Thanks for the clarification. If you want to keep it then it could still be worded a little clearer. You could say something like "A Romanian minister, whose identity was never revealed, thought there was a chance Romanians would oppose a possible union..."
The source is not completely clear but I think the minister referred to the Northern Dobruja issue, not also to the Bulgarians possibly influencing Romanian politics, so I rewrote the sentence accordingly. Super Ψ Dro 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 10 June 1887, Russia threatened Romania with the breaking of diplomatic relations." Can be simplified: "On 10 June 1887 Russia threatened to break off diplomatic relations with Romania."
Fixed by copyeditor.
  • "...who informed him that Russia will invade Bulgaria and Romania if he does not reject the Bulgarian crown offer." Use past tense: "...who informed him that Russia would invade Bulgaria and Romania if he did not reject the offer of the Bulgarian crown."
Fixed by copyeditor.
  • "...informed on 15 June to Russia that he would not accept a Bulgarian–Romanian state without Russian consent..." Awkward, and can be fixed: "...informed Russia on 15 June that he would not accept a Bulgarian-Romanian state without Russian consent..."
Fixed by copyeditor.
  • "For the following decades, the federalization of the Balkans remained as a prominent idea..." Clear up: "In the following decades the federalization of the Balkans remained a prominent idea..."
Fixed by copyeditor.
  • "...dividing the Balkans between "winner" and "loser" countries. This also included Bulgaria and Romania." Can be combined: "...dividing the Balkans between "winner" and loser" countries, including Bulgaria and Romania."
Fixed by copyeditor.
  • "Both countries would be confronted again between 1916 and 1918 during World War I..." Do you mean "Both countries would fight again between 1916 and 1918..."?
Yes, copyeditor replaced "confronted" by "in conflict".
  • World War II seems to be skipped over, and I'm curious why. Both notably were part of the Axis and made considerable territorial gains in those years; was there any discussions about their union during this time? Either way that this important period is largely ignored, except for a brief mention of Romania fighting the Soviet Union.
WWII is not really relevant in this subject, Romanian-Bulgarian relations worsened a bit after Romania had to cede Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria. Also, I doubt that the fascist leaders of the time had any intention of joining another country. It is true that both countries had important territorial changes, but I do not see them necessary to be mentioned.
  • "The reasons, therefore, why a Bulgarian–Romanian union failed to appear are several." The paragraph following this is rather analytical; if you're going to analyze why the union failed, there should be specific mentions of what others have said. More than just citations, it should have either quotes or summaries from named individuals, otherwise it becomes less encyclopedic and more like original research.
There is a couple of pages at the end of the cited source that does an analysis of why the idea failed, so it isn't OR. I only took parts of the pages above where these reasons are explained in more detail to make a longer text.
If that's the case I would make it clearer it comes from the cited sources. "Historian(?) Blagovest Nyagulov has suggested that the unionist proposals always came from the Bulgarian side..." Going like that makes it clear it is coming from the sources.
Done.
  • Bulgarian northwest controversy: This whole section looks a little unusual in context to the article. Looking at it I would think it could be condensed into one sentence and added to the "Failure" section. Giving it such weight here seems WP:UNDUE and not that important to the overall article.
I agree with you on that it is a bit inadequate, but I don't know if fully removing this is the best solution. I plan to wait for this issue to be discussed in the FA review. I've anyway already thought of a replacement in case I need to remove the section.
I do see how it is relevant, I just think it is given more coverage than is due here. But yes, if you bring the article to FAC another opinion would be good to have.
I think the terms that the copyeditor removed are fine and I also see concepts such as "federation" as not overlinking.
  • I would also say I noticed a lot of use of gerunds (verbs ending -ing), and think they could be reworked to past simple tense (gaining vs. gained; uniting vs. united, etc). That is something I would not be good for helping with, but would suggest perhaps taking the article to the Guild of Copy Editors for some help. They might also help clean up the wording a bit more than I have. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist, I'm not sure if you've seen this point, but since you are currently copyediting this article, can you fix this as well? Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus I didn't read this until you pointed it out. I will have changed any inappropriate verbs. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Super Ψ Dro 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser matias, all points have been addressed. Pinging since I'm not sure if you have kept seeing this review. Note the two issues I've pointed out at the start of this subsection. Super Ψ Dro 14:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did have the page watched but glad to know you're done. I'll take a look within the next day, but if I don't say anything within 24 hours of now please remind me. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I left some remarks above, and do find the article to be a lot better now. One thing I did forget to note before though is the sourcing: I wanted to comment that I'm glad you used sources from both sides (Bulgarian and Romanian), though the heavy reliance on one source (Nyagulov) is a bit concerning. I realise this is a rather niche topic, but if there is anyway to incorporate a bit more different sources I think it would really help things (though I'll concede that may be difficult). I see you have used both Bulgarian and Romanian-language sources, and while I also realise there may be issues using sources in those languages for a topic like this, is there anything in either there that may be useful here? Kaiser matias (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nyagulov's article is full of quotations to other Bulgarian-language articles, so I assume that most of the Bulgarian articles talking about the topic that can be found are comprehended in Nyagulov's. I also did a fast search in Bulgarian on Google/Google Scholar to see if I could find something relevant when writing the article and there was nothing special. I may get more if I search for example "Bulgaria" and "Carol I" in Bulgarian or something like that, but having no knowledge of Bulgarian and not knowing Cyrillic makes it difficult to me. Super Ψ Dro 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Understandable, and thanks for the clarification. I think I've done what I can here, but if you do go onto FAC, feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to give it one final look over there, with an eye towards supporting promotion. Best of luck. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I will. Thank you for this review! Super Ψ Dro 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

edit
Background
edit
  • Their state, the First Bulgarian Empire, expanded its territory north of the Danube to the Tisza River and, during the 9th century, covered the territory of present-day Romania. Does this statement present a consensual view? Was actually the territory of present-day Romania whenever included in the First Bulgarian Empire? Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was. I haven't seen anyone doubting about this earlier, I thought it was considered a fact. If it helps in any way, the author of the quoted source was not a Bulgarian, but an American with some pro-Romanian views apparently. Super Ψ Dro 11:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hitchinson writes "most of present-day Romania" (Hitchinson (2014), p. 16.). Victor Spinei on the same issue: "it is ... wrong to assume that ninth-century Bulgaria included all territoris on the left bank of the Danube now inhabited by Romanians" (Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. BRILL. p. 60. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). István Bóna also emphasizes that Bulgarian influence can only be detected in southern Transylvania (Bóna, István (1994). "From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271–895)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 62–106 (specifically, pp. 102–103). ISBN 963-05-6703-2.). What is for sure, that Bulgarians and Romanians lived in the same state during the period of the first and second Bulgarian empires. However, (1) which territories to the north of the Danube were incorporated in Bulgaria is unclear; (2) whether Romanians lived in the same territory is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's surprising. Alright then, I rewrote the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bulgarians strongly enforced Slavic and Christian influences and culture over the Daco-Romans, the Romanians' ancestors. Does this statement present a consensual view? Yes, the Bulgarian strongly influenced the Romanians' ancestors, but it is unclear whether the Daco-Romans were the Romanians' ancestors. A footnote does not solve this issue. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Should I merge the note and talk in the section about the oppossing theory or just delete the information about the Daco-Romans (and the note)?
We can say that the Bulgarians influenced the Romanians ancestors, without naming them as Daco-Romans (because it is a PoV statement). Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, removed, but doesn't that imply the same thing after all? Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vlachs (Romanians) are thought to have had numerous participants in this rebellion... If my understanding is correct, this is the mainstream view in international scholarship. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • ...some sources claim that its first leaders, the brothers Ivan Asen I, Kaloyan and Peter II, had Vlach origins. Actually, all primary sources say that they were of Vlach origin and their (at least partially) Vlach ancestry is treated as a fact in mainstream international literature. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • They played a decisive role during the creation of the new empire, with its first leaders, the brothers Ivan Asen I, Kaloyan and Peter II, having had Vlach origins. I think this is a good summary, but it could be challenged based on books that say they were actually of Bulgarian or Cuman origin. We could say primary sources unanimously describe them as Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, a preview of Madgearu's book mentions this title and the page on which it is mentioned, so I can cite it, but it doesn't say who had it. The sentence after that says "That is most likely why following his defeat and capture by John Tzimiskes in 971, Emperor Boris II was symbolically deprived of..." and the preview ends there. It doesn't seem like it is referring to Kaloyan.
Do I mention it then? Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the article's context it is quite relevant. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. What does "Caloihannes" mean? I want to translate the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Kaloyan. I think the title should be translated: "Emperor Kaloyan, Lord of All Bulgarians and Vlachs". Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out Nyagulov's article also mentioned a similar title given to Kaloyan by a Pope. I've added it as well. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is unneccesary.
I don't fully understand what do you mean here, but I think it's unnecessary as well.
The section deals with the cohabitation of Bulgarians and Vlachs (Romanians). Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Romanian toponyms in Bulgaria, south of the Danube? Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to find any of free public access. I have found a study literally dedicated to the Non-Romanian Romance place names in Bulgaria, but not one focused on the Romanian ones. Madgearu doesn't mention any either. The word "toponym" is not mentioned in his book and "place name" does not say anything about Romanian topoynms. Which are they? I would expect just a few near Vidin, the Danube shores and maybe a couple in the Balkan Mountains. Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sources may be useful:
    • Nandris, Grigore (December 1951). "The Development and Structure of Rumanian". The Slavonic and East European Review. 30 (74): 7–39.
    • Wilkes, John (1992). The Illyrians. ISBN 978-0-631-19807-9.
    • Sălăgean, Tudor (2005). "Romanian Society in the Early Middle Ages (9th–14th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). pp. 133–207. ISBN 9789737784124. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The Turkish Ottoman Empire defeated the Bulgarian empire... Was it an empire? It was the last remnant of the empire that had disintegrated into small realms decades before. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The leader still used the title of Tsar (Emperor), so I think it can be considered an empire. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last king of Hungary still used the following titles in 1918: "By the Grace of God Apostolic King of Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Rama, Serbia, Bulgaria, Cumania, Halycz and Lodomeria". Could we refer to him as "the ruler of large regions of the Balkans, Central Europe and Eastern Europe"? Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, replaced by "state". Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, I didn't see this one before. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
It was an idea that had several proposals to be carried out. Clarified.
  • ... particularly those of the Austrian (or Austro-Hungarian) and Ottoman empires... 1. Both Austrian and Austro-Hungarian are anachronistic in the context. Perhaps Habsburg Empire? 2. What about the Russian Empire? From the 1780s, the Ottomans were in the defence against Russian ambitions. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First done, second not done, Russia is not mentioned among those countries in the source.
Not really... the source doesn't mention them either.
I could mention the Romanian intellectuals or Georgi Sava Rakovski mentioned in the section below. Would it be considered OR? Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand why it could be considered as OR? Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because no examples are given right after that is said. I have added some persons that appear in some pages below in the source but not many since I did not want to present important figures for the article (such as Georgi Sava Rakovski) in that paragraph. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • The beginnings of Bulgarian independence are not mentioned. We are informed that Bulgarian is occupied by the Ottomans, now we are informed that Bulgarian and Eastern Rumelia are united. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romanians usually consider the brief union of the principalities of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania of 1600 under Michael the Brave the first Romanian national union. Is this PoV statement relevant in the article's context? Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is harmful, it is specified in the text that it is a Romanian view. I clarify that this is not OR, the author of the quoted source also mentioned this and related it to the Bulgarian unification.
Removed. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Does the map present a consensual scholarly view? That Wallachia was included in the Second Bulgarian Empire is not widely accepted in international scholarship. Borsoka (talk)
I fixed the map, it will take some time for it to load. Do you know anything about the Bulgarian rule over Bessarabia? I am surprised that the second empire had reached modern-day Bolgrad. Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author has reverted the map to the older version. Can you provide me sources to restore the version without Wallachia? Super Ψ Dro 13:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John A. Finey, Jr. writes that Kaloyan never occupied lands to the north of the Danube, and mentions that Theodore Svetoslav seized southern Bessarabia (Fine, John V. A. Jr. (1994) [1987]. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08260-4., pp. 55, 228-229). Madgearu says that Oltenia (a part of Wallachia) could have been part of the second Bulgarian empire for shorter periods (Madgearu (2016), pp. 132, 134, 207, 274). István Vásáry describes Wallachia as a borderland between Hungary and the Golden Horde after the 1241 Mongol invasion of Europe, and he also clarifies that the region's history isnot well documented (Vásáry, István (2005). Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge University Press. pp. 148-149). ISBN 0-521-83756-1.. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally addressed this point. I had to upload a different file, though. Super Ψ Dro 23:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History
edit
Removed. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing the policies against the influence of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and for independence from the Ottomans that were taking place in the Romanian United Principalities, he began to see the country as a favorable option for the liberation of the Bulgarians. Consider rewording and also explaining the reference to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how should I rewrite this sentence to be honest, it's been problematic since the very start. And I don't know very well what I could say about the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The original source doesn't say too much about it. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to establish an autocephalous Romanian Orthodox Church was in the background: "On 3 December 1864, the independence of the Orthodox Church and the establishment of its General Synod were proclaimed, which caused a conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarch. On 11 January 1865, the Metropolitan of Vallachia (sic) was awarded the title of Primate Metropolitan." (Păcurariu, Mircea (2007). "Romanian Christianity". In Parry, Ken (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 187–206 (on page 198). ISBN 978-0-631-23423-4.) Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally say its a bit excessive but it was unclear even for me why was it mentioned, so I've added it. Is the year 1864 accurate? I planned to add it to the text but the Romanian Orthodox Church page doesn't mention this year at all. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it a bit excessive, but if the conflict with the Ecumenical Patriarchate is mentioned, a more detailed explanation can hardly be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version is good. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The original source says "His newspaper had set itself the aim to protect the interests and the rights of etc.". I've reworded the sentence so it's less vague. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a simple sentence ("The newspaper defended the rights..."), but this is not a serious issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if he actually achieved anything regarding the rights of both peoples so I can't add that. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..."Bulgarian-Vlach dualism"... Explain it (dualism is a well known political concept in this part of Europe because of Austria-Hungary, but not in other parts of the world). Was Rakovski influenced by the example of the dualistic Austria-Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rakovski died some months before Austria-Hungary was established, so most likely not. I added an explanation of "dualism". Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dualism refers to the personal union between two states... Are you sure "personal union" is the best description: the unions between Norway and Sweden and between Austria and Hungary exceeded the level of a personal union. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How could I describe it then? Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a real union? Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Real union isn't mentioned in any source, but I guess not everything has to be sourced, so done. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned about a possible Ottoman retaliation,... For what? (I think you refer to Cuza's deposition without the Sultan's consent, but this is unclear for readers with no background information.) Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's clearer. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One document entitled the Act for Sacred Coalition between Romanians and Bulgarians settled this. 1. Was this a draft? 2. Did it settle anything? We are informed in a subsecuent sentence, that it was never accepted. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Bulgarian and Romanian [committees] prepared a document called "Act for Sacred Coalition between Romanians and Bulgarians" " I guess it was a draft then? I've rewrote the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I've got some doubts about this. Is "draft" a common, ambiguous word or is it precise? I don't want to call it like that without knowing if its appropiate to do so. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think draft/drafting what you want to say ([1]): a document that was never formally accepted can only described as a draft. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it can be used then. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do this, I am not given prior information, the information about the committees is suddenly introduced in the source. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The committees should be introduced in some way, because their role is unclear. I hope the following work is useful: [2] (page 32).Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link of the book you sent me only allows me to see page 44 and below, I've also found this one [3] but I can't see anything after page 28.
I understand but commitees come out of the blue in the article, without explaining their role. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How did you access those pages? Perhaps you passed the wrong link or something like that? I think that changing the country of Google changes the preview, since the Hungarian version allows me to see the map at page 30 as well. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bulgarian Committee in Bucharest had to rely on two other committees in Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, to support them until they had funds of their own and, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, establish "autonomous and independent states" that would unite as one "confederation". Consider rewording, because it is unclear. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source says. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think signed is the most appropiate word here. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "their" to "its" as "their" was an error, but I'm not sure what else should I change. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrase is good. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I don't understand the error here. The Bulgarians did want a state. Maybe the word "pretended" is the issue? Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the definition of the word and apparently it is different from the word in Spanish for example. Replaced by "aimed". Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, cooperation between Balkan countries was hampered because of their great ambitions, which affected the Bulgarian national movement, considering "late" in its development. Rephrase. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the first half of the sentence, but I'm not sure how to fix the rest. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, now it should be good. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the sentence wants to say, that each nation wanted to establish a national state that included large territories and the territorial ambitions could hardly be harmonized. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the wording on the original source is pretty unspecific: "Major obstacle to the cooperation between the Christian nations and the young national states in the Balkans were the ambitions of creating "great powers" based on the so-called historical right". Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added "conflicting territorial ambitions". Is it good? Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added that word because it looked a bit weird to me to say "as Bulgaria looked for a prince", but I can remove the word if you want me to. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure then, removed. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This did not mean that Carol I was the only Romanian proposed for the Bulgarian throne, as a naturalized Frenchman with Romanian origins, Gheorghe G. Bibescu, son of Gheorghe Bibescu, a former Wallachian prince between 1843 and 1848, was discussed. Rephrase. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now? Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source only says "French statesman Léon Gambetta and / or some Austrian political circles". Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Hitchins mentions in page 151 that "When King Carol died on October 10, 1914, Brătianu took full charge of foreign policy. Although his sympathies lay with the Entente, neither he nor Carol's successor, his nephew, Ferdinand, had any intention of abandoning neutrality". I assume this is too vague to be added. Super Ψ Dro 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source says: "also as a step towards the creation of a confederation of the Balkan states with strong anti-Russian orientation". I doubt that by "confederation of the Balkan states" they referred to just Bulgaria and Romania, so I assume it means a posterior confederation between more states. Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That a Bulgarian-Romanian union would be the first step for an anti-Russian Balkan confederation. I rewrote the sentence, is it better? Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still do not understand. I assume the previous sentence should be rewritten: for the time being it presents a fact, while this sentence questions a scholarly PoV. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The willingness of the regents to see the Romanian king as sovereign of Bulgaria was not only regarded as an opportunity to resolve the “Bulgarian crisis,” but also as a step towards the creation of a confederation of the Balkan states with strong anti-Russian orientation." This is was the source says. Maybe it can be rewritten a bit but there's not much else that can be done to the sentence. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The regents. Clarified. Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's neccessary to remind it, readers might not remember that from the start of the article. I simplified that part of the text. Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on keeping that part. Readers might be confused about this vassal thing later on the communist period section, and the sentence is much more summarized than before anyway. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a chance Romanians would oppose a possible union because of fear the Bulgarians could influence Romanian politics and, just like a Romanian government minister whose identity was never revealed stated, to preserve Northern Dobruja, with a Bulgarian ethnic minority, under Romanian control. Rephrase. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do this. I already had to rephrase it with the earlier reviewer. Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now? Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the source says "Arbore demască activitatea de spionaj a Rusiei pe teritoriul României" (Arbore unmasks Russia's espionage activity on Romanian territory). Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 10 June 1887, Russia threatened to break diplomatic relations with Romania. Carol I contacted German and Austro-Hungarian representatives, who informed him that Russia would invade Bulgaria and Romania if he did not reject the Bulgarian crown's offer. Russia saw such a proposal as a violation of the Treaty of Berlin. Rephrase. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a German, Ferdinand I of Bulgaria... German? Ferdinand I of Bulgaria could not be elected as the ruler of Bulgaria (he adopted the name after his election). Could you explain why he was chosen as the new prince? Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added all the information I could from the source. Wasn't he an ethnic German? Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was quite international. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "from Germany". Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of dualism. Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source literally says Yugoslavia and Bulgaria did. I could maybe say Yugoslav and Bulgarian leaders. What do you think about it? Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Bulgaria had already recovered Southern Dobruja earlier on 7 September 1940, when the Treaty of Craiova was signed. I think this info should be mentioned in the section's first paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I included it there, I would also have to talk briefly about WW2 and the third paragraph would be less fluid. I think it's better this way. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced by leaders. Super Ψ Dro 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "the" for "this", is it clearer? Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the relations between Bulgaria and Romania, yes, they improved quite quickly mainly at the initiative of Georgi Dimitrov and they have remained that way until today. If you mean how both countries treated the USSR, this is also true throughout the communist period. Bulgaria was always friendly towards them and even proposed to be the 16th republic. On the other hand, once it was given more autonomy, Romania tried to separate itself from the USSR as much as possible until it disappeared. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is a problem with the subsection as many people have noted already. Most likely it needs some change, yes, but I plan to bring the problem up in the FA review. You can propose a solution there if you want. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how could I change it, I think its good. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting article. I think a thorough copyedit could improve it before its GAN. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you as well for the review. I can say that it has been one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive ones that I have had and I can say without a doubt that it has notably improved the article. Regarding the copyedit, yes, I will give the article some definitive fixes to it before nominating it to FA, but that'll be once this peer review is closed. Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Union_of_Bulgaria_and_Romania/archive1&oldid=1002441894"