Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romanian general election, 1946/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Romanian general election, 1946[edit]

A very well-referenced, detailed and well-structured article about one of the most significant elections in Romania's history. Ronline ✉ 07:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could some of the redlinks be at least stubbed? Is 'crushing majority' appropriate language? Is "In August 1946, Berry attested that Groza intended to tighten connections with other countries occupied by the Red Army, as the basis for a customs union." <-- this talking about the plan for Balkan Communist Federation? If so, was Yugoslavia occupied? I seem to remember that the Soviets "assisted" in liberating Belgrade, but withdrew after the war was over. This could be clarified. More soon... - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I think it has more to do with its relatives, the idea pushed by Dimitrov and Tito before Stalin pushed them apart, and the obscure Valev plan (no countries are mentioned by name, and the text, afaicr, does indicate that it was in tune with Soviet control - could be with or without Yugoslavia). Say, are you actually working on some history of all these things? Because I think we could should really consider an umbrella article on Balkan federalism or Pan-Balkanism, to group info from Feraios and Ypsilantis to Rakovsky and Valev. Dahn 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like the Bled agreement and others? - Francis Tyers · 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that context, but nothing specific is mentioned. Presumably, Groza was talking about that, but no names are named. If I find more on that, I'll keep you posted. Dahn 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Anittas that it could do with some photos (if they exist). Perhaps election propaganda ? This would make a perfectly fine GA as it is, but could do with work for an FA. - Francis Tyers · 10:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: too many red links; no photos of people or some other environment; the notes are not well structured; barely any English references. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to the theory about the notes "not being well structured". When one quotes many pages from a text at length, that is arguably the best and simplest system for it. Dahn 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The official POV is only marginally presented. The opinions of the winners are presented through second or third hand sources.Anonimu 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now). As the creator of the article, I have to say that it still needs work for FA requirements. Pictures, mostly. No, Anonimu, not POV-pushing. Dahn 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with some reservations). I thinks it's a very good, well-constructed, and informative article. It could use though some improvements, as suggested above -- mostly the pictures, yes. But also the notes could use some "compactification" -- for example, grouping references {5,6}, {7,8}, {71,72,73,78}, {76,79,80,81}, {87,88,90}, etc together. Not sure whether this can be done easily, but it may be worth a try. Finally, I think the "POV-pushing" allegation is simply a red herring, if you'll pardon the pun. Turgidson 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol :) Splendid pun! - Francis Tyers · 09:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe we should respect here a bit more the will of the article's main editor. I don't doubt it is a very good article, but the person who knows it better than anybody here says that he needs to work a bit more on it. I try to put myself in his position, and I recall to my memory, at the same time, the first nomination of El Greco that I opposed being the main editor of the article. Anyway ... I just think that the point here is not just to promote more and more articles to FA status, but to promote the right article at the right time and when all the appropiate work is done. If Dahn says that the article is not ready, this is it for me! If Dahn changes his mind, and does the additional work he regards as necessary, let's discuss FA promotion again.--Yannismarou 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.