Wikipedia:Peer review/Bulgaria/archive1

Bulgaria

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to make it a Featured Article candidate. It has been updated to GA status after a careful check of sources and neutrality. The history section, which was the most problematic due to its vast size, was reworked and only the most essential information was left. I've been working for a while on improving this article and I would really like to see it with a star in the upper right corner.

Thanks, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Doing... I'll make a long inspection of the article soon, ping me if I take a bit long. From a run through,

There are some citations in the lead which only apply to the lead. Theoretically the lead shouldn't need any sources at all because everything there should be in the article. Remove sourced information from lead to article.
That table of contents is longer than my screen length, in violation of the MOS. This surprises me especially because a long TOC usually implies a grossly long article (a common and persistent problem with country articles), but this article is good in that it is only just over 100,000bytes with just under 40kb of prose, which is a good length for the total article. So it's very oversubsectioned.
There are tons of tiny paragraphs, some about half a sentence long. These definitely shouldn't be there.
A few paragraphs have no sources, and many have extraneous unsourced information at the end. Some also seem to have fewer than the information would suppose, but I haven't closely analysed it yet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tourbillon for acting on the above! That makes my job easier and I appreciate it. Sorry this took a week.

Infobox and Lead

The coat of arms in front of Sofia falls afoul of WP:FLAGCRUFT and should be removed.
Bulgarians should not be bolded in the ethnic groups section, and make the 1.5% just "others" as that includes undefined.
I'd remove the first and second Bulgaria from the infobox. I appreciate that they are seen as historical predecessors, but they have nothing to do with the direct establishment of the modern state, especially as the national awakening only occurred in the 18th/19th century. This means the third could simply be changed to "Independence". The cultural links etc. are better explained in the text (and which is done well in the lead).
All five of the infobox notes seem unnecessary. The first looks like it should be referenced. The second is unnecessary as almost all currencies are different in plural in english. The .eu wouldn't apply specifically to Bulgaria. Cellphone and power supply seem tangential, and don't seem to footnote anything in particular.
The area should be sourced, either in the infobox or by adding it to the geography section.
In the lead, as you're listing countries Republic of Macedonia can just use Macedonia, as it can be taken as assumed it means the country eliminating the need for disambiguation.
A link to Ottoman Bulgaria, perhaps by pipelinking "Bulgarian territories", would be useful.
"Third" shouldn't be capitalised in "third Bulgarian state".
The link of principality to "constitutional monarchy" is incorrect and should be removed.
Replace "Eastern Block" with "Warsaw Pact". It's a less abstract and more meaningful grouping, and Eastern Block is quite redundant to communist state anyway (as that's what defined the eastern block).
Remove the text "political changes in Eastern Europe" and include the relevant wikilink involved in the year 1989 or 1990. Pick either 1989 or 1990 to be here, whichever applies to Bulgaria best.
"Bulgarian politics undertook a transition" --> "Bulgaria transitioned to"
The first Bulgarian in the fourth paragraph is unnecessary, it can be assumed the government is the Bulgarian one.
Remove the note of Sofia being a Global City. It sounds puffery, especially as it isn't in the text. It doesn't really add anything to understanding of Bulgaria.
Don't say Sofia is "one of the largest cities in Europe". It's vague. Give a value or remove it. I'd suggest simply removing it, detracts from the rest of the paragraph.
I don't think that La Francophonie and Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization are quite in the same league as the other organisations you have listed. I'd suggest removing them. WTO could also be removed, it's not that special.

History

Prehistory and antiquity is almost completely uncited. Cut it if it's not that relevant, cite it if it is.
Is the first paragraph of First Bulgarian Empire well cited? There's one cite and it at least doesn't cover the last sentence.
If information is put in brackets, that's a good sign it's not that important. Translations especially aren't that important, and can be left to the main articles of each subject. The bracketed dates in the second paragraph are confusing, I initially thought they were birth and death dates, but obviously they're dates of rule. Duh. Anyway, if they're important integrate them into prose (which apparently has to be more than perfect to get through FAC), if they're not they can go for breaking up the aforementioned prose.
"After Simeon's death, Bulgaria declined during the mid-10th century" has two timeframes, the death and the mid-10th century. Pick one.
Cite the 1018 date.
The "Uprising of Asen and Peter" isn't a main article for the Second Bulgarian Empire, and should be shifted into the text. Preferably pipelinked through "major uprising".
"Basil II managed to prevent rebellions by retaining the local rule of the Bulgarian nobility (incorporated into Byzantine aristocracy as archons or strategoi), guaranteeing the indivisibility of Bulgaria in its former geographic borders and recognising the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid." I'm afraid I don't understand what that is trying to say at all. It may be because I'm particularly dumb, but even so, a rewording would help. Also, clarify Basil II was the Byzantine emperor.
Replace "Skopie" with "Skopje". It's more recognisable to english readers, and it's often best to stick with the article title when linking. If not, the door to POV is easily opened.
When did Bulgaria become Christian? It startled me that suddenly the king recognised the Pope.
"The achievements of the Tarnovo artistic school as well as the first coins to be minted by a Bulgarian ruler were only a few signs of the empire's welfare at that time." What is this sentence trying to say? It doesn't seem to be in the source cited.
The third paragraph of the Second Bulgarian Empire section seems to have a lack of citations. If the one at the end covers it all, that's fine, but best to check. The bracketed bolyari is another example of a pointless bracket, just pipelink it through "Bulgarian feudal landlords". More wikilinks in this section seems appropriate, especially to the tsardoms and semi-independent principalities.
Perhaps shorten the Ottoman Rule and National awakening section title to just Ottoman Rule, as the national awakening was a part of (and probably a product of) that. Also remove the awakening main article link. It is already appropriately placed in the text.
Are the Vidin Tsardom and the Vidin Tzardom different? Wikilinks again, would be useful!
"subjugated and occupied" is a bit redundant. Just use subjugated.
"During their rule, the Bulgarian population south of the Danube suffered greatly from oppression, intolerance and misgovernment." The source for this is quoted in the reference, which is a prudent touch, as the sentence raises obvious alarm bells. I note that while in the article text suffered is applied directly to the people, the source seems to be discussing it more abstractly, saying the Bulgarian national consciousness suffered rather than the individual population. It's probably best to rewrite the sentence entirely, along the lines of "Oppression, misgovernment, and intolerance under Ottoman rule submerged the Bulgarian national consciousness." This would be slightly more in line with the source, ring slightly fewer alarm bells, and also contrast better with the subsequent sentences discussing the maintenance of Bulgarian culture north of the danube. On a more boring note the current "south of the Danube" is redundant to the same phrase in the previous sentence anyway.
Shift the information about nobility and peasants south of the danube to this point, as it's confusing to go back to north afterwards. It also helps add more context and explain the aforementioned oppression and intolerance.
"The nobility in the Christian principalities north of the Danube, continued to be known by their Bulgarian titles of Boyars and regularly helped Bulgarian population to continue to migrate north, as part of their military campaigns south of the Danube." Split this sentence somehow. It's length has made it read weirdly.
"Bulgarian culture became isolated from Europe, its achievements destroyed, and the educated clergy fled to other countries." Rather than discussing isolation from Europe and destroyed achievements, it would be better to just say that it became suppressed by Ottoman rule. There's no particular reason to pick out Europe, and the assertion that cultural achievements were destroyed rings alarm bells as well. Also, if this is the southern population again, move it to where the southern population is discussed earlier. It fits well with the suppression of the national identity.
"responded to the oppression" --> "responded to their oppression"
"Though crushed by the Ottoman authorities—in reprisal, the Turks massacred some 15,000 Bulgarians[7]—the uprising prompted the Great Powers to take action." The massacring would seem to be part of the crushing rather than a reprisal. I'd change it to "Some 15,000 Bulgarians were killed as the Ottoman authorities put down the rebellion." I'd shift the Great Powers information to another sentence. All information after this point is uncited, so cite it.
"The Great Powers immediately rejected the treaty" --> "The other Great Powers immediately rejected the treaty"
The text implies the Serbo-Bulgarian war happened in 1908. Place it in chronological order, before the declaration of independence.
"Modern era" is a very undescriptive title. Something more meaningful, such as "From Independence" would be better.
That's a ridiculous number of mains and See Alsos (although definitely not the worse I've seen). There doesn't seem to be a particularly good one though. The best I can think of at the moment would be History of Bulgaria (1878–1946), People's Republic of Bulgaria, and History of Bulgaria since 1989 as mains, and no See Alsos. Could be worth shifting the 1878-1908 information from the previous section to this section; it is after all not Ottoman at this point anymore.
Check the sourcing details of File:Tzar Ferdinand at proclamation of Bulgarian-independence.jpg, they don't seem complete. I haven't looked at the other images, but make sure they're all in tiptop shape. Infobox maps have had to be taken out to pass some FARs because they weren't properly licensed. I dread to think what would happen in a FAC.
"the achievement of complete independence" is a very peacocky phrase. Just "independence" would replace that nicely.
The comma in this first sentence before the and should be removed.
It's weird that the Balkan Wars are placed on the same level as the First World War.
What is a "royal authoritarian dictatorship"? Is that simply an absolute monarchy?
The changing alliances in the Second World War needs a source.
1989 sentence needs source.
Shift the Zhelev/Bush photo to the beginning of the fourth paragraph, I'm getting slight text sandwiching on my monitor.
Does reference 20 cover the whole fourth paragraph?
Everything after the joining of NATO and the EU (which should be sourced) doesn't belong in the history section. I'd shift the info to Politics and Demographics.

I'm taking a short break here. That was a surprisingly compact and informative history section, and I feel slightly overloaded after reading through all of that. It's definitely toeing/slightly crossing the length line, but I definitely commend the bringing it down to where it is now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

The coordinates need sources, and shouldn't stand as a standalone paragraph. The second paragraph needs to be removed or completely rewritten. It reads as pretty travel book information rather than encyclopaedic information.
What's the significance of mount Musala? If it's notable, make it a separate sentence. The last half of the second large paragraph needs sources.
There's a lack of sources again in the remaining paragraphs of the main Geography section.

Is there any further details on the amount of illegal logging in Bulgaria?
Remove the "in addition", it's pointless text.
Population numbers for the animals would be useful, as well as a note on general biodiversity trends if that's available.

Politics

"Bulgaria functions as a parliamentary democracy within the framework of a republican system." A republican system isn't really a "framework". The note of it being a republic should be separated from the note of its democratic system.
It the majority veto a simple majority? (ie 51%)
This whole paragraph needs sourcing.
Is the judiciary separate from the legislative and the executive? How exactly are the branches divided?
A section on how elections function would be useful. Are Presidents directly elected? Is there a vote for a party or for a specific leader?
Nowhere does it mention that Bulgaria is a unitary state.

The detail on the Antarctic treaty seems very unnecessary and Undue. I'm surprised the antarctic treaty even warranted a mention.
How exactly has it "proven" itself a a "constructive force"? That's a very peacocky sentence.
The details on how the US military base came about are unsourced.
"As a NATO member, the country maintains a total of 913 troops deployed abroad." Does that mean deployed on NATO missions? More details would be useful, such as where they are deployed.
Remove "highly capable", that's just meaningless fluff.

What happened in 1999 to change the divisions? Combine the note that subdivisions are divided into municipalities with the rest of the text in the section so it doesn't just hand around after everything else.
The administrative division section needs sourced.
The table is actually probably fairly useless. All the names are on the map and the arms don't add much. I suggest removing it.
Information on how much power the administrations of these subdivisions have would be a good idea, and how they relate to the national assembly.

That's it for a few more days, sorry, but I hope I've given you enough to keep busy for then. Feel free to ask questions here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a thorough examination, I really appreciate it ! I will start working on it right away, I'm actually quite free the last couple of days and it wouldn't take much time for me to finish it. I would already like to note a few things:

- - The Christianisation of Bulgaria is mentioned in the succeeding khans sentence in the First Bulgarian Empire section;
  - Vidin Tsardom and Tzardom are the same thing - it's just a question of spelling;
  - The Balkan wars had roughly the same impact as the First World War. As it is mentioned, it is a string of conflicts and Bulgaria's participation and actions in WW I pretty much stem from what happened in the Balkan Wars.
  - The "royal dictatorship" question is a bit complicated. The form of government was not an absolute monarchy in any case; the tsar simply concentrated most of the power in his hands in order to reduce political instability, something like extraordinary privileges in a time of crisis. I could explain how this developed, but the events are rather complicated (quasi-civil war state, several coups and a short conflict with Greece) and would require at least one additional paragraph.
  - You mean reference 50 - no, it only covers the failure of the new economic system. I am currently gathering various sources which are to be incorporated into the article.
  - I've struggled to find accurate or up-to-date figures on animal populations; as you can see, the jackal population cites an almost 20-year old source. I'll see what I can do on this issue.
  - The administrative divisions section needs a complete reworking anyway, I consider restructuring it to something similar to the same section in Ireland.

I'll start working on the other issues soon, it probably won't take more than a week to fix them. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Right, saw the Christianisation part. Interesting that the pope was declared supreme by an orthodox country.
    - If it's the same thing, how did it fall twice in a row?
    - Balkan war thing makes sense then. Second one was a bit unfortunate for Bulgaria.
    - I think if you just state something along the lines of The Tsar concentrated power under the monarchy, or something similar (I'm not familiar with this at all), there'd be no need to explain how it reached that point.
    - If you mean Ireland#Governance than that would be an improvement on what's there now.

Anyway, as I said, I won't be able to do further review for a few days (not much time), which I apologise for. In regards to references make sure they're all formatted the same way, and all have at least the basic info. Url, title, publisher, and accessdate for online sources, title, author(s), publishers, year, page numbers for books. Of course, fill in more information if it's there! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point on referencing, I see you're adding Bulgarian sources. If you do, make sure the reference notes the language. It should have brackets saying (in bulgarian) after the link. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

Can you give the specifics of what "upper middle income range" means?
Industrialised free market needs a source.
"strategic state-owned enterprises" needs a source.
"country's national currency" is redundant. It can just be described as currency, rewrite that sentence.
The weak judiciary needs a source
Why the comparison to other Easter European states? Why the comparison to the Netherlands and South Korea?
The Economic Freedom of the World statement needs a source.
All the information about GDP from different sectors and industries needs a source.
GDP contractions during financial crisis needs a source. Positive growth note needs a source.
I'm going to stop going through this section so thoroughly here. I just went through the first three paragraphs and a significant amount is unsourced. A quick glance over the rest and I notice the demographics of tourists is hanging around unsourced and probably unduely too. There's a listcruft of tourist destinations that has no place on a decent summary article. I'm not an economist, so I don't know whether the information there is key or not. It looks fine to me, but just make sure it's sourced.

Infrastructure, 2 sources in Bulgarian (which you should note in the reference, add manually or add a "|language=Bulgarian" parameter in the citeweb format). Make sure they cover what they claim to, and source everything else. The CIA has some good basic statistics for transport on its world factbook. The first two sentences of this section are fluff and should be removed. If this section doesn't expand to a length of two or more decent paragraphs (keeping weight in mind), just integrate it into the main section.

"Bulgaria has traditions in astronomy, physics, nuclear technology, medical and pharmaceutical research" Puffery, remove it.
Then cite Antarctic info (Antarctica has popped up a surprising amount in this article)
"Bulgarian scientists have made several notable discoveries and inventions" Puffery again. Just state the inventions with a date. Besides the astronaut fact, which was interesting, I can't see a reason the others were listed. If it's just random Bulgarian inventions, they should be moved to the subarticle.
Interesting info on Silicon Valley of Eastern Europe, that's the sort of notability I'd look for in other inventions/discoveries. Otherwise they just look forced.
As with Infrastructure, if these don't form a significant part of the Economy (ie if there's no real reason to have them as separate subsections), integrate the information within the main body of text. Also, if you have time, place this information in the main Economy article, which lacks science and technology and infrastructure sections. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The middle income range is defined by the World Bank as a GNI per capita between $4,000 and 12,275, I left it that way because there will be too many digits and explanations.
I found a source for "industrialized". Searched for precise information on the structure of Bulgaria's economy, but didn't find much. I guess "free market economy" is considered common sense given that 80% of Bulgaria's activities are in the private sector...
Sourced judiciary and corruption as obstacles to growth.
Removed two images, the section looked like a gallery.
The comparison with Netherlands, South Korea and Eastern Europe meant to show that despite its relatively low economic performance Bulgaria ranks higher than developed countries in some aspects, though I've removed it as it is indeed somewhat inappropriate.
Sourced all information - on sectors, growth and decline, unemployment, figures on production and export.
I've moved the information concerning the energy sector under "Infrastructure", as discussed below in Gligan's comments. I also moved the Internet statistics from the Culture section here.
Removed the list of inventions and improved integration of Science and technology with other economic activities by providing sources and info on competitiveness, innovation and R&D. I've copied all omitted statements to the Economy main article.
Last, but not least, formatted all sources with the {{cite news/web/journal template}}. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have for industrialised notes that Bulgaria is a market economy, which is what free market economy redirects to. Just use it and call Bulgaria a market economy. Easy!
The images here are better than most. WP:MOSIMAGES needs to be followed for the article to be FA, and the bit about no text sandiwiching seems to be the most commonly failed. As a general guideline I've developed through my experience on various country articles, one or two pictures will fit in a major section on most screens, while subsections can take one at most (sometimes they're so small they can't fit a single picture without sandwiching with a picture in the below subsection, but that's an indication it probably shouldn't be a subsection!). Only immediate issues I see on this page at the moment are geography and culture, which will be easy fixes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

Religion in Bulgaria, Education in Bulgaria, and Health in Bulgaria aren't really mains. It would probably be better for readers if they were integrated into the prose, presumably at the beginning of the relevant paragraphs.
Information in the caption should be in the prose, as the article should stand alone without pictures.
"data of the" is redundant prose. Saying just "the 2011 census" conveys the same information.
Remove "is in a state of demographic crisis", it's an opinion and it conveys absolutely no information. Just stating the population growth is negative conveys exactly the same thing with more conciseness.
Similarly, remove "Despite some progress", opinion with no addition of information. In this case there is no context at all (What is progress?).
The source for the 800,000 figure says that number is for 1989-2004, not just for the 1990s.
Just as a personal thing, I wouldn't use "sovereign nation" when I could simply use "country". Probably easier for the reader.
"Roma minority" should be "Roma minorities" as minorities is plural for both the Turkish and the Roma.
Change "Some 6,700,000" to "About 6,700,00" or to a more specific figure if the census gives it.
Change "It is" to "Bulgarian is", as the subject of the previous sentence could have been the people. Change "although" to "with" (as there is no contradiction) and add a comma in front of it.
Remove the "with" before other religions.
Why is "a" included in the quotation marks around "traditional"?
The "," after 98.6% should be a semicolon I think.
I was checking "Bulgaria has traditionally had high educational standards" and while sourced, the wording is extremely close to that of the source, "Bulgaria traditionally has had high educational standards." In fact, just one word has moved. That's Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which is considered plagiarism. I recently saw another editor have to stop adding any text to articles for a period while others sorted out any close paraphrasing. If this is found in FAC, that will be a pretty bad situation, to say the least. Make sure there is none to the best of your ability.
"colleges and universities" is redundant to "higher education establishments"
A source is needed for the free education and for the subject areas. If possible, get a source that describes the Ministry of Education etc.'s role (setting curriculum, providing the free education etc.) rather than just saying it oversees everything. The subject areas probably aren't notable enough for this article anyway, so I'd just remove them.
For both "which is above/below the European union average", remove the "which is".
Any more information than "mostly state-funded"? Percentages or roles would be good.
Remove the largest medical facilities sentence, extremely unremarkable.
You seem to have two sources for the largest cities, one after the sentence and one on the table. Remove the sentence (table is self-explanatory) and pick the best source.
Try to update information where possible to the 2011 census!

Very good concise section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y All done. Information has been updated to 2011 figures, I've added household figures too. The educational standards sentence is sourced by the Country study, which is a Public Domain material, therefore there is no copyright infringement. It's actually one of the principal sources for most sections in the article. I've also checked a couple of sources on the healthcare system. It does appear to be funded by the State on more than 50% of occasions, but there are various clinical pathways, insurance policies and taxes whose functions I don't really understand, so I dropped the funding part. There is one thing that is bothering me - the table takes a lot of space and there isn't much consensus on the images used in it; many of the cities listed aren't really economically or culturally significant, so I would like to hear an opinion on removing it and eventually replacing it with an image of a university or a cathedral. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, you're editing faster than I'm reviewing. That's good but at the same time I'm embarrassed. If there is public domain work, in addition to citing it you should place a note in the references section of the public domain information copied, see Wikipedia:Public domain resources#Caveats and notes for that instruction and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Public domain for a list of templates (although you could just make your own). The table does take up space, but it doesn't take up prose or conflict with prose in any way (such as text sandwiching). It's up to you (and other editors) whether to include it or not, you most likely know Bulgaria better than others (eg. me). If I had to make an opinion, I'd say it's a fairly useless template as the difference in population between the first two cities is bigger than the difference between the 2nd and 20th cities. Clearly (to me) there's only one really important city in Bulgaria, demogaphic-wise. Even if you don't remove this template, as it's horizontal and the current demographics picture is small I think another picture placed above "Government estimates from 20..." on the left would be perfectly in line with MOS. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happens so that I am free of studies and work for the last month and I have a lot of time to edit, so that should be expected ! I've placed a {{Loc}} template at the bottom of the reference list, I hope that will be sufficient. I'll wait for some responses about the table on the talk page before taking any action, although I share the same reasoning - all the cities after Varna basically have no significance for the article and some of them are not economically or demographically significant even countrywise. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You edit conflicted me! Yes, that template is sufficient (so far as I know). Even if other cities were economically or culturally significant, it's not like the table shows that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

The See Alsos listed here probably don't have that much value. World heritage sites aren't a great introduction to culture (which is more about the actions of people rather than big buildings they've made), famous Bulgarians are not all famous for cultural things, and I don't even know what that third link is meant to be.
The source for Plovdiv in the caption is dead, and at any rate that caption would need some pretty serious backing to be included.
The first sentence omits Persians which is in the source, but includes Celtic which I can't find? (If I'm blind and it's there, so be it.)
"Thracian artifacts include numerous tombs and golden treasures." Um, okay. So? That's fairly expected. Pointless sentence.
Information on Ancient Bulgars and Romans needs sourcing, and I'd suggest putting ancient bulgars first for chronological order.
"A vast number of archaeological sites from all eras are scattered around the country's territory." This sentence is probably true of anywhere in Europe, again pointless. The sentence after this is a much better start to a paragraph.
"and many of them are Thracian in origin." What is this sentence fragment trying to say? I'm sure some are Thracian, I'm sure others aren't.
"A historical artifact of major importance is the oldest golden treasure in the world, coming from the site of the Varna Necropolis and dating back to 5,000 BC." Sources are dead, and if included just say "The oldest golden treasure in the world..." rather than go on about it being a historical artifact (obviously) and it having major importance (rather debatable). Replace "treasure" with a description of what the item(s) actually is/are. The centcom source used elsewhere says it's the oldest gold, but better detail would be good.
If you want a list of UNESCO sites (which although listy is supportable as it has a clear origin), source it. Also unclear what "these sites" are.

I suggest making the map for Cyrillic usage far more zoomed in so identification of different countries there is possible from a glance.
Was Bulgaria really "the hub" of Slavic culture? Empires usually aren't hubs (far too large), cities are. At any rate, it may have been a hub, or the hub of south slavic culture. Is this all in the "The Slavic Alphabet" source? If so, add the page numbers to the source, otherwise noone can tell.
"Bulgaria's impetus in the arts ended with the Ottoman occupation in the 14th century when many early masterpieces were destroyed" cuts very close to the source. Very close. Also, since there are two successive sentences of the same source, the cite isn't needed after both (especially since it's online, meaning no need for page numbers). Also, in my experience the word occupation is best avoided anywhere, as it seems to be one of the greatest causes of edit wars on the wiki. Conquest, takeover, or something similar would be better.
"One of the earliest pieces of Slavic literature were created in Medieval Bulgaria, such as The Didactic Gospel by Constantine of Preslav and An Account of Letters by Chernorizets Hrabar, both written c. 893." The grammar of this sentence is weird, what is it trying to say? Needs a source too.
Did Bulgarian music really only start in the middle ages? Remove phrases like "long-standing" as they're meaningless and other context is given. Source.
You've got two sequential sentences from the same source, the cite only needs to be after the second one.
The classical opera etc. list is made from multiple sources. That's not as bad as an unsourced list, but still opens the possibility to tons of additions. Are these the best example of Bulgarian classical artists?
"rich religious visual arts heritage" is fluffy wording, mostly in the word rich. If you have access to the source, may be worth a look. If not, I recommend rewriting the start of the sentence something like "Bulgaria's religious visual arts heritage includes frescoes, murals..."

Cuisine is massively undersourced. Also, no need to include translations such as (kiselo mlyako). I'll note here that in the lead Balkan Mountains is replaced with its Bulgarian (I assume?) name rather than the english one and the english one is in brackets. Why?

Don't need four mains (netball?), just the sport one.
List of sports at the start should be given a base or removed.
"Football has become by far" --> "Football is". And source!
And unsourced tiny paragraphs. You know the drill.

As for portals, I don't think the Bulgarian Empire portal should be there, as modern Bulgaria was not part of the Bulgarian empire. A couple of sources need dates or date standardisation, but mostly good. However, references that say "See List of countries by copper mine production" or something similar are totally unacceptable (and in fact using wiki as a source is the top conversation in AN/I right now). Directly cite all information. I've still got this watchlisted, as if you need anything or want me to look at anything in particular again. If you do go to FAC, I'll see you there (and give it another evaluation of course :) ). Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I've merged all subsections in Culture, it looks more tidy that way. Thanks a lot for your comments, this review is a vital step in the FA promotion process ! I'm currently polishing all sources and the prose per MoS. It will probably take a day or two more, but it would be nice if you could make a general assessment on the article as a whole after I'm finished. :) - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look better, and the picture spacing is nice. It's interesting to note that although the prose size is still below 40kb, the whole article is now about 130kb, so obviously you have put a lot of work into sourcing. I'd be happy to make a general assessment again (although I was personally dissapointed by the American English template ;) ), especially if you're going to push through a FAC. There needs to be a new benchmark for an FA country promotion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't clear, my english comment was in jest. American English or British English or...Cypriot English is purely a choice for the authors, similar to date style and the use of CE or AD. It doesn't at all affect article quality (so long as it's consistent). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for permissions for three images with great quality and quite rare as well (an IBM supercomputer, a squadron of MiG-29s in combat formation and the volleyball team on a game against Brazil), I think they would immensely improve the general outlook. I placed the American English template because this variation has been used in the article for quite a while, though your remark reminded me that there is some text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica (British) and the American variation isn't universally standartised yet. As an addition, my English, even though at a native level, is a horrible mess of British (from school), African (from experience) and American (from cultural influence) variations and I will have difficulties putting up the text into one standard anyway...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume IBM would take the empty space in Economy, the squadron photo would replace the current singular photo, and the volleyball game would replace something in Culture? Your date formatting isn't american, although I don't know if that falls under ENGVAR or is separate. If it's an arbitrary decision, perhaps see if there's any preference in Bulgaria? The EU seems to use British English, if that makes any difference. An African English article would be pretty cool though. As another point before you finish this round of editing, I noticed the lead said the black sea coast was 378 kms. This doesn't appear anywhere in the article, which is against WP:LEAD. I've seen advice given that the lead should mention something from every section in the article, even if only a few words. Currently most is History, with a bit of geography and a tiny bit of politics/international relations. Perhaps add a slight something else from culture besides the gold, I would think the note of major heritage (slavic, bulgar, thracian), a slight note on economy (largest sector is industrial perhaps), and a bit of demographics (mostly orthodox?). As important as history is, this article is on the modern Bulgaria, and a more balanced lead would give a much better introduction to the country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IBM will replace the observatory, correct on the fighter squadron, and the volleyball team will replace the bottle of rakiya in Culture. I'll see what I can do for the English variation, I remember I was adviced to put up either American or British when it was checked for GA status. Also, India's talk page has a reasonable FAQ, and a similar one is in the works on my testrange. While browsing through past archives I've noticed several issues popping up continuously over time, mostly concerning the Ottoman period and the origin of the Bulgarians. People changing images and adding insigificant information in the last couple of months has also been an issue, and I decided to facilitate things by producing one such template for the talk page. Apart from all that, I'm halfway done with improving the text according to the MoS and I'll go to FAC as soon as I rewrite the History and Economy mains. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gligan

Images I have a few suggestions concerning the images. Since you have done hard work making Bulgaria a GA and are now working on promoting it to a FA, I will not insist or argue on any of my suggestions but only list them. Below I only state my POV:

The image of Krum's feast can be substituted with a crop of the same miniature which looks better.
The map of Bulgaria under Ivan Asen II can also be substituted. After all, I don't think we have reliable date about the control over Moldavia. It can be substituted with Bulgaria under Kaloyan.
In the geography section you can place the images that way so that four pictures can be shown and I think that this would present our nature better. For example incerting that image or that one can enrich the article.
In the table of the largest cities Sofia looks like a grey, dirty and unwelcoming city.
It would be good to have a picture of the Rila Monastery or the frescoes of the Boyana Church in the culture section because religion played a major role in medieval and Ottoman Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered your points, however, I can only agree on one of them.

- Krum's feast in its current version is a well-illuminated image, while the original is dim and unclear, even though in full scale.
- The map shows the extent of the Second empire in its zenith. It is not meant to be accurate, simply to display the relative size of the empire at its apogee.
- I was actually considering leaving only one image. Adding images eventually makes the section a gallery and creates ground for many users to place whatever images they like according to their taste. Consider using other FA-status articles, such as Canada, Indonesia and Germany as a reference on the image layout.
- I am currently searching on a good panoramic image of Sofia on Flickr. The other city images are really poor as well, unfortunately there aren't enough good skylines. I am working on the issue.
- Religion has played a major role in every single European country until the 19th century, so that is not really relevant. The section should elaborate on what is unique for Bulgaria - and the Orthodox religion is not one of these things, unlike Plovdiv or the Cyrillic alphabet. The article is generally good as it is, and the points above should be addressed instead of making further changes. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_______________

I have seen that the CIA factbook claims Bulgaria has bauxite reserves but that is not true as far as I know. At least not "large deposits", as it is written.
There are two sentences that list the most developped industrial sector "Major industries include iron, ...." in the second paragraph and the beginning of the fourth.
Why is the information about the energy sector in the infrastructure section? Gas and oil pipelines are part of the infrastructire but electricity production belongs to the economy section and as a whole that sector is considered part of the industry. --Gligan (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the info on natural resources, it sticks somewhat awkward in the Economy section and the sources are contradicting as to what are the main deposits. I'll probably include it at some point later, but for now it isn't that significant.
I reworked completely the industry section and included two other sectors - electronics and defense - which have marked a significant amount of exports. I think the wording is fine now.
Energy can be categorised both as "industry" and "infrastructure". Electricity generation and its related grids are basically what keeps a country and its economy running, and since the Infrastructure section was somewhat short while the paragraph on industry was too inflated, I decided to move the energy info under Infrastructure. The arrangement is similar in Japan and Germany, so I thought that it wouldn't be a problem to make such a move.
As some additional information, I have arranged to provide images of the Bulgarian Blue Gene supercomputer, however I cannot be certain whether I will receive either the first images or a permission to take a photo of it soon enough. I think it will be a nice illustration for the Science and Technology section, all the images of the observatory are sort of bland and from a bad angle...-☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of edits

I have made all the necessary edits concerning the points above. In short, section by section:

Leading section and infobox: Removed all sources from the intro and trimmed it;; Only left the date of nationhood - 681, the date of Liberation and the date of Independence; I think this is the optimal amount of dates to get a general idea of the history;; Notes in infobox also omitted.

History: Added necessary sources on Prehistory and antiquity;; Added all necessary sources on First Bulgarian Empire; omitted years of rule except the 893 for Simeon the Great;; Added all necessary sources on Second Bulgarian Empire; clarified several sentences and added Wikilinks to Vidin, Tarnovo and Karvuna states;; Rearranged and trimmed sentences in the Ottoman period; added all necessary sources, removed a source for which no text quotation could be provided and reworded some sentences to make them an easier read;; Added all necessary sources on Third Bulgarian State (last subsection in History); incorporated HDI information as prose and in line with previous sentences;

Geography: Added sources for most statements;; Rewrote some sentences;; Added sources on species and included flora;

Politics: Added all necessary sources;; Clarified political structure, elections, type of suffrage, functions of each branch and clarified the type of veto;; Almost complete rewriting of the Administrative structure; added sources, new map and arrangement of provinces; I also moved it before Foreign relations and military as the text follows on to describe the correlation between the functions of the State and how the government funds the administrative units;; Peacock words from Military section removed;

Economy: Added sources, omitted relatively detailed information and removed images;

Demographics

Culture: Removed "Media" section as it stands too much as a trivia section and is relatively unimportant;

- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]