Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regulamentul Organic

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 promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Regulamentul Organic edit

A very well-structured and well-referenced article about a rather little-known topic. The article is also well-written and rich in content, including images, and thus provides a very comprehensive overview of the topic. I think this is ready for FA status. Ronline ✉ 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment excellent work, could the red links be stubbed though? - Francis Tyers · 12:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are actually a problem for FA only here:

Main articles: 1848 Moldavian revolution, 1848 Wallachian revolution

We have here a link to two articles not yet existing, and which are presented as the "main articles". This gives a sense of incompleteness in the whole effort done here. Apart from that, the work is really exellent, and the user who did a great deal of this job is Dahn, who deserves our congratulations.--Yannismarou 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One or two red links won't stop me supporting, but I'd prefer to see the overwhelming majority blue for a Support. This is a personal preference though and shouldn't subtract from the excellent work Dahn has put in. - Francis Tyers · 17:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I also want to know by Dahn if he regards the current article as being in its final form or if he intends to initiate further improvements, such as the creation of the two red links I mentioned above.--Yannismarou 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping out on the redlinks, just translated Albina Românească. - Francis Tyers · 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Done another few Proclamation of Islaz, and Akkerman Convention among them. - Francis Tyers · 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting an article as if it employed summary style via Main templates is going to be a non-starter for me - since the article doesn't use Summary style, those templates should be removed, simply linking the future articles somewhere into the text. I don't have a problem with red-links - I do have a problem with the incorrect use of Summary style and the Main template. Sandy (Talk) 21:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases these could be changed to {{seealso}} from {{main}}. - Francis Tyers · 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am resonsible for that format, and it was not at all my intention to indicate that. In the future, that is to be the solution for format, and I thought there was nothing wrong with burning some stages (better do things right the first time than to sit around hunting down little omissions later). I don't see this as incorrect use of the Summary Style, since all roads are going to lead to the same point - this will become obvious the moment articles are created (<me being a jerk>is the indication here that I should up and create those articles as well, say, tomorrow?</me being a jerk>) Dahn 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Sandy says is that at this particular moment that the nomination appeared here this is a wrong use of summary style, and I agree. Of course, it is clear that your intention is to fix this deficiency in the future.--Yannismarou 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix this soon or I will be a Strong object. Have a look at WP:SS and WP:GTL for an explanation of the use of the main template - it is being used wrongly, implying that summary style is used and that this article is a summary of a non-existing (larger, more comprehensive) article. Please fix - if you intend to write those articles in the future, the way to fix it is to refer to them inline, in the body of the text, by linking them in to the article. Sandy (Talk) 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is having them as {{seealso}} ok? - Francis Tyers · 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be strange, but I wouldn't strongly object. The templates all imply that the article has been written and provides further information for summarizing, whereas a red wikilink is "normal". Sandy (Talk) 18:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi and thank you everyone (Ronline for the nomination, Yannis for the kind words, Francis for the intricate work). I am open to any criticism and will accept any final decision on this matter; IMO, creating articles for many of the red links would require as intense an activity as I've invested in Regulamentul, and I have postponed it (as I have contributed more on other periods of Ro history as of late, and do not have access to all the sources I have previously used; also, scratching the surface of Romanian wikipedia has revealed that there are a lot of misconceptions about some of the projected articles, a rather annoying reality which I have avoided dealing with so far). I too think that the amount of red links is a huge handicap in the way of an FA: based on that, I would not vote in favor of the current article (see my first reaction to the news). I could, of course, merely create stubs on many of these, but I generally avoid starting what I cannot yet complete; in case anybody has (unlike the original contributors of said articles on ro wiki) access to a reliable bibliography and would take on the burden of adding the bulk of information on, say, the Wallachian revolution, I would be more than willing to copyedit and provide details (for which I have some sources ready). Dahn 18:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The red links are not an obstacle for FA status. Actually, many users (like Yomangani) regard them as a + for a FA! Only the two links I mentioned above could be regarded as an "obstacle", because they are presented as "main articles". But a FA nomination can last for more than a month if necessary, and in the meantime I think you could fix these problem or you could remove this particular phrase with the main articles links until you create them. Of course, during the FAC other suggestions may be voiced, which you should deal with. In any case, it is up to you to decide what is the best for the article, since you are its main editor. If you decide not to vote in favor of this nomination, I will not support either.--Yannismarou 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the suggestions, I'll consider both and come up with a solution within a month. Btw, don't let my actions serve as an example in this case - I don't plan to vote on an article I have contributed so much to (it would be immodest, like voting for your own adminship), but, in case you think it is worth an FA by the end of the month, please do so. And thank you all (TSO1D included); let's not forget Bogdan, who furnished most of the pictures. Dahn 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks like a great, well-supported article. TSO1D 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no question. Sure, we still have a few red links in there, but it's extremely well-researched and composed, nicely festooned with images, copiously referenced - clearly a labour of love. Plus, I think the best featured articles are those that deal with a topic "no one's ever heard of before", and I wager this will be true for the bulk of readers, who will come away enlightened upon reading this. Biruitorul 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per nom). Ronline ✉ 08:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I stress the conditionality here.

My main (and basically only!) problem with this great and thoroughly worked article is the wrong use of summary style with the two red links, which should be fixed per Sandy's suggestions, before this FAC is closed.
Minor stylistic: Per MoS it is inadvisable to link sigle years.--Yannismarou 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a reader unfamiliar with Eastern European history, this confused me: "The two countries, placed under Ottoman Empire suzerainty since the 1400s..." What two countries? Gzkn 12:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! This is indeed obscure, but I believe he means Moldavia and Wallachia.--Yannismarou 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all clarified in the introductory paragraph - I'm afraid I couldn't be more explicit without becoming repetitive. Dahn 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than say "The two countries", you could explicitly say "Moldavia and Wallachia". That wouldn't be redundant, and might be clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But references to both are present in the first paragraph, after which this immediately follows, and which I am to presume we have in there for people to read. Plus, the phrase itself ends with the word "Wallachians". Wouldn't it hurt the text to break down as simple and as essential a concept as this? After all, if, with all the repetitions already in there and with all the wikipedia system of links, people cannot figure out where the article takes place, there is really no article that could help them. Dahn 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but there's a significant break between the lead and the sentence in question. I was confused because a) the lead does not make it clear that Moldavia and Wallachia were independent countries at the time b) there's a reference to the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-1711, leading me to believe that perhaps the "two countries" referred to Russia and Turkey. Replacing "two countries" with "Moldavia and Wallachia" wouldn't introduce any redundancy at all, in my view. There would be three sentences in between the two instances, and a clear section break. Obviously it's not a big deal; just saying that it might clear up some confusion. Gzkn 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object In spite of the long discussion above, this article is still using summary style and the main templates incorrectly - it includes when these articles are barely stubs, and the section is not a summary of those articles. Sandy (Talk) 01:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed that to "See also" instead of "Main article". Is it OK now?

Ronline ✉ 02:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as per Yannismarou above. Why on earth are the single years and centuries blued out? Very irritating. I mean, 1400s is just sooooo useful: it says "Wars of the Roses happened in the 1400's between York and Lancaster", then something about Joan of Arc. And nothing else. What a waste of our readers' time. Please delink all of the unpiped, trivial chronological links or I'll find lots to complain about in the prose. Tony 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the years. bogdan 14:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article. Khoi khoi 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. While the overall number of inline refs is impressive, there are still paras lacking references, particulary in the 'Background' section. Please add them, and I'll glady support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Piotrus, all that info is a summary of a summary. Most of it is either referenced in the main article one click away, or is in fact common, almost trivial, knowledge (not in the sense that I would expect everyone to know about it, but in the sense that I expect every source available to provide the exact same information). Everything in that paragraph that is not trivial or expanded upon in Phanariotes is actually referenced. I must admit I am rather confused: above, I was being led to believe that the "main article" system should only be used for summaries; now you tell me that the summary itself needs to be copiously referenced (it is referenced, but you say it is not referenced enough). Dahn 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, as I see it, it doesn't matter if summarized main article is uber-referenced FA, the article which makes use of its content needs to be referenced. If the info is very obvious, then your job is easy - just tag each para with some off-the-self book or even website, and you are done. Remember that the purpose of refences is not only to ensure that our info is reliable, but to allow users to go to detailed publications dealing with them. As it is currently, the article gives no way for a user to verify or read more about the Russo-Turkish War of 1710-1711 or Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (for example) other then go to their wiki articles - and remember that wiki cannot be a reference for itself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright then: added. Do you have any other objections? Dahn 00:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, yes, one more :) In 'Statutary rules and nationalist opposition' section, there are read 'see also's. The rule for see also is that 'red see alsos should not exist': i.e. either stub/redirect them or delete. Once this is done, I will support fully.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Will do, just not right now. Again, if users want to jump ahead of me, let them do so. Dahn 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article.apancu 12:13, 9 January 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.