Talk:1986 enlargement of the European Communities

Name

May this article's name be changed to "1986 enlargement of the European Communities" to reflect the terminology of the time? Endrū Hejs (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Expand lede

Might start review later, but could you expand the lede a bit? I think each section should have at least half a sentence in the lede: the background political situation (recent democracies) and the economic impact I feel should definitely be covered in the lede. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Femkemilene:  Done - entirely reasonable point! I've written up a short summary of the article and rearranged the lead to make it fit around it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Great! I love the article, learning a lot. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Femkemilene, hope you're well! Just wondering if you're still interested in reviewing this Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so; really trying to restrain myself from using my computer until my tendonitis is completely gone. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sorry to hear about that I hope it gets better soon! Looking after yourself is far more important than GA reviewing, obviously. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1986 enlargement of the European Communities/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Prose

Lede

• I don't think this lede needs the initial sentence to be skewed to having bold like this, needs a reword. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't think the previous version sounded forced, I have to say, but I've reworded it so as not to include the title - what do you think? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The citations in the lede - could some of this be incorporated into the prose? The lede should be a summary of the rest of the article, so shouldn't need many/any citations.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  There's only three citations in the entirety of the lead; one of which is talking about the categorisation of the enlargement, and the other two referring to the actual event of the accession itself. I didn't want to have to create a separate section in the article to talk about the event of the accession, because all I can really say there is "there wasn't any ceremony beyond flag-raising", which doesn't feel like it needs its own section on the page to talk about. Would be interested to hear your thoughts if you can see other ways of splitting that off, though! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Watch out for WP:SEAOFBLUE, such as Estado Novo corporatist. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done - reworded to avoid this Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• there is a general consensus today - the word "today" dates the article. I suggest using less specific wordage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done - reworded to avoid this Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

General

• You have a citation before the punct in the first sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• You have to define acronyms, such as the EEC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• "members of the European Parliament" - WP:EASTEREGG. Just use the first link for the full term. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of one sentence paragraphs, it's probably better to merge. 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• In July of the year before EFTA was founded, however, the government of Portugal began the process of establishing a diplomatic mission to the EEC[43], and to Euratom[44] the same month. - could we move the citations to cover the whole sentence? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• $79.1 million,[57] equivalent to $277,289,584 - do you need to be so specific? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  This is generated automatically through {{inflation}} - I've manually set the precision on that template down. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The See Also section would work better as a Navbox, but you already have one, so I suggest removalBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I believe the photo titled "Soares (right) in the Netherlands on 9 March 1977, just weeks before the Portuguese application" is not from Mário Soares.

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA and FA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

  @Lee Vilenski: Thanks very much for the initial pass! I think I've addressed all of those initial thoughts - couple of questions for you above where I'm not quite sure if something makes sense to change, or where I'm not sure if my changes fit what you're looking for Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Good job, looks pretty good to me - passing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Seven Pandas (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The members of the Communities in 1986; Portugal and Spain, highlighted in yellow, acceded that year.

• ... that when Spain joined the European Communities in 1986, it had a larger fishing fleet than all the other Community members put together? Source: "The EC was reluctant to give Spain unrestricted access to its territorial waters: the Spanish fishing fleet was larger than the combined Community fleet and had a notorious insatiable appetite." [1]

• Reviewed: QPQ exempt, but did Timothy S. Healy anyway
• Comment: This is my first DYK nom, so please forgive me if I'm missing something!

Improved to Good Article status by Naypta (talk). Self-nominated at 21:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC).

• Date, length and hook all OK. QPQ not needed but done anyway, no close paraphrasing, map picture licence fine. Good to go. Well done on your first nomination too @Naypta: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)