Jump to content

Talk:1986 enlargement of the European Communities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1986 enlargement of the European Communities has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 19, 2020Good article nomineeListed
September 13, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 1, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that when Spain joined the European Communities in 1986, it had a larger fishing fleet than all the other Community members put together?
Current status: Good article

Name

[edit]

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)[reply]

Expand lede

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]


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 (talkcontribs)

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

[edit]
  • 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. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
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

[edit]
  • 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 (talkcontribs)
    @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)[reply]
Good job, looks pretty good to me - passing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 (talk22:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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