Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:49, 22 April 2008.

---

Prague Spring

Nominator, I have been working on this article the past few months and I believe it now meets the standards set. It is adequately sourced and the prose has been copyedited. It doesn't make major ommissions and note that it is an overview article with two sub-articles (Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia and Normalization (Czechoslovakia), the major contributors to it have been myself and Themightyquill. The Dominator (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Stylistically and reference-wise, it seems quite good, but it is still desperately short of content. It relies incredibly heavily on a handful of sources, and offers rather little on the reform period (which defines the prague spring), negotiations with the soviets, or the actual reasoning behind the invasion. The important role of the writers, for instance, is discussed initially but not continued. Compare this article with Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (which deserves the FA status it received last year). The two topics are undeniably comparable, and there has been just as much written about 1968, yet the Prague Spring article is less than half the size of the Hungarian Revolution article. This article (and the article on the invasion) could surely reach FA status (hopefully by next august), but its content doesn't do anywhere near a complete job of covering the topic. I'm sorry to those who have much hard work has been put into style and footnotes, but that's my honest opinion. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And my points from the previous nom stand as well, I support this article for FA status with the hopes that once it reaches it, it will be improved further, I'll try to get more content soon, I hope you can change your mind, after all, I realize that the reform process is far from complete, but it shouldn't even be complete, that would make it much too long, even though I and you could add more content about the reforms if you feel it's necessary, but I believe that the only large omission is the direct reason for the invasion. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll absolutely change my mind if it's ready for FA. International reaction to the reform would probably be worth including too. The current article only lists reaction to the invasion, which is really misplaced. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems I stumbled across something significant in the archived FAC. Happy to reassess if this is addressed, or argued down, especially as this is a topic I have significant ignorance about! Please do feel free to drop me a line at my talk page as I'm unlikely to keep a close eye on this FAC. --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you just repeat that on this page, please? so people don't have to look through the archives to see if it's an actionable oppose (or improve the article based on your suggestions). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's in the history of this page and didn't take long to find, but I'm an obliging kind of chap. Diffs --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support.--Avala (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.