Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vasil Levski/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 by Karanacs 14:34, 3 April 2009 [1].

---

Vasil Levski

Nominator(s): Todor→Bozhinov'

I am nominating this for featured article because I've spent a lot of time working on it since I took it up in October 2008 and I believe it meets the criteria. The GAC review back in November was particularly optimistic, and the article has been improved since then thanks to a very helpful peer review. English sources have been used where available, but the best research on Levski's life is undisputably the work of Bulgarian historians, and so most of the references are in Bulgarian. Todor→Bozhinov 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference
• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (Example ... New York Review of Books)
• Current ref 64 (Vassil Levski...) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 68 (national sports...) is lacking a publisher
• What makes http://www.bulgariasportbase.com/?magic=0.0.0.2 a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.kirildouhalov.net/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your points. http://www.bulgariasportbase.com is the website of the state-owned company that maintains the Vasil Levski National Stadium, so it's pretty reliable with relation to that. http://www.kirildouhalov.net/ was used to cite a commonly known fact, but I've changed the footnote nevertheless, to a photo of the banknote. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 10:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend reduction of over-linking. Linking common English words such as "moustache", "inn", "gun", "knife", "abstain from drinking" or "of middle height" is annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a pretty good suggestion, I have to say. I found out I've linked a bit too many common words. I've removed those wikilinks, but I've retained links to some common terms like democracy, republic, ode, political corruption or middle class because I believe they would be of use to the reader. Todor→Bozhinov 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

• <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_snimki.htm Външен вид]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
• <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_avtob.htm Автобиография]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
• <ref name="bio">"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_bio.htm Живот и дело]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
• <ref>"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_Arabakonak.htm Обирът при Арабаконак. Процесът над Левски]". ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template
• <ref name="idei">"[http://www.aba.government.bg/levski/VL_idei.htm Идеи за свободна България]", ''170 години''.</ref> | Does not use a citation template--TRUCO 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no requirement to use citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. The best biography of Levski I have ever read (having read a lot about him). Hesitating whether refs/citations should be translated in English as English people usually balk at Cyrillic texts. Maybe this article is an exception because Levski is a Bulgarian national symbol/icon. In addition, the book of an English woman (well, maybe Scotch), Mercia MacDermott, deservingly features prominently in the article. --Lantonov (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - ver well-written and comprehensive article. --Gligan (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now by karanacs. This was, overall, a very interesting article. I know nothing about Bulgarian history, and for the most part the article did a decent job of explaining the necessary background. I believe the text needs a good copyedit, however. Some examples and other issues:

• I'm unclear from this sentence The ideologist and strategist of a revolutionary movement aimed at the Liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule, Levski founded the Internal Revolutionary Organisation, a network of secret regional committees seeking to instigate a nationwide uprising. whether internal Revolutionary Organisation is the same as the revolutionary movement described in the first half of the sentence. I suspect this needs to be rewritten
• Watch for redundant prose. For example, "It was ... that..." can usually be reworded to be much tighter prose.
• Watch for repetitive wording (for example: "In emigration...an emigrant ...")
• Quote in lead needs a citation in lead (even if cited in article body)
• "leaving Vasil a half-orphan"...um, there really is no such thing.
• Do we really need to know that Ivan Kunchev's family was traced back to the 17th-century? Is that important later? If not, I'd remove it
• "a whole, Vasil Kunchev's family could be described as belonging to the newly-forming Bulgarian middle class." -- could be described seems awfully wishy-washy. If they were middle class, just say so, otherwise, tell which scholar thinks they might haveb een
• Don't wikilink names separately. I assumed "Archimandrite Basil" was the name of a person, but it isn't. The link to Basil needs to go away, and there should be a bit of explanation on what an Archimandrite is
• Provide some context for the reader. Who is Panayot Hitov? A biographer, friend, etc? I had to check the link to figure it out. (same with the other names just dropped in to that paragraph)
• There are several cases where the prose is a little too relaxed - for example "he got to know "
• Any details on the "elaborate disguise" he had to use to avoid arrest?
• Can you expand on "Levski's one-man judgment on important matters often came to be questioned"
• The betrayal of Levski is a matter of heated dispute among Bulgarian historians and writers - to me, this implies that whether or not he was betrayed is the dispute; is that true or is it a question of who betrayed him? Maybe another sentence or two on the alternate theory would help
• "was the killing of a servant in Lovech that the capital punishment was based on" - we haven't heard anything about this before....more detail?
• "Levski developed a revolutionary theory, which meant a decisive step forward for the Bulgarian liberation movement" - this seems a bit...peacocky?

Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

half orphan or half-orphan (plural half orphans) 1. A person, especially a child, with only one living parent. (see allwords.com, Wiktionary). --Lantonov (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed comment, Karanacs, you've brought up some good points. I'll be working on your suggestions tomorrow. All I can say right now is that it's really hard not to be peacocky when writing a biography of Levski. Also, it is unclear whether he was betrayed at all and by whom, so the dispute involves both points. I guess I should elaborate on that. Otherwise, I'm glad you think the article provides a good background for readers who are not familiar with the subject and its context. Todor→Bozhinov 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I have addressed all issues you have pointed out above. I have added some information to all the parts which you thought should be expanded, but sometimes sources don't get much more detailed than what we already have. Also, I wouldn't like to elaborate too much on some peripheral matters such as the betrayal controversy, the killing of that servant or the dozens of anecdotal stories about Levski's disguise, so as to keep the article tightly focused on the important facts. Thanks again, Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been unable to contact Karanacs so she can check if I've really addressed all concerns and potentially change her vote. Any ideas about what I should do? Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like she hasn't edited in a few days, so I would give it a bit more time. I see that she asked for a copyedit, though, and these are representative issues. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can be expected to know what the other issues are if I don't get any feedback :) This oppose vote may be very important and it currently all of the examples given by Karanacs have been fixed. I hope Karanacs responds soon because this vote seems to be vital for the nomination to succeed or fail, and this is all pretty important. Todor→Bozhinov 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for a delayed response - illness and computer issues prevented me from editing for a time. I see that Tony1 has also gone through the article and his prose objection is satisfied. I don't have adequate time right now to go through the article again, but I will strike my objection because the vast majority of the time I agree with Tony. Good luck, and thank you for your hard work. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's okay: in fact, I feel a bit awkward for asking you to come back and review the article again. There are things that are more important in life than Wikipedia and that should be respected :) I deeply appreciate your trust and thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review as follows:

• File:Vasil Levski.jpg, File:Levski2.jpg, File:Levski3.jpg requires source, author, and date. At the minimum, a source must be given. The author and the date need not be a factor since Levski died in 1873, and Bulgaria's copyright law is 50 years p.m.a., which means that unless the photographer lived beyond 1946 (to account for URAA), which is unlikely, the photos are PD. However, we still need the source.

Other than that, the outdoor shots are okay; even though Bulgaria does not permit freedom of panorama, the creators of the buildings and monuments have died more than 50 years ago. Jappalang (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added some sources for those images, although I can't be sure where exactly the images were taken from. I can possibly add some info about the photographers and the dates when I get back to Sofia, but given the public domain status of those works, I don't think it's really important. Thanks for the review, Todor→Bozhinov 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, all images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I've researched the authors of the individual photographs and included them in the image descriptions, with the year and in some cases the date the photograph was taken. Todor→Bozhinov 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Neutral; certainly improved. Stilted language, not a nice read. 1a not satisfied.
• "renowned as the national hero of Bulgaria and styled the Apostle of Freedom." Sounds like I'm at the hairdresser's. Who styled him? A group of followers, or was he "self-styled"; this statement looks stubby.
• "a network of secret regional committees seeking to instigate a nationwide uprising, that Levski founded." I think you mean "... the network of secret regional committees Levski founded that sought to instigate a nationwide uprising."
• "... to join both Bulgarian Legions and several other Bulgarian revolutionary groups." "Both" means two. Several means more than one. Doesn't add up.
• We're told twice in the lead that his nickname was Levski. Why is the title his nickname rather than his real name?
• "he proceeded to propagate his revolutionary ideas and developed the concept of his revolutionary organisation"—easier, and probably what you intended, to say "he proceeded to propagate his revolutionary ideas and develop the concept of his revolutionary organisation". That is, he proceeded to do two things.
• "several" twice. Careful of this word—it's vague. How many tours? Don't you know? And there are more vague numerators in the lead, thick and fast: a number of; numerous. One or two may be OK, but ease up on them.
• a wide network, probably.

And spot-checks after the lead:

• and the political actions towards the formation of a separate Bulgarian state." Strange use of "the": do we know about them already?
• "another girl called Maria was born to the family, but died as a child" --> "another sister, Maria, died as a child". Do we need to know this? Seems trivial.
• "Vasil commenced his education at a school in Karlovo and learned to read and write; he also studied homespun tailoring as a local craftsman's servant." Boring. What else would you learn to do at school? And the two halves of the sentence are uncomfortably linked by the semicolon. "Also" needs shooting down.
• "In Stara Zagora, he worked as Basil's servant and spent several years studying at the class school of that place." This is not English.

Serious copy-editing is required. I would withdraw the piece, edit, and resubmit when it's written properly. There's a problem in the control of the level of detail. Trivialities are admitted; obvious points are made, or made too much of. Tony (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All the mentioned issues have been fixed... I think. The title is his nickname because this is the way he is known: not as Vasil Kunchev, but as Vasil Levski. I've been intentionally vague about the number of tours. Besides the 1868–1869 two tours that are clearly described, there was at least one more during the establishment of the organization. We don't know the exact number of monuments and institutions either, don't think anybody has counted those. I'll try to find a native speaker to copyedit the article. Todor→Bozhinov 07:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to Oppose: I agree that an article on Levski should largely be based on the works of Bulgarian historians. But then why are most of the citations to websites and not to history/biography books? To show the differences, take a look at an FA that relies on Finnish language sources. Notice in this article that nearly all the references are to books. I would have expected the same for this article. For this reason, I must lean toward oppose as this article may not comprehensively cover Vasil Levski (1b) and may not be factually accurate (1c). --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly doesn't rely mostly on websites for the biographic data. You were probably misled by the fact that the Commemoration section has about 30 of the the 83 references and it has been mostly referenced using online sources. All the references have been checked for their reliability, so I fail to see how the different way they have been published can influence your decision, really. Some of the online resources are books and articles by established publishers and this website, to which most online references in the Biography section point, is an official publication of the Bulgarian government. I am pretty convinced that my coverage of Levski matches the expected level and I'm confident in the accuracy of facts in the article. Todor→Bozhinov 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is right now the article reads like a hagiography. The cause may be the website sources that were used. I took a deeper look at the sources. Even if you exclude the Commemoration section, leaving only the biography sections, more than half the cites are to websites. Among the bibliography (which I thought were all books), Manova points to Radio Bulgaria (that one alone is cited 11 times) and there are a lot of cites to http://www.aba.government.bg/ which according to the English version is the site for the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad. These are not sources that are known for their historical studies. When books were cited, Бакалов do not give page numbers, Стояновъ is from the 19th century, and Кондарев is from 1946. I would recommend largely using modern solid biographies by historians if they exist. This is especially important for someone who is a prominent hero of the nation. I am striking the Leaning to and changing to a full oppose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bakalov (Бакалов) is cited in the CD edition, which, understandably, does not have page numbers. There are no new biographies of Levski (that are not reprints of Undzhiev (Унджиев), Stoyanov (Стоянов) or Strashimirov (Страшимиров)). Levski has been dead sinde 1873, which means that pretty much all the data about his life has been available since then. The sources that I've used are the most comprehensive and accurate biographies of Levski. I don't see why Radio Bulgaria and the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, a ministry-level institution, cannot be considered reliable for basic facts. I really don't see the problem with online sources and how they can affect the quality of prose either.

I don't know how Finnish Civil War can be an FA with uncited paragraphs and sections (!?), one citation for huge blocks of text and short two-sentence paragraphs. There ought to be better examples to illustrate your point: I mean, the article you're asking me to compare to mine is worse referenced than this one... Todor→Bozhinov 09:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point of the comparison. It was not to make a comparison of the two articles. It was to show an example of an FA that largely used scholarly, non-English sources; the Vasil Levski article does not. Instead, it relies largely on government websites that are not involved in the area of historical research. The article reads like a hagiography, possibly due to poor sources used. I would recommend to undertake new research in the library, revise or perhaps rewrite the article, and bring it back here. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point at all, I was just remarking that the article you used as an example is, overall, worse referenced than mine, and therefore an awful example. I still maintain that my referencing meets the required standards and there is nothing more to be researched. So far, I've seen nothing particular that can question the reliability of my sources. And I'm sorry, but "rewrite the article" doesn't just sound ridiculous, but almost disrespectful to the hours I've worked on this piece. As for the quality of prose, see below. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, R.J. Crampton, an Oxford history professor whose focus is 20th century Bulgarian history, cites Mercia MacDermott's Levski biography (referenced in the article) as both "well-researched" and "hagiographic" (Here). Nevertheless, her biography is the most thorough English-language text on Levski to date. The article gives fair attention to Levski's misdeeds (see the paragraph on making Levski a saint) and also presents the current doubts surrounding the hagiographic myth that a colleague betrayed Levski to his persecutors, as Judas did to Jesus. After contributing to this article, I learned a lot about Levski (mainly from the sources) and would liken his historical treatment to that of George Washington. Researchers haven't scrounged up much dirt on either of them.—Raskovnik (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I was not pinged to revisit this FAC; in any case, I remain opposed. You mention MacDermott, but it is not cited at all; in other words it does not look like it was used at all except for the transliteration definition. And as you mentioned, even that source is not one of the best. I see that new sources were recently added (e.g. Crampton) which is definitely an improvement. But if one eliminates the Commemoration section (which by itself is almost all cited to web sites), one is left with a biography section of which half is cited to websites. Since you mentioned George Washington, the analogy of this article in an American context is a biography on him in which a significant portion of the text is based on the websites of Americans Abroad organisation and Voice of America Radio as sources. That would not be accepted as FA as it violates 1c. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say MacDermott's bio isn't one of the best; in fact, I've noticed that bibliographic sections of Levski-related texts frequently cite the bio, making me wish I had access to it. I do, of course, respect your input and am now adding more sources (especially Crampton). I'm finding, however, that such texts lack precise dates found on the referenced websites, which makes me hesitant to dismiss or delete these online sources. In particular, the frequently cited Agency for Bulgarians Abroad online text is written by an assistant professor (Vania Racheva) in the history department at the most prestigious university in Bulgaria and includes sources. But to reiterate, I'm more than happy to keep researching additional sources.:)—Raskovnik (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't ping you, but given that you were the latest opposer and you had been around just a day before the copyedit, I assumed you were following the nomination closely. In addition, your reason to oppose is not only the quality of prose, but also the perceived bad referencing (which I disagree with), so I though you wouldn't just change your opinion after a copyedit. Thanks for revisiting though :) Todor→Bozhinov 06:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed that Raskovnik has doubled-up some of the cites with a second cite to a book. That definitely reduces the impact of those online sites. By the way, the appearance of online sites having additional useful information as compared to books is misleading. Online sites often use poor sources and add old anecdotal information that may not be accepted in an academic book or paper. If you could backup the remaining text that have cites only to the websites (Agency/Radio Bulgaria/Online news, examples: [5], [23], [29], [31], [51], [52], [57], [60], [61]) with additional cites to Undzhiev, Crampton, MacDermott, Jelavich, etc., then I will cross out my opposition. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly try to meet your referencing standards, even though I disagree with your view that websites are, by default, inferior as sources. Particularly the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad microsite devoted to Levski is a pretty credible and itself well-referenced resource. As Raskovnik pointed out, Vanya Racheva is an assistant professor of Bulgarian history at Sofia University. Not only that, but she's also a specialist in the Bulgarian National Revival, which is the period that covers Vasil Levski's life. She cites this online publication of hers in her resume along with her books and scholarly articles, meaning that she herself hands it no less importance.

I don't see why articles by established publishers such as Radio Bulgaria, The Sofia Echo (largest-circulation English-language paper in Bulgaria), Sega (a major national daily) or the Zemya archives (once a large-circulation weekly) should be snubbed either: a few days ago we had the Lazare Ponticelli article on the Main Page, which is a biography referenced using mostly online newspaper and news agency articles by reputed publishers. It employs hardly any offline resources for the entire article.

As I said, I promise I'll work on adding Undzhiev and MacDermott footnotes when I have the time (that is, Saturday/Sunday), it's just not possible for me right now to even lend the books once more, what's left to put them to any use. Todor→Bozhinov 10:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Racheva article may look credible, but the question is the publication process. If she wrote a scholarly book, she writes it knowing her peers will carefully examine her output. A website is only a short-term marketing exercise; the content may be solid, but how much confidence could we have in it? Did it get peer-reviewed? Did a government editor change it for marketing purposes? As for Ponticelli, the quality level of the sources depends on the field. For a biography on a contemporary person, news sources may be the best and perhaps only sources available. However, that's not the case for top historical figures. Most of the biographies on WP:FA on 19th century figures (and earlier) are sourced to books because they are our best sources. You will probably find very few, if any, cites to news or radio sites. Granted, that does makes the research work searching relevant literature much harder. But then you are writing about a national hero, not Britney Spears. :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the government could be involved in marketing, but I've added citations from another scholarly source, a chapter of a book written by Doyno Doynov, a professor and doctor of history and a Bulgarian National Revival specialist. I was unable to visit the library and lend Undzhiev and MacDermott this week, but I hope these new references will be of help. Todor→Bozhinov 09:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The new source certainly helps, but I see that of the 12 new Doynov cites, only three provided additional support to a web-only citation. There are passages that are still sourced only to the websites of Bulgarians Abroad/Radio Bulgaria/online news. As I mentioned previously, for a biographical article of a prominent historical figure, these are not high-quality sources and thus they violate criterion 1c. I found the following:

• to achieve what our French brothers have been seeking...
• Turks, Jews or others—should enjoy equal rights.
• his moustache was light brown and his eyes appeared hazel.
• but was arrested in Zaječar and briefly imprisoned.
• relations were maintained with the revolutionary diasporic community.
• fake personal and committee names.
• Levski's assistant Dimitar Obshti defied his orders
• Obshti and the other perpetrators were soon arrested
• inspired one of Levski's informal nicknames, The Deacon (Дякона, Dyakona).
• Rakovski exclaimed, "This is a lion's jump!"
• the principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,
• the Russian vice-consul Nayden Gerov.
• but those assumptions are based on uncertain data.
• actualise his concept of an internal revolutionary network.
• his views on the revolution had clearly matured.
• tactical matters were increasingly questioned.
• while attempting to extort money from a wealthy local.
• liberation once Bulgaria was reestablished.
• and did not tolerate corruption.

If these could be cited to Doynov or some other solid source, then I am willing to pull my oppose. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

---

UPDATE: The article has been copyedited by Raskovnik, a native speaker and a teacher of English (big thanks for that!). The people who voted oppose based on the quality of writing are more than welcome to review the article again. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please ping all of the opposers for a revisit (they may not have the FAC page watchlisted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Todor→Bozhinov 08:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony and Karen have amended their votes after the prose and referencing improvements by Raskovnik. Thanks, Sandy, for your patience with this nomination :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. I've economized the prose and rearranged sentences to streamline the article's flow and style; however, its structure and sections are already well-organized. No facts are missing (admittedly, I considered deleting some facts), and the historical background section succinctly covers the relevant Bulgarian resurgence during the Ottoman Empire's decay. The extensive references and citations contain quality research, and I've added additional academic English-language sources available through Google Books for non-Bulgarian speakers.—Raskovnik (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. EDIT: Struck, Steve ^{T • C} I'm leaning towards supporting, but there are a few points that may require clarification first:

• Lead: "before emigrating to join the two Bulgarian Legions and other Bulgarian revolutionary groups." It's not clear to someone unfamiliar with the Bulgarian Legions that they were set up outside Bulgaria, rendering that "emigrating" somewhat confusing. Would "the two Bulgarian Legions in Serbia..." suffice?
• First Bulgarian Legion and educational work: "After the legion's disbandment, Levski joined Ilyo Voyvoda's detachment at Kragujevac, but returned to Rakovski in Belgrade after discovering that its plans to invade Bulgaria had been all for naught." I'm not entirely sure what this is referring to. The "all for naught" is vague enough to mean anything from the simple disbandment of Voyvoda's detachment, to some kind of defeat.
• Hitov's detachment and Second Bulgarian Legion: "In November 1866, Levski visited Rakovski in Iaşi. Concurrently, two revolutionary bands... had been inciting the Bulgarian diasporic community in Romania to invade Bulgaria." It seems odd to say "Concurrently... had been". The former suggests the incitement occurred at the same time as Levski's visit; the latter that it began before the visit, continuing throughout. If that is the case, you'll see that removing "Concurrently" retains the meaning while eliminating the ambiguity, as Levski's subsequent selection as Hitov's standard-bearer indicates the detatchments remained active.
• Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "The internal correspondence employed encryption, conventional signs, fake personal and committee names." I assume the intent is "fake personal names and fake committee names"? In which case, the sentence is ungrammatical and should say, "and fake personal and committee names." If the intent is otherwise (fake personnel?), then repair accordingly.
• Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "Levski resorted to an elaborate disguise to evade arrest during his travels. For example, he is known to have dyed his hair and to have worn a variety of national costumes." This doesn't seem a particularly elaborate example, though the wording suggests he was some kind of master of disguise. Would the sentence lose anything by getting rid of that "elaborate" ("Levski resorted to disguises to evade arrest...")?
• Creation of the Internal Revolutionary Organisation: "The political and organisational experience that Levski amassed is evident in his correspondence dating from 1871–1872;" in this instance, "from" and "to" are complementary and should be spelled out (i.e. "dating from 1871 to 1872).
• Commemoration: some overlinking in this section. Museum, and perhaps some of the more well-known place names (e.g. United States).
• Throughout: a mix of national varieties of English are used, e.g. organisation/organization. A good way to spot further examples is to open an edit window within a browser that checks spelling as you type, and in the options ensure the language is set to the variety required by the article. In Firefox, for example, this will then underline in red all instances where the wrong variety has been used (among other words it doesn't recognise, unfortunately).
• Throughout: "autumn/winter/spring"—for southern hemisphere readers, these will be "spring/summer/autumn". Consider using spans of months where the information is available.
• The prose is generally good, though it could probably use another pass by someone familiar with removing redundancies that serve only as bumps in the road of smooth reading. Note: there's no requirement to do this to get my vote of support; there are no particularly egregious examples.

Otherwise, nice work! On the sourcing issue, that several online sources are used is not a problem in my view. For example Vanya Racheva's tenure as an assistant professor of Bulgarian history at Sofia University should be more than enough to prove her a credible source. I don't buy the argument that online sources are inherently less reliable than print sources; Vanya Racheva's reputation is as much at stake—if not more so, considering the ease of access to her words—online as it is had she written a book. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comment! I think I have fixed all issues that you have pointed out but the last two (the redundancy check and the seasons thing). Quite often, my sources explicitly use seasons and this is often the only data we have available: if you feel this can be confusing for Southern Hemisphere people, we can add some kind of footnote explaining that it refers to Northern Hemisphere seasons. Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds an excellent idea; one footnote on the first instance should suffice. Steve ^{T • C} 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

←Support; my oppose has been struck after TodorBozhinov's speedy and characteristically gracious responses. It was a pleasure to review the article. Good luck, Steve ^{T • C} 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I don't find anything I can complain about, except one of my pet issues below. I hope you can resolve the sourcing issue above—I regret that I don't know nearly enough to weigh in on the topic. Good work.
  • "This later inspired one of Levski's informal nicknames ..." Avoid beginning sentences with the ambiguous "this" in reference to something prior. This what?

--Laser brain (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: for a national hero, you usually have a dictionary entry. Any chance of getting an audio pronunciation of his name in Bulgarian? Ottre 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OPPPOSE not enough references and too many in not English. An article of this length should have more references. 141.161.92.138 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The IP was blocked for disruptive editing. This oppose can be discounted. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• What happened to the committees after Levski's death? Why? See page 11 of Dimitrov, Vesselin. (2001). Bulgaria: The Uneven Transition. Routledge. ISBN 0415267293. More at Jelavich & Jelavich (see below) p. 138. Also, Rumen Daskalov describs a "crisis" in the revolutionary movement after Levski's death... Daskalov, Rumen. (2004), The Making of a Nation in the Balkans: Historiography of the Bulgarian Revival. Central European University Press, ISBN 96392418300.
• What on earth is a half-orphan?
• Unless I missed something, the article gives only a very sketchy description of how extensive the networks were. How many cities? How many people? What was the geographic spread as measured in miles or kilometers? How many "region-wide revolutionary centres" were there? There are some good numbers on p. 89 of R. J. Crampton R. J. Crampton (2007). Bulgaria. Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198205147.
• What the heck did all these committees do? Did they do anything substantial?
• Did they have the support of all the Bulgarian people? Did some people oppose them? Why? Were other groups less radical (e.g. the Bulgarian Society, see page 117 of Kellogg, Frederick (1995). The Road to Romanian Independence. Purdue University Press. ISBN 1557530653).
• Mmm. along those lines, looks like the lack of popular support may have been a major factor in the committees' lack of success, see approx. pp. 137ff of Jelavich, Charles & Jelavich, Barbara (1986) The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920: A History of East Central Europe. University of Washington Press. ISBN 0295964138. See also more on lack of popular support, with brief explanation, on pp. 135-36 of Roudometof, Victor (2001). Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy: The Social Origins of Ethnic Conflict in the Balkans. Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0313319499.
• Again and again the sources indicate that levski's assistant gave up levski's name and details of the committes only because he was attempting to establish bona fides as a political captive. This is not mentioned in the article.
• Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember that this is an article about Levski, there is a separate article about the Internal Revolutionary Organisation which is supposed to provide more in-depth information about the network of committees, its members and its proceedings. In my view, the Vasil Levski article gives a more than adequate overview of IRO without getting overly engaged with what should be treated in a separate article. Vasil Levski is trying to be a featured article, not a featured topic.

A dictionary definition of "half-orphan" was already quoted, but since the word isn't known by most people as it seems, I've removed it.

If you are interested in more specific details about IRO's network of committees, Dimitar Obshti's confessions or even the entire history of the Bulgarian National Revival, please expand the relevant articles. But this is a biography of Levski and as such, it attempts to stay tightly on topic, while of course providing a useful but brief background. Todor→Bozhinov 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. It is about Levski, but shaves off context to the point where Levski and his movement float along in a vague cloud of glory. Opposable on 1c and 1b grounds.
• Moreover, if his death caused a crisis in the revolutionary movement, that is very strictly relevant.Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be notable, and I will include it. I still strongly disagree with your first point and I'm very wary of turning this into a comprehensive "History of the revolutionary movements in 19th-century Bulgaria", but I will see what I can do to reach some kind of compromise: would including the data from Crampton be enough? You have to excuse me, but I hope you understand that I'm pretty exhausted of responding to new comments after a nomination that has taken over a month now. The article should have been promoted more than a week ago in my opinion... Todor→Bozhinov 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your weariness.
• However, if you take that weariness and multiply it by 30 or so, and you have the weariness of the (conscientious) FAC reviewer.... Moreover, ummm, does the article stress the fact that one of Levski's major contributions relocating the revolution to places inside Bulgaria, rather than basing it in other countries? Not sure that point was hit clearly enough.
• Moreover, if he struggled against a lack of public support, as it seems he did, then that too is strictly relevant...Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have stressed that point in the intro, although it was also made clear in the relevant section ("Revolutionary theory and ideas"). I have also inserted some brief info about committee membership, the lack of universal support for a revolution, and the crisis in the movement that Levski's death exacerbated. I don't believe there is any even remotely accurate data about the number of committees or even places, or the exact geographical spread of the network. I do think that the info about Levski's assistant Obshti belongs in the relevant biographical article, not here. Thanks for the suggestions and once again excuse me, but this really is pretty stressful :) I do hope the nomination comes to a successful end pretty soon :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per 1b. Having just finished reading the sections which you have indicated are the ones that contain some discussion of the lack of public support for his movement (not a lack of support for independence; rather, a lack of support for his tactics etc.), I see absolutely no mention of it at all. Am I missing something completely? I also oppose the idea that that the precise nature of the committees' activites should be left undiscussed. The activities of the committees were the goals of Levsky's activities and the culmination of his most important work, and thus are directly relevant. I can accept putting most of the descriptive info about the makeup of the committees into a sepatrate article. I also oppose the lack of discussion of the fact that apparently Levski was alone in insisting that he Bulgarian revolution should not seek help from outside countries, while seeking such help was the main feature of other Bulgarian revolutionaries' plans. I also suggest that the fact that Levski wanted all the revolutionary committees to be based in Bulgaria (a related, but separate point) is not explored in relation to other methods advocated by other revolutionaries... To sum up, who was Levski? He was the one who wanted a revolution by Bulgarian people on Bulgarian soil, without seeking outside help. He was the one whose life's work was the actions of the committees... however, those actions are left undiscussed herein. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that I inserted before is exactly about the lack of support for an armed revolution, though I have added another sentence about the lack of support for an independent struggle now, hope that helps. It's all in the first paragraph of "Revolutionary theory and ideas" now, I hope you can find it. Levski's idea to base all the committees in Bulgaria is already mentioned. I have also added a sentence about committee activities. If this is not enough, then please provide more feedback so I can address your comments more effectively.

P.S. I'm never going on FAC again, this nomination has been hell on Earth :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Todor, if this is your idea of hell....(?). This FAC has been a light, fluffy, sweet piece of angelfood cake. Some comments, some light criticism. I think there's one and only one Oppose (mine). No drama. No blood on the floor—not even a little tiny bit.Is it hell because the article was not Passed in under two weeks? Is that why it was hell? If so, then.... your idea of hell is an extremely gentle place. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is another oppose and the nomination won't be successful if it was to be ended now. Never mind the post scriptum, it's not directed at you or anybody. Let's just say that this FAC has been much too stressful to be worth it for me and leave it there. Also, a smiley was used so that you don't take it too seriously :D

So can you please comment on my recent updates (see article history to locate them easily) and reply as to whether this is a step in the right direction: I'm ready to address the concerns you have brought up as best as I can, but I need your feedback as well to eliminate those issues. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your high-quality contributions! Is there anything I can do to help you improve the article, particularly with regard to your own objections? Or have those been addressed effectively? Todor→Bozhinov 07:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Oppose There are more references than actual text. It is not worth to be FA.-- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How am I supposed to address this concern? One has to note that the user has had a personal issue with me and my nationality. He has been blocked for abusing me in the past and such an ungrounded oppose smells like vendetta to me. I'm officially requesting that this oppose vote is not taken in consideration. Todor→Bozhinov 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not an actionable issue (citations are GOOD) and under the FAC instructions will thus be disregarded. Don't worry about it, Todor. (An actionable request along these lines would be "the article does not adequately cover X topic".) Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Karen. I was really worried about this. Guess I'll take a break from Wikipedia once this nom is over (or over the coming weekend for sure), I'm beginning to take this too seriously and I'm experiencing a fair amount of wikistress, which isn't healthy in any way ;) Todor→Bozhinov 20:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing with someone here, the article is too short and is not worth to be FA. That I have been blocked here do not mean that my vote is not counted. Is this civilized and democratic ency? Yes, it is, according to the rules everyone can edit here. I do not like this article, it is not good to be FA and that is it. There are much better articles that should be FA, but this one no. And spare us from sending false messages TB, my vote is equal as the rest votes.-- MacedonianBoy  ^Oui? 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You do have as much right as anyone to enter comments; however, all reviewers are expected to limit their commentary to actionable requests. "I don't like it" and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't actionable comments - that means that there is nothing the nominator can do to "fix" the "problem". If you believe that content is missing from the article, you should provide concrete examples of topics that are missing or reliable, preferably scholarly sources that have not been consulted. It might be wise to look at some of the other FA nominations and see how the other reviewers make comments so that you can see what is expected of a reviewer. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to say that Nico Ditch is over four times shorter and an FA. It's not about length, but comprehensiveness, as our criteria point out. Todor→Bozhinov 20:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Too short" is not an oppose rationale. If you believe that the article lacks coverage of a relevant detail, say so. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment It would be nice if the article used {{harvnb}} {such as in the article on William Shakespeare) with the incline citations to make it easier to navigate through. 98.166.139.216 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but not required. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've introduced {{harvnb}}, but I can't get most of the links to work. Any troubleshooting suggestions? I'm not experienced with this template. Todor→Bozhinov 08:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the date= field to year= which seems to have fixed a lot of them. Some still aren't working; this may be an issue over the use of special characters (some that look the same may not be quite right). I'll take another look at it later, see if I can straighten it all out. Steve ^{T • C} 10:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the links that are currently broken may have something to do with the presence of more than one author for each publication. Does anybody know how the template should be formatted to link correctly to such references (Cornis-Pope & Neubauer 2004; Дойнов et al.; Jelavich & Jelavich)? Todor→Bozhinov 11:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Using last2= and first2= instead of coauthors= should resolve the issue, though it will result in the names' being displayed as they are in this example (lastname, firstname; lastname, firstname). Steve ^{T • C} 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that got it fixed :) Thanks a lot, Steve! Todor→Bozhinov 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, with strong suggestion: Well, crippity cripes... I was trying to help you by tracking down as many of RelHistBuff's objections as I can, and improving them as much as possible. But then I hit what may be a very nasty wall. Bakalov (Бакалов) is cited 11 times by my count. I wish I didn't have to tell you this, but on page 355 of this source (email me for copy): [Mosely, Philip E. (1937). The Post-War Historiography of Modern Bulgaria. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 348-366] I found: "The lives of all the leading revolutionaries have been re-written in Communist style by Bakalov; interesting in their stress on class conflict within the revolutionary movement, they are in no sense scholarly." I sorta suspect the Bakalov in our article is a revised edition of the earlier version(s) that Mosely demurs. If we were professionals, we would get right on this, tracking down the relevant info. We would care. Does Wikipedia care? I don't know. I am unable to answer that question. Anyhow, here's my strong suggestion: find someone with access to MacDermott's bio, and ask for help. You really do need to get rid of those questionable websites that RelHistBuff mentioned, and to be honest, I'd be willing to bet my neighbor's ox that you could find 90% of the relevant info in MacDermott. Finally, the article still needs work on 1b, at least by my standards... In particular, though, a lot of the info I would like to see explored (see my comments above) is on page 89 of Crampton. I'm withdrawing my Oppose, not 'cause I support, but I have no time. Good luck. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and your suggestions! Just like I promised to RelHistBuff, I am totally willing to work on improving the referencing in the near future, and this I promise to you too. I have been planning to get MacDermott and Undzhiev (best scholarly bio of Levski in my opinion) from my university library, but unfortunately, that can happen in the middle of next week at the earliest, and I'll be able to devote significant time and resources to further research only towards the end of next week. I'm working full time and I do feel like I need a more or less complete wikibreak for the coming weekend. That coincides with a trip I've planned, so two birds with one stone, one might say.

I'm going to look for an original English-language edition of MacDermott, though I suspect my library might only have the Bulgarian translation. You never know, though.

I don't think we have anything to worry about Bakalov, though. I'm not aware of his work during the Communist period, but the source I'm using is a new publication by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and has been revised, if not rewritten. There is no Communist wording there. The guy is deputy rector of Sofia University, responsible for the university's research activities and one of Bulgaria's most prominent historians: he's certainly a credible source.

Is the journal really from 1937? Georgi Bakalov was born in 1943 and it seems weird that a 1937 would talk about Communist style in Bulgaria. Communism was taboo pre-1944 :)

You have my word that I'll work on the issues you've pointed out. Thanks again and all the best, Todor→Bozhinov 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody was wondering, we've sorted out the Bakalov issue. Turns out there was another Georgi Bakalov who was a Marxist historian and journalist: Georgi Bakalov that I'm citing is a modern historian. Todor→Bozhinov 07:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I wish I had the words to say this in a way that would not offend anyone, but I am not sure I do. I will just say what I think, and if everyone wants to ignore and/or revile me, they are welcome to do so. I have been reading and reading about Levski, and have come to a conclusion: This article is slipping through the cracks of Wikipedia, and is not receiving the focused attention it needs in order to be FA-quality. It does not, in its current form, present a coherent picture of who he was or what he did, or why, or why others did not do what he did, etc etc etc. I am not insulting its authors. Writing is difficult. It requires a great deal of thought. This article doesn't say why folks weren't trying to run the revolution from Bulgarian soil (they considered it too dangerous). It doesn't clearly state that Levski and Karavelov joined two organizations together, doesn't clearly say what his Levski's principal contributions were (what does "ideologised and strategised" mean?). It doesn't do several things that it should. For example, it doesn't tie key ideas together... But people want comments to be "actionable". But I am saying, there is no way (in my opinion) that this can be made FA-quality within the normal timeframe of a FAC. I can't give actionable comments aside from "large sections need to be rewritten for clarity, and checked for possible hagiographic tone". Rewriting those sections requires researching the topic thoroughly, until the editors understand it fully, in order to be able to explain it clearly. At least as far as I can see, and may everyone forgive me if I am wrong, no one in PR or FAC has yet done so. It would require a nontrivial amount of time and effort, and I cannot do it... The FAC and PR processes implicitly assume that the info presents the whole picture in a coherent form; they then check mainly for surface problems. The problems here are not surface ones. So perhaps my comments are not "actionable". That's up to Sandy and/or Raul and/or Karanacs to decide. If they are not, then forgive me. I cannot Oppose because everyone will want "actionable comments", and as I said, my only comment is "it is not coherent, and needs nontrivial rewriting". I'm sorry. Consider this a symbolic oppose, not an actionable one. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to Ling.Nut.Public's comment. My contention was that the sources used were weak (violating 1c). But what Ling.Nut.Public has exposed is that poor research results in gaps in coverage (violating 1b). Hence, even if one could "patch up" the 1c violation by doubling up cites, this is not enough. Therefore I would again reiterate that the editors undertake new research in the library, revise or perhaps rewrite the article, and bring it back to FAC. The FA standards are high, but with some more work this article should be able to meet those standards. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. The article looks much better now. Jingby (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Todor provides us with another great article.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy and Karen, I believe we've had a consensus in support for a while now. The only active oppose vote by RelHistBuff (bar MacedonianBoy's vote that we have agreed should not be considered) is not actionable in the sense that it is now based on the non-actionable comment by Ling.Nut.Public. I do not agree that the article has to be rewritten, and this seems to be a minority view compared to the seven supporting votes and the three oppose votes that have been struck. I cannot and will not rewrite the article: the current piece has gathered a significant majority in support and a rewrite or any major revisions may be irresponsible on my part. When an article is overwhelmingly regarded as being of FA quality, a rewrite is pretty much the most illogical thing one can do, and I won't take that risk in order to have a single oppose vote struck. Furthermore, that would be a major violation of criterion 1e: an article that has been thoroughly revised or rewritten is by no means stable.

Also, I firmly believe that my referencing meets criterion 1c. The criterion itself mentions nothing more than "high-quality reliable sources" and "a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature", and my sources certainly conform with this. Using book sources or certain authors (when all are reliable) is not a criterion.

I expected the nomination to take two weeks at best and it has been over five weeks now. This is nobody's fault, of course, what I mean is that I've been finding it increasingly difficult to respond to comments and votes, and I do believe we have a consensus that the article meets the FA criteria.

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The point I made about going back to do the research and rewriting is only a suggestion for a solution. However, the problem still exists; that is to say, the violation of 1c. It is not acceptable to use Radio Bulgaria/Bulgarians Abroad/online news sites for the biography of a major national character when scholarly biographies exist. Raskovnik pointed out through a link to Crampton a nice little bibliography for Levski noting three biographies: MacDermott, Genshev, and Undjiev. The first two are not used at all. The last book is only cited twice. But instead online sites that are not specialised in history are heavily used throughout the article. This means the article is not "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature" (the key word here is relevant). The whole point of "high-quality" sources was to avoid the use of weak sources such as websites and rely on scholarly sources (see Jackie Robinson FAC as it was an example used during the criterion discussion). Finally, one can see the impact of not using high-quality sources: 1b comprehensiveness problems as Ling.Nut.Public pointed out. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize you're vocally opposed to this being an FA and you'd really like to emphasize that, but I think we can get away with your oppose vote, no offence. We have already discussed the "weak sources" issue and we've reached a deadlock. Nothing is forcing me to use books if my online sources are also reliable, and nothing is forcing me to use any specific authors if the other publications I have cited meet the FA criteria. I have said that I will work on introducing more book sources at some point, but this is just because I'd like to make the article as good as possible. Please remember that it's just a minority opinion that the article violates 1c, it's your view, not a fact, and I cannot stress this any further.

There really is no point in repeating the same stuff over and over again, and my comment is explicitly addressed at Sandy and Karen anyway. Todor→Bozhinov 13:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in; I haven't been following this discussion closely since I registered my support for the article's promotion, but just to restate a point I made above, I don't have a problem with your using online sources instead relying wholly on books; if the information they provide is the same, and the source is reliable, then I'm OK with that. I suppose the only concern is that the book sources will contain significant additional details that the shorter online articles do not. Am I right in believing that you have read these books? If so, can you say that—as per 1b—you've left no major aspect of Levski's life unexplored, that the books don't cover significant areas untouched by the online articles? If you can, then I'll be happy to let my support stand. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe my article is comprehensive and covers criterion 1b. I have read Undzhiev and I used MacDermott in my research (though I didn't have the book with me while doing the actual writing, so as to include footnotes). I've also read the Doynov, Stoyanov, Bakalov, Kondarev and Castellan books in their entirety. I'm confident that my online sources have their facts straight and I do not think I have omitted any major facts. Todor→Bozhinov 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Good luck, Steve ^{T • C} 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm sorry to change my mind but my previous assessment was based on examination of the prose (or "surface" as Ling.Nut put it). I've spent a few days reviewing the concerns of Ling.Nut and RelHistBuff. I'm convinced now that either this has not been researched as well as it could be, or the right information didn't make it into the article. I think this should be archived now so the sources and the use of sources can be thoroughly vetted. Let's find an interested expert - why not contact a few academics in the field and have them provide a list of essential sources? Or better yet, have them review a working outline? --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that Ling.Nut's comments are not actionable and RelHistBuff's oppose is based on those comments as well, I'm stuck with non-actionable comments and votes here. There's really nothing I can do and all these comments seem to lack any concrete basis in my opinion. I maintain that the article is well-written and well-researched and it meets all of our criteria. I'm not required to go beyond the criteria, am I? Or should I rethink my goals? FAC has really been a confusing and stressful process for me, it seems to be too much for my common sense and reasoning. Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how can you assert that my opposition in unactionable? I even gave you sample actions that you could take in response to my opposition. If you choose not to take them and maintain your position that the article meets 1b and 1c, despite the objection of two reviewers I know to be very careful and conscientious commenters, then that is your choice. But, it doesn't mean it's unactionable. I surely understand your frustration! I am working on an article now that, once posted at FAC, has a fair chance of meeting opposition based on the sources I chose to use. I attempted to head it off by building consensus nearly a year in advance about the sources I planned to use. However, most FAC reviewers weren't part of that conversation. I also corresponded with 9 different recognized experts in the field to get their opinions on which sources should be used. Someone could still oppose it—I could disagree with them, but I certainly couldn't tell them their opposition in unactionable. --Laser brain (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have misunderstood you, but it is unactionable in the sense that it is not actionable within the timeframe of a FAC. I cannot be expected to do all the research again, contact experts and rewrite the article for a few days, and that would be against consensus (and against the stability criterion!) anyway. Archiving a nomination that has a large majority of support votes is simply not a serious suggestion. That's what is causing my frustration. Todor→Bozhinov 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - thorough, well-documented, interesting. Much improved since nomination too. It seems unfair to call for "a few academics in the field" to review the article - we hold no other candidates to that standard, and the academic sources speak for themselves. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose 1a. Complete rewrite required. I'm unhappy about the "actionable" business for a very simple reason: the whole thing needs to be rewritten, top to bottom. Sure, I could put up a couple examples of unclear English (such as "he propagated his views and developed the concept of his Bulgaria-based revolutionary organisation, an innovative idea that superseded the foreign-based detachment strategy of the past" or "Levski ideologised and strategised a revolutionary movement"), but then the nominators would want to throw a patch over those and call it "done." As I said before, this article takes a ton of information—much or even most of it important—and presents it in a manner that lacks coherence, lacks the kind of organization and clarity that permit the reader to easily grasp Levski's contribution to history... Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't go from violating 1a in your view to undisputably violating 1e. I won't rewrite a piece that I've spent months researching and several weeks writing because of vague comments I do not agree with. I think we really need to reconsider the way FAC works because it may continue to force prominent editors to leave the project. I can't take this nomination anymore: in my view, it should have been promoted long ago, but I couldn't care less if it's not promoted now, I just want it to be over. Todor→Bozhinov 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Todor, please. Please stop taking this personally, and please stop this "significant editors will quit" stuff. It's... immature, and it's a form of "office politics": I won't get my way, so me and my friends will raise a stink... Everything I'm saying is the same as what Tony said a while back. It's possible that Tony and I are both complete idiots. I grant that possibility. It's also possible that he and I are complete... jerks, to put it nicely. I grant that possibility as well. Can you at least consider the possibility, then, that we are neither idiots nor jerks, but are expressing opinions based on an unbiased view of the article? Please stop. Please... grow up. I'm sorry, I have to say it. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your opinion, so you might consider accepting mine. This is not a welcoming place, it puts off editors and it's an unpleasant experience, very much like a month-and-a-half-long rollercoaster ride after a hearty meal: I didn't sign up for this. Am I not entitled to an opinion as well? I'm not sure why you're involving Tony anyway, his comments were entirely different and the issues he pointed out have been long fixed. I haven't called you an idiot or a jerk and I'm not even sure why you're using such language to illustrate your point. Now archive this nomination, please, I just can't stand this. Todor→Bozhinov 08:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Please calm down. This is nothing. It is not a crisis. It is not even a major problem. It is not anything at all... Everyone in America is asleep now. No one will archive it until several hours from now. Moreover, archiving it now is... not a mature response by any means. But... well, whatever. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, I am jerks and idiots in other respects, Todor, but here, all you need to do is to engage with our critiques. I reluctantly changed to "Neutral", so I wouldn't be thrilling myself over that. A few spot-checks:
  • "and began to actualise his concept of an internal revolutionary network"—"Actualise" sounds like Orwell 1984-speak. Can we be plain?
  • "Despite insufficient documentation of Levski's activities in 1870, it is known that he spent a year and a half establishing a wide network of secret committees in Bulgarian cities and villages." There is a ref. three lines later ... is this one of the "insufficient" clues to this claim? It "is known" among whom? The verification is having a bet both ways.
  • "The goal of the committees was to prepare for a coordinated uprising." Remove "for", unless the committees were preparing to fend off the uprising from another source. Tony (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It should probably be noted that the nominator has indicated his desire to archive the FAC and has taken a Wikibreak. I agree with the archiving; the opposition to this article's promotion is probably too great to resolve within normal FAC timescales, but I hope Todor will reconsider about not renominating when he's back. Steve ^{T • C} 08:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure that this is actually a wikibreak. Todor indicated that he just wants to "relax". I propose that the FAC director or his delegates give the FAC a couple of days. If Todor remains inactive or if he insists on his calling for the nomination's archiving, then just do it. If he (hopefully) changes his mind, then IMO this nomination should start from scratch with a new entry, so as the reviewers to resume their comments, helping the nominator (to engage with their critique), the FAC director (to properly assess the situation), and the reviewers themselves current and future ones (to compare, assess, and further judge).
• I think that, as it is now, this FA is impossible to follow. By the way, I am sorry to see that Wikipedians, either nominators or reviewers, declare furstrated wiki-breaks, just because of a FAC tension. But I can understand it, because I have also been in the past in similar stressful situations.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Todor has expressed an intent to take a several week wikibreak [2]. There is no point in leaving the nomination open while he is gone; Todor is free to bring it back when he returns. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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