Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union/archive2

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 00:25, 16 March 2008.

[edit] European Union

original FAC

Former featured article, has been on main page

previous FAC

Check external links

Restart: old nom.

Article stats:

Lear 21 912

Ssolbergj 568

JLogan 429

Arnoutf 267

Sandpiper 148

SouthernElectric 114 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per previous nom based on types of sources used. Much of the article is attributed directly to the EU, and there is a remarkable dearth of books used as sources. I only skimmed the article, so there may be other issues.
  • Why is a template in See Also? That should go at the bottom of the page with the other templates.
    • I explained this last time. The single "Topics on the EU" template is there because it's standard practice to place templates which are meant specificly for an article about geopolitical entities, in the respective "See also"-sections. Like it is in the UK's "see also" section. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's not standard practice for FAs. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a reliable source http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Countries.html
  • A great deal of this information is sourced directly to the EU. Can alternative sources be found? It is generally not wise to base so much of an article on self-published sources. There are a lot of books listed in Further Reading - why are none of these used as sources?
    • Please don't ask these questions again. They were heavily debated in the old discussion page. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The external links section needs to be trimmed a great deal. The YouTube link has to go, and the others need to be looked at closely to see if they can go too. (Why does it need to link to multiple individual agencies when there is an overall link listed there too?)
    • It is trimmed and the YouTube link is gone. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I revisited the article today. There is still an unreliable source, still a template masquerading as content, and still an overly large reliance on self-published sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Several of the external reference links are problematic. One needs you to log on, another is timing out and a third is dead. Not enough independent information in article, reads more like PR fluff.--Slicedpineapple (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give some examples of this 'PR fluff' you speak of. That might be useful. --Simonski (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See contribs: Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources policy explicitly allows use of password protected, or even paid sources if no open acces sources are available. Arnoutf (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• This restart is pointless. These are the same issues that were discussed extensively in the old discussion. If people think the discussion got de-railed last time, I'm sure it will get just as off-topic here if people point out the same things all over again. S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Off-topic discussion can be removed to the talk page as needed; please keep the discussion here on WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've edited this article a lot, and I think it's got high enough quality now. - S Solberg J 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think its unbelievable that you question the use of links/sources from the organisation itself. Just thought I'd add that. Its mind-boggling. --Simonski (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can't understand it either, to be honest. It's like saying you shouldn't use US government sources for US government related articles. Very odd. Carré (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't want to rely too heavily on US gov't sources for the US govt articles either, unless that information could not be found elsewhere. The point of our sourcing policy is to use secondary sources so that we make sure we get a comprehensive look at what other people think is important about the subject. By relying too heavily on self-published sources, you run the risk of being uncomprehensive or WP:POV, because the entity is likely to publish what it wants you to know about and not the rest. Most of this information can easily be found in third-party sources, and would likely contain analysis or other information that is not included in the EU sources. All I'm asking is that the editors of this article go look for those other sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just don't get the feeling that this is "among our best work".
  • Take the opening sentence WRT to grammar and logic: "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states primarily located in Europe." Is it the states or the superstate that you mean are/is primarily located in Europe (needs to be clear—a comma could do it if the the latter). Why is it that we need to highlight the fact that ?Cyprus, is it, is a little way from Europe? Is this so important that it can't be said in the body of the text? I'd rather be told some other important fact, such as "The European Union (EU) is a political and economic community of twenty-seven member states that has emerged since the 1950s/the world's first superstate/blah blah")". Saying it's in Europe is an unfortunate repetition.
  • Second sentence: "It was established under that name by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and is governed by supranational institutions, able to make decisions binding upon member states, and intergovernmental bodies, forming unanimous agreements among all members." Might lead some readers to think that the whole thing started in 1993; avoid "established" here. So the institutions are only "able to", but don't actually, make decisions? "Upon" better as "on". "Intergovernmental bodies" might be better as a separate sentence, or after a semicolon (governed by two structures: supranational ....; and intergovernmental ...". The "-ing" is not good; make it "which form". Trouble is, often they don't achieve this.

That's the first two sentences, ahem. Tony (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right, just a couple of quick responses to that - very glad you brought up the first two paras as they are being heavily disputed at the moment.

Firstly, I disagree and think the first sentence is fine. The EU is a political and economic community of 27 Member states. Would it be better if it read 'twenty seven nation states'? That could easily be changed.

I would also disagree on the point of 'located primarily in Europe' not being worth mentioning.. the fact that Morocco tried to join it and Israel have shown interest in joining.. I dunno, to me the located primarily in Europe is necessary. Could be dropped though if you are not convinced by this point

On your second group of points - the whole thing did start in 1993. Before then it was just the EC, an economic community. In 1993 the countries decided to create the EU on top of the EC - usually most language versions of the EU page have a diagram explaining this but its absent from our page for some reason.

You could solve a major issue here by giving views on the following actually (and whilst you think this may just be very minor stuff one of the most difficult aspects of the EU page is summarising it in an intro because of its unique/academically disputed nature..

Important Question - would the reviwers think it necessary to explain what supranational and intergovernmental refer to, or would it be valid just to mention the EU has both elements without having to elaborate. OR could we get away with just using "sui generis" (ie. no real definition). These are the sorts of issues that have caused real divergence of views between the editors and require an objective voice to give an opinion. --Simonski (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(see eg diff [1] for two comparison versions. Some editors feel the terms are entirely satisfactorily explained if linked to their articles. Others (including me) feel they need at least a minimal explanation if they are used at all. Similar consideration would apply to 'sui generis', or any other legal term. )Sandpiper (talk)

Sorry Simonksi but I do not completely agree with 1993 as the start date. Yes the name and the mandate changed on that day, but that is more an evolution than a revolution. Would something like "It was established ...... as an expansion of existing EC treaties" solve the issue? Arnoutf (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking though it kinda did start then surely. I mean there was no second or third pillar back then and it was all basically just about economics, surely in that sense Maastricht was a major overhaul and not just an evolution? But ok, obviously it'll be an issue of debate so your proposal would maybe work. --Simonski (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this is now sorted as I have reworded it to state it started in 1993 under maastricht, but replaced the existing EC? Sandpiper (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• It just happens that the first sentences are some of the most contentious in the article. I presume editors feel it is important to get the most important points in right away.
  • both the states and superstate are located primarily in Europe, it is the same area, whichever you are considering.
  • The reason for stating primarily in Europe, is that despite the name there is no reason membership is limited to Europe. It started in Europe and has been spreading at the edges, so will likely eventually extend in africa, asia, etc. There are various bits and pieces not in Europe.
  • Couldn't possibly say it is the worlds first superstate, because 1 it isnt the first, 2 it isnt a state.
  • Personally I thought 'upon' was better than 'on'. saying 'binding on member states' sounds like they are being tied up in rope or stuck in glue.
  • I'm afraid I agree the section about supranational institutions and intergovernmental bodies is incomprehensible. Please see diff above for example of how it read prior to return of Lear from editing ban, though the one you quote here is yet a third version somewhat a compromise between those two. In reality most institutions have both intergovernmental and supranational aspects, and decision making relies upon both acting in agreement. The term 'bodies' was initially coined by editors to indicate those parts of the whole thing not defined as 'institutions of the EU' within the founding treaties. It has become somewhat garbled in editing. In the original context it was introduced, the bodies in fact are generally somewhat supranational, whereas the institutions are a mixture. This lengthy explanation indicates that a complete explanation is considerably too long to go into the introduction, but I agree this one explains little. A number of editors feel the style guideline on creating an introduction is not sufficient to resolve this issue. (Wikipedia:Lead_section) Sandpiper (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Introduction contains various unreferenced, biased claims concerning the decision making procedures of the EU as an organization. The Layout and paragraph structure is not supported by Wikipedia MOSNUM. Lear 21 (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Lear21 is a frequent editor of the article with very specific views on the page. He has a history of being (almost) unconvincable of an approach to the article other than his own (whatever the argument). In the case of the intro the consensus was against him. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Without specific examples of unreferenced claims or bias, and since WP:MOSNUM doesn't govern layout, this oppose is difficult to interpret. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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