Talk:Santer Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Santer Commission article.
Article policies
Santer Commission was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 1, 2008
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Stub

Shouldn't this be marked as a stub? It's quite information light; we could do with the names of the commissioners.

Giles Robertson

[edit] Merge

Both pages have little information, resignation ought to be included in the Santer text, major part of it. No point in having a seperate page. - J Logan t/c: 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Edith Cresson EC.jpg

Image:Edith Cresson EC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Serious problems with the prose which is unclear in a number of places. Also problems with the coverage, it fails to cover some subjects adequetly.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    One of the websites used as a reference would not load, and another I'm unsure of the reliableness
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

  • Lead is way too short for the size of the article. WP:Lead suggests two or three full paragraphs for an article this size.
  • Many many paragraphs are one or two sentences which gives the prose a very choppy feel. Consider combining or expanding to help the flow of the prose.
  • There is a distinct lack of background material and a short description of what the European Commission is would not be amiss. Yes, you've wikilinked it, but a short explanatory sentence to set the context and background would be good for non-EU readers.
  • Just an FYI, I wasn't very happy when the first reference took over my browser, reset all my sizes of the windows, and generally played havoc with my desktop. Who is behind the site and how reliable are they? What are their standards for fact checking?
  • You use abbreviations without explaining what they are. UK, PES, EEP, MEPs,
  • http://www.politics.co.uk/issue-briefs/europe/eu-budget/eu-budget-fraud/eu-budget-fraud-$366701.htm dead links for me.
  • The prose needs some serious work. The Appointment section, first and second paragraphs, three sentences start with "Hence, ..." which is repetitious.
  • Appointment section, last sentence of the second paragraph "on 18 January 1995 managed to get his.. " the sentence is lacking a subject.
  • Same section and paragraph, third sentence "The President gained this power under the ..." is wordy. Consider "The President gained this power under the Maastricht Treaty of the previous year."
  • "The Santer Commission oversaw the development of the Treaty of Nice before it was signed in 2000, negotiations with those countries to join in 2004 and the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997." This sentence/paragraph is totally lacking in context for these items. How can the Commission oversee the negotiations in 2004 when the comission was out of power in 1999? You've wikilinked "countries to join" to Enlargement of the European Union but it lacks context and no explanation of what "those" refers to. The sentence is so lacking in context that I can't even suggest a rewording.
  • Second paragraph of Early work, who is Delor? Is it Delors that was mentioned earlier? If so, it should be Delors', not Delor's.
  • The last paragraph of this section is a muddle and I'm still not sure exactly what is being conveyed here.
  • You've wikilinked Budget of the European Union twice within the same paragraph (first paragraph, Budget Controversy section)
  • The first two sentences of the first paragraph of Budget Controversy make no sense to me. I'm not sure who had only done what previously in 1984 and I'm not sure why it's important in this context. THe next sentence is wordy and awkward.
  • Same section and paragraph, the quotation starting "I found strong ..." needs a citation on the quotation itself.
  • Same section, next paragraph. Again, I'm lacking context on what the plenary is, what an assigned rapporteur is, etc.
  • Same section, third paragraph, the sentence starting "During this period..." has some grammatical errors and is wordy and awkward.
  • Resignation section, first paragraph, third sentence what does "to create a balance." mean?
  • Same section, second paragraph fourth and fifth sentences are awakward and need to be reworked.
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentence is awkward and unclear.
  • Repercussions section, first paragraph, first sentence should say "The immediate effect was..."
  • Same section, what are the Agenda 2000 negotiations?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence is awkward.
  • Same section, second paragraph is wordy and could use a good strong rewrite.
  • Same section, third paragraph, did the Marin commission take over after Santer? Again, I'm lacking context on the changes.
  • Same section, last paragraph, is also awkward and needs to be reworked.
  • Same section and pargraph What is euroscepticism? Pro-integrationism?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence is awkward... why "By just 2000... " instead of "By 2000..."? "...overstepped his remit."? HOw did he overstep?

I'm failing the article on the basis of the prose, which needs a good rewrite, and on the basis of comprehensiveness. It assumes too much and is full of unexplained jargon. It also focuses on the budget crisis and resignation, without much coverage of the other work of the comission. The introduction of the euro is of major importance, but it only recieves three sentences. Efforts to expand the EU also are barely covered. You are welcome to discuss this with me further or to take the article to WP:GAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)