Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vasil Levski/archive1

Vasil Levski

Nominator(s): Todor→Bozhinov'

• Featured article candidates/Vasil Levski/archive1

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)

• 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)

---

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)