Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1986 enlargement of the European Communities/archive1

1986 enlargement of the European Communities

1986 enlargement of the European Communities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/1986 enlargement of the European Communities/archive1

Nominator(s): Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Spain and Portugal joining the European Communities, now the European Union, in 1986. Their accessions were hugely consequential for both countries; both had just come out of dictatorships and were fledgling democracies, and being within the Communities had huge consequences in terms of solidifying their development into the states that they are today. When I came across the article in May, it looked like this, which I didn't think did the subject justice, so I decided to research it more thoroughly and write up a proper article - and I'm very pleased to have ended up here, with my first FA nomination!

As this is my first nomination, I popped a message over to Vanamonde93 about it, who pointed out that there was quite a strong reliance on primary sources in some parts of the article. In some places, that's unavoidable, by sheer virtue of the nature of the article - specific legal and political technicalities are often best sourced, for instance, to a parliamentary transcript. However, I've added other sources to what I can, and I'd love to get other people's feedback too, especially if there's anything I've missed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I should note as well my huge thanks and appreciation to Lee Vilenski, who completed the GA review of the article, and made some really helpful suggestions for improvements! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

All images are free. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

R8R review

I'll start the review tonight.--R8R (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll write a couple now and try to add more tonight.

• Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC) -- as a rule of thumb, I try to write texts in such a manner that don't raise questions, and while reading this article, I needed to reread on the difference between the EC and the EEC. It would be great to explain this somehow in the text. This could even be done relatively simply here: "Spain first applied for association with the European Economic Community (EEC), the principal institute within the European Communites (EC)"
  • Slightly rephrased this, but the same sentiment should be there - hope the revised text looks okay! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
• it would not have been able to apply for full membership as a consequence of being under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. -- this is another fundamental matter that requires clarification. Why was this a requirement in the first place? What was the point of not allowing Franco's dictatorship to join if it was primarily an economic union? Also, I think this could be reworded: "being a dictatorship, Spain was ineligible for full membership."
  • Added a lot more detail to this - you're right, it was fairly ambiguous. Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

    Looks much better now. I apologize in advance for that this review isn't likely to progress quickly. I want to say, "I'll write more tonight," but I'm not sure whether I'll actually be able to do so.--R8R (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• However, the application was of some controversy -- this strikes me as possible but unnecessarily pompous. You could say, "However, the application caused some controversy";

  Unnecessarily pompous is my speciality! Change made :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• members of the European Parliament questioned -- without any further qualifiers, I consider we're talking about a majority of those MEPs. Are we?

  I don't have any evidence to claim that it was the majority - personally, I suspect it was, but I've qualified it with "a number of" (my intuition is probably not a WP:RS!) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• given the dictatorship Spain was under -- I should say that my advice on prose quality shouldn't be taken as the highest possible standard, but this, too, looks clumsy. How about simply "given the Spanish dictatorship"?

  I've changed it to "given Spain's dictatorship", which is just a slightly snappier version of the same change, methinks. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• EEC-Spain -- this should be an en dash: –

  Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Francisco Franco -- Franco hasn't been introduced so far. How about "Spanish dictator Francisco Franco"? More importantly, the previous header also mentions Franco so presumably he could be introduced there. I'd personally write something like "Spain asked for association with the EEC in 1962. At the time, Spain was a dictatorship led by general Francisco Franco; the EEC said a Spanish association was impossible unless the country becomes more democratic."

  Franco is introduced in the lead, along with the Estado Novo dictatorship. Do you still think it merits a separate introduction in the article text? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, of course it does. Readers may be directed to a specific section and you shouldn't assume they've read the lead. (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

    My assumption has been that you treat the lead section and the body of an article separately. Most people who read the lead section won't read the article as a whole and often people who want to read the article as a whole will skip the lead section because for a sufficiently long article, it's only meant to summarize what's in the rest of the article. (By the way, did you notice how I started this review not with the lead section, but with the first section of the body of the article?) I am not aware of there are MOS guidelines on this and I know there are writers who expect a reader to read an article as a whole and thus think that acronyms, people, etc. should only be introduced once. It's fine in a written encyclopedia, but this thinking doesn't reflect very well the nature of our online encyclopedia and how its readership is different, etc., so that's why I'm opting to introduce things separately in the lead section and in the body of an article. I hope it makes sense to you.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

    That was also why I suggested you introduce the EC acronym one more time.--R8R (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

    That's entirely reasonable; this is my first FAC, so still learning the ropes on some of this! I've added a separate introduction. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• a "green veto" being used by France and Italy against its accession -- what's a green veto?

  This is a really good question. I'm a native English speaker, not a native Spanish speaker, and I'm genuinely not sure - "green" in Spanish has all sorts of connotations, ranging from success to sexuality to jealousy... I'm checking with a native speaker friend of mine, and will add it to the article when I have a more authoritative translation! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Interesting; I thought it was something from the European bureaucratic slang :) I'll wait for clarifications then.--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Turns out, I'm trying to read far too far into things - in the context of the article, it's a reference to the veto being based on agricultural concerns. Clarification done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• negotiations were opened between the European Council and Spain -- it would be nice to introduce the European Council, too

  I've added a brief introduction, and reworded the rest of the sentence to fit it - let me know if you think it works. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've got one observation, which is that you can't use a hyphen, either a comma or a dash of your choice, and one question: why are Member States always capitalized? I suppose this must be the European bureaucratic slang, but you don't have to write Wikipedia like that. Also, from what I found in the corresponding article, it appears the council is formed not by heads of state but by heads of governments.--R8R (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed the hyphen. Re (M/m)ember (S/s)tate - the capitalised version is specifically what's used in the European treaties, and is used by the EU Publications Office as a consequence. There's mixed existing usage across Wikipedia - some articles use member state, some use Member State, some use a combination of both. I don't see any particular reason to change it here, as we're talking about affairs related to the treaties specifically. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt -- this sentence could use some re-writing. For example, at the beginning of the sentence I hear about a coup attempt, about which I knew next to nothing, and I was anxious about it until I heard an explanation later on. The text could go like this: "The February 1981 Spanish coup d'état attempt, in which the Spanish Civil Guard to remove the democratically-elected government from office but failed, brought a lot of attention to Spain from abroad; particularly, from the EEC. The official statement from the Community during the coup expressed "concern" about the unfolding events; soon after the coup failed, the EEC expressed its 'great satisfaction at the reaction of the King, the government, and the Spanish people, faced by recent attacks against the democratic system of their country'."

  I've done some fiddling about and rephrasing there, and added in more of an initial introduction - what do you think? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it looks very well now!--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• an urgent acceleration of the negotiations did not immediately come to pass -- this, too, sounds overly complicated: "this did not drastically change the intensity of the negotiations" or "this did not significantly boost the negotiations."

  I've gone for a change to In spite of this, the speed of the negotiations was not significantly boosted by the events - let me know if you think that works. I think it's important to specify that it is about speed, not necessarily about intensity, as those two can be different things. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm uneasy about it because I think that you can either boost something or you can increase its speed, but you can't boost the speed of anything. Or can you?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  "Boosted its speed" sounds fine to me, but I'll change it to "increased" - makes no odds to my mind. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Spanish Act of Accession eventually devoted fifty of its pages to fisheries-related matters. -- I'm wondering if this remark is needed. To begin with, is this a lot? I would expect the eventual act to be long by any means.

  I've clarified that this is significant, in that it's just over 10% of the entire treaty. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• By the end of 1983, the French government was pressing -- rather confusing. How about "In late 1983, the French government pressed"

  That's a change in meaning, though - it's a subtle one, but it is a change all the same. The French government were lobbying over a period of time for the closure of the negotiations, not just at one point in late 1983, so the continuous tense is apt here. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I got this vibe, too, I just wasn't entirely sure if that was what you meant. Could you rephrase it somehow to make it clearer for people like me? Maybe something like "throughout the early 1980s, the French gov't pressed for a successful conclusion of the negotiations, with their effort reaching its peak in 1983"?--R8R (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've gone back to the original source, and done some wordsmithing with it, which clarifies that it was an ongoing issue, but also better states the specific point at which the deadline was requested. How's it sounding now? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• closure of the negotiations -- I may be wrong about this, but I think "conclusion" would be better

  Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• more negotiations scheduled -- "were scheduled"?

  In this case, the version without "where" is grammatically correct; the "more negotiations" clause is part of a list in "with" - with questions [...remaining...], and more negotiations scheduled beyond the deadline. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed; that one is one me, I'll try to be a bit more attentive the next time :)--R8R (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

To be continued.--R8R (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks very much - I've followed up on all the ones above, I think! :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but I probably won't be able to write any more or write back to your responses today; my forecast about how this review won't be quick is unfortunately coming true. To make it up for you for the time being, I'll mention one big thing about this article before I would normally come to it: The article reads rather strange given how it's about an EC enlargement but the body of the article does not mention the enlargement itself, only the events before and after it. There clearly should be a section about the process of the enlargement itself. You said in the lead section that the event itself wasn't very pompous and I'll take your word for it; I don't expect this section to be longer than a couple of paragraphs anyway, but there should be one. Something like "The documents were finally signed in 1985... On January 1, 1986, the Spanish and Portuguese flags were raised at the headquarters of all three Communities. Articles in Portuguese and Spanish press in January 1986 indicated that local citizens thought their country entered a new phase of their histories (or not)." I'm entirely making this up but it should give you the idea what kind of material I mean.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hrm, I get what you're saying; to some extent, the problem is that I've looked for that with little success. When it says in the lead there wasn't much pomp about the whole affair, it really does seem to mean it; I can't find anything in particular to write about in a section about the actual event of the accession beyond "it happened and the flags went up". I'll have another look around, though. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• the government of Portugal published a report decrying the decision taken by members of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation to establish the EEC -- it would help a lot if you said that they decried in 1961 the decision that was taken back in 1957. This paragraph is rather confusing because it's hard to keep track of the dates. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph to produce something like this:

"The ËEC was created in 1957. Sensing that the EEC was here to stay, the Portuguese sent in 1959 their first diplomatic mission to the EEC. However, Portugal didn't join for whatever reason they had; instead, they opted in 1960 to be a co-founder of the EFTA, which was meant to counterbalance the EEC.

The chronological order of events helps keep track of the events that are unfolding.

• Done some fixing-upping on this - how's it looking now? :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• seeking entry as a member of the EEC would have been unlikely to end in success -- just in the last paragraph, the Portuguese opted for the EFTA; what changed?

  The fixes I've applied above clarify this - EFTA is a much looser arrangement than the EEC was. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• there was no clarity established by the Portuguese government as to-- "the Portuguese government did not clarify"?

  Done! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• There was also significant opposition to any meaningful agreement being made, as a consequence of the Portuguese authoritarian regime -- confusing. Please clarify that this opposition didn't come from Portugal

  Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Portugal once again looked to open negotiations with the EEC in 1969, having had the prior negotiations in 1962 postponed indefinitely. -- one more call for the chronological order. That 1962 postponement could rather fit the previous para;

  Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• now under Marcelo Caetano -- and previously it was who..? Also, what is so special about Caetano?

  Clarified this above - António de Oliveira Salazar was the previous dictator. Caetano is "special" in that he was one of only two leaders to lead the country during its dictatorship. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• units of account -- first of all, what is this? it is wikilinked later (why not here?) but that wikilink gives merely an explanation of the general term, not these units

  It's wikilinked in both places as far as I can see, but I've explained it further in this context nonetheless. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• bore their first fruits -- sounds nice but not very fitting for an encyclopedia

  Why? That reads formally to me; indeed, other articles use it a fair bit. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Furthermore, at the end of 1979, after the government collapsed several times, Parliament was dissolved and fresh elections were called, leading to the election of a new Prime Minister, Francisco de Sá Carneiro. However, after having been in office for only a year, Carneiro died in the 1980 Camarate air crash. -- that's interesting but how exactly does this relate to the story at hand? what was Sá Carneiro's stance on the topic of integration into the EEC? was he maybe too busy to really consider it at all?

  Sá Carneiro has time to do very little prior to his death, but the governmental turbulence is hugely relevant - it's a significant factor in a reader's understanding of the context around the delay in the accession. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Portuguese Democratic Movement -- presumably most readers are not very familiar with Portuguese political parties. So some context would be nice. Was this movement important in Portugal back in the day? same for the Portuguese Communist Party

  Done some rewording around this and added a brief bit of context. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I will continue later from "Greek veto."--R8R (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RetiredDuke

Some minor issues I spotted on a read-through:

• "Estado Novo" - be consistent with the use of italics

  Done. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Le Monde in the text be in italics?

  Not in this case; per MOS:BADITALICS, Names of organizations and institutions should be in roman, rather than italics. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  According to the linked guideline, "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof: Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies, paintings, sculptures, newspapers, journals, magazines, epic poems, plays, television programs, radio shows, comics and comic strips." — Le Monde is a newspaper. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, changed - thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Refs 76 and 80 - it's actually "Arquivo Histórico da República Portuguesa" not "Arquivo Historico..."

  Thanks, I don't know how I missed that! Missing accents irritate me. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 72 - Isn't the author Marcel Niedergang? Honest question.

  Looking at it now, I suspect this was a Citoid error that I lazily didn't check. That's on me, fixed - thanks for pointing it out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can't access the Barreto pdf (ref 86). Might be a problem on my end, though.

  Looks like that was an expiring link to CloudFront. Sigh. I've changed it to a different link, which should work :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 122 - "Severiano.," - either the period or the comma has to go.

  Argh - the authors were all in |others rather than being in |last and |first form. Fixed! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll continue later. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: Thanks for having a look, these have all been really helpful comments so far! I've responded to the ones you've left above. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Brigade Piron comments

I came to this article from its listing in ITN. It's an impressive piece of work, and an important article in the scope of EU integration history. However, I would like to make three comments/observations for the review:

1. I'm a little concerned by the structure, however. I understand that it makes sense to keep the Spanish and Portuguese negotiations separate, but I would strongly suggest merging the pre-negotiation "background" into a single (perhaps separated) section at the front. There are obvious similarities between the two countries' pre-entry histories and at the moment one has almost forgotten of Portugal's existence by the time one arrives at the relevant sections!
2. The current article takes quite a bit for granted from the reader. I was particularly taken by the first reference to Franco which reads: "Following the death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who had ruled over the country for 35 years, and the beginnings of the Spanish transition to democracy [...]" I think this must be padded out more. There will need to be a brief discussion of the Spanish Civil War, Falangism, the 28 May 1926 coup d'état, WWII neutrality, Spanish and Portuguese economic underdevelopment in the mid-20th century, Portuguese Colonial Wars, Spanish miracle, Spanish Question (United Nations), Spanish accession to NATO etc. These are all important subjects in explaining the motivations and concerns of the parties involved in the 1980s and could be addressed with a "Background" section similar to the one addressed above. I don't think they can be glossed over or taken for granted.
3. The same is also true for the background history of the European Communities which is not really addressed at all. The Treaty of Rome is not even mentioned until the last third of the article. There is also little mention of previous enlargements, aims, tensions etc.

Would be interested to hear thoughts on these! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Brigade Piron! With regard to merging backgrounds, I actually started writing the article initially with a single "background" section like that, split into subsections for the countries, but it quickly got far too unwieldy. The nature of the two countries' accessions is too different to make that viable, in my view; whilst the dictatorships are clearly an incredibly important factor, there are many others that seriously affect the both of them, and that are fundamentally different between the two. The Portuguese empire, the nature of Portugal's association to EFTA, and the relative isolationism of Spain at the time compared to the significantly more open economy of Portugal, even with a similarly-repressive state, I think makes doing that a very difficult task - which is why, realising that, I changed to the current way of doing it quite early on in writing the article.

As to the background histories, I'm all for giving the reader more information, but that's a lot of stuff for any brief discussion, in my view. I worry that the inclusion of such a comprehensive history would compromise the summary style of the article, as well as the on-topic nature of it, per FA criteria 4; I'd argue that it's better to direct readers to other appropriate articles for that information for both of those reasons. The Treaty of Rome is actually referenced in the first paragraph of the first section of the article, but it's not hugely relevant to the majority of the rest of the article, precisely because of what is observed there - there was no specific provision in the treaty establishing the EEC requiring that Member States be democracies. The Treaty itself contains little restriction on what countries could or could not be members of the EEC, and as a consequence, where the majority of the article talks about the challenges to the states joining, there's little opportunity for it to be mentioned further than to say "nope, not relevant here".

I'd love to know your thoughts on these points - and anyone else's thoughts too! Thanks for leaving a comment, it's nice to know that someone's reading the article from DYK :D Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)