Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bratislava/archive1

Bratislava

This article was vastly improved over last few months, and now I believe it should meet criteria. However, being used to the article, it may have errors that I or those who have worked on it cannot see, so if you have any comments or suggestions to this, please post! Thank you. Oh, and maybe it should be appropriate to mark this nomination as self-nom, though I haven't worked exclusively on majority of the content. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:I've noticed that the table of contents doesn't list the sub-sections, that should be rectified. Also in the name section references for this sentence: Names prominent in the city's history include the Latin Posonium (first appearing in the 13th century), the Greek Istropolis (1465), the German Pressburg or Preßburg (15th century), the Slovak Prešporok, and the Hungarian Pozsony (till 19th century Posony, and still in use among Hungarians today). This is a historic fact that, in my opinion, should be verifiable with a reference. Hadseys

Hello. Thank you for your comment. I know that table of contents doesn't list subsections, however, we've set this up intentionally so the article wouldn't have too big table, though I don't have problems doing it other way. For the prominent names, I may try to look up for references. Best regards. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta, that seems to be the only problem i can find thus far, I'll give it a more thorough going over, but i reckon i'll end up supporting its very comprehensive, well-referenced, and a fascinating read. Well done to all contributors --Hadseys

Though I don't understand which problem you mean from that sentence (names or table of contents), well, thank you. If you'll find some errors, inaccuracies or other problem, feel free to put it here. Well, I must admit I'm not fan of spreading ToCs, and I don't get a clear meaning from criterion 2c (a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents). How many is substantial and how many is overwhelming? (if you wonder why I ask these things, it's because this is my first FA nomination). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think it so that the article is relatively concise, i.e. if the table of contents is condense then the article is to the point and not cluttered. However, if the article has a broad array of topics that need to be covered then it can't be helped. So it is a rather strange criterion. But generally i think its there to avoid clutter --Hadseys 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So I understand that I should leave table of contents setting unchanged for now. To your pictures action, I don't oppose it, just sizing or maybe placing could be bit better, e.g. just under early history section. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not too comfortable with the ordering of the sections. They seem to be rather arbitrary or at the very least, inefficiently ordered. Shrumster 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the main sections were reordered 2 or 3 months ago or so, based from the other FA or A-class quality articles, like Cleveland, Ohio, Boston, Massachusetts or Berlin. What changes or which new order do you suggest? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I've found so far for layout is on the WikiProject Cities page, but it's for U.S. cities, and I don't know if that model is good for European ones (that project is too much North America-centric anyway).MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I'm posting here up which issues pointed out by user:Eubulides remain unresolved:

• Names
  • English name before 1919 placement + nickname Y MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• History
  • 20th century coverage - less than 50% of whole section - stopped at around 45%. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 1867–1960 events - I believe it should be fixed now. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comparing Bratislava to other multi-cultural cities
  • General copy-editing
• Demographics
  • Lot of statistics but no explanation - now partly explained. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Maps
  • Showing no foreign states
• Economy
  • No explanation why Bratislava boomed in the 1990s while the rest was going broke
• References
  • Weak referencing from English language sources

MarkBA ^t/c/@ 10:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object
  • The first sentence spends too much time on population figures. At this point we need to know only that it's the main city in Slovakia. See Boston for a better way to do it. Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed metropolitan population, I assumed it isn't really necessary in the lead. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• The "Names" section really belongs in "History". For the general reader, the "Names" section sort of gets in the way: it's not that interesting in its own right, and assumes a lot of history. Better to explain the historical background first, and mention name changes as they occurred in historical context. Or at the very least make "Names" a subsection of "History". Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Names" section had to be created as a separate section and placed just after the lead because of WP:NCGN. Tankred 07:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCGN doesn't require a "Names" section, it's just one way to address the issue. See Vienna for one nice way to do it without a "Names" section. If "Names" could be rewritten to be a nice foretaste of Bratislava's history that flows well with the article (see, for example, Istanbul), that would also remove the objection. But as it stands it interrupts the flow and (at least in my case) left me wondering why the section was there. Eubulides 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Bratislava was adopted as the city's official name" the "Bratislava" should be italicized. Also, in the first paragraph the topic sentence should be that the origin is unclear; it shouldn't be the date it was adopted. The "For further information" sentence shouldn't be italicized, or better yet should be removed when "Names" gets folded into history. Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... so something like this "In 1919, Bratislava was adopted as the city's official name, though its origin is unclear". Or something else maybe? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the "1919" that is the problem. That "1919" belongs in the "History" section, or at the very least it belongs later in the "Names" section. The "1919" is not the most important thing about names. Again, see how Istanbul does it. If there is to be a "Names" section it should focus on naming and not lead with history. Eubulides 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The latest rewrite improved this area greatly, but "Bratislava" still needs italicization in "was renamed from Pressburg or Pozsony to Bratislava". Eubulides 18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tankred 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• The most important thing, though, is motivation. The "Names" section is a dry listing of names and dates. What I want to know is: what do the various names mean? Why were people unhappy with the old names and want to rename the city? What's the point of the city having all these names? Without the context the naming stuff is unmotivated. Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't really call it "unhappy with the old names", I think it is the consequence of multi-cultural character. "what do the various names mean?" I understand this sentence that I should insert some etymology, right? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology might help, but the important point is the story. Again, Istanbul does a much better job here, with its story about the Turkish postal authorities. It brings the issue of names to life and is not simply a dry discussion of which names were used on what dates. Other examples (not as good as Istanbul) are Kiev and Belgrade. Eubulides 16:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made quite substantial rewrite of the Names sections, and I've included etymology of names, however, I'm not sure if I made right step. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much better now. Here are some remaining problems.

• The Salzburg Annals were written in Latin, right? Do the names Preslavvaspurc and Brezalauspurc actually appear in the annals, written in those two ways? Or is this a later translation of the annals? It is odd that two names are given here: is it a problem with reading the handwritten document, or what?

I may remove one variant, probably Preslavvaspurc, however, there are too many variants to consider and so I have sometimes difficult time deciding. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a source that says that the Salzburg Annals say Braslavespurch, i.e., the "burgh of Braslav". Is this topic controversial? If so, the controversy needs to be covered. Imre Boba (1985). "Review of Čechy V Raném Středověku". Slavic Review. 44 (2): 361–362.

The variant actually used in the Salzburg Annals is Brezalauspurc ("Bellum pessimum fuit ad Brezalauspurc IIII nonas Iulii"). Braslavespurch appeared in the 16th century. I cannot find any reference to Preslavvaspurc. I have changed the text of the article correspondingly. Tankred 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Doesn't the citation need to be changed now? If the old citation (Janota, "Bratislavské rarity", p. 152) had Preslavvaspurc and Brezalauspurc but the annals actually had Brezalauspurc, don't we need a new citation for the corrected name? Eubulides 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For your information, the source claims this text (in Latin): Bellum pessimum apud Preslavvaspurc (Brezalauspurc) fuit 4. nonas Julii. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So we have three dueling sources, none of which agree. I'm assuming a source for Tankred's quote, but what is it? That is, we have Janota, "Bratislavské rarity", p. 152 for the wording you're quoting, but we don't yet have a named source for the wording that's now in the Wikipedia article; this needs to get fixed one way or another. Perhaps the simplest thing would be to drop the name entirely in this section; that is, the article could mention that the location was given a name in 907 but not say what the name was. Perhaps the problem is that the annals have different handwritten copies that do not agree? Eubulides 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... though it isn't best idea, the city uses Brezalauspurc, for example here and it is 1100 years since the first written mention, so I'll insert this page too (it is in Slovak) and copy this text from it "Výstava zo zbierok GMB "Mesto menom Brezalauspurc" (29.6.2007) Bellum pessimum fuit ad Brezalauspurc IIII nonas Iulii". So I think we should leave Brezalauspurc and replace citation, do you agree? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for now. It is a bit weird that Google Scholar reports the name only in sources from 2007. I did find one source from 1972 in Google Books but it's not clear enough to cite (it's just a snippet view). Here's the reference, if someone else wants to track it down. [unknown author] (1972). "[unknown title]". Austrian History Yearbook. 8: 13.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) This was published by Rice University. Eubulides 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• from Salzburg Annals → from the Salzburg Annals  Done MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• The German spelling reform (Preßburg → Pressburg) is mentioned in two widely sparate spots; it should be covered at most once. Perhaps it'd be better to omit it; after all, this is an English article not a German one. - I've removed first instance. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• A bit too much wording about the Preslavs; surely there's a way to say it more briefly.

Done. Tankred 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• which is derived from German → derived from German  Done MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• come from inscription bearing name → come from an inscription bearing the name  Done MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• are newer and have different origin. They come from → come from - your move would give me some strange result "...different origin. Come from..." so I edited sentence to "...origin, coming from..." MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• How about this instead? "The Hungarian name Pozsony (still in use among Hungarians; Posony before the 19th century) and the Latin name Posonium (derived from the Hungarian) come from Božaň, the name of an 11th century ruler of Bratislava Castle." Just trying to keep it shorter and focused on names. Eubulides 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rewritten to your version. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Did Greeks stop using Istropolis? It's not entirely clear. Would like more motivation here if possible. - I've included "historic". I don't know if this is relevant link but Wiktionary entry for Bratislava lists Istropolis as medieval Greek. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now explained in the article. Tankred 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• What was the 1837 variant? Also, better to identify Šafárik as a "Slavist scholar" or something like that. It would be better if this part of the section could be reworded chronologically, so that the 1837 stuff comes before the 1919 stuff; some linking text could then provide more motivation.

I've implemented your suggestion about variant and Slavist scholar. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• It'd be better to end the section with "It is commonly shortened in informal speech to Blava." as that brings us to the present. Can you rewrite it that way? This can be combined with the earlier point of not mentioning the German spelling reform twice. It's better to put the 1919-related stuff together rather than to end in 1919.

I gave it a try and moved pre-18371919 stuff before "Wilson City" discussion. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The section still ends with that "Before 1919, English-speaking" sentence. Can't that be moved to its proper chronological point too? In the first paragraph of the section. Eubulides 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it could, only to know how. I can't think of better idea than sandwiching this portion of info like this "...to Bratislava on 6 March 1919. ... . It is commonly...", however, I'd need to rewrite last sentence. Any better idea? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it got rewritten sometime before I read the page, just now. It's chronologically better now, though I miss the informal name that used to end the section; can that be brought back? Also, the sentence "Before that year, English-speaking writers referred to the city by its German name,[16] usually spelled Pressburg." is not quite right. First, it duplicates material earlier in the section, and so should be moved there. Second, English-speaking writers sometimes used Pozsony before 1919; for example:

• U.S. Patent 816,456 (1906).
• U.S. Patent 828,473 (1908).
• BC Wallis (1918). "The Slavs of northern Hungary". Geographical Review. 6 (3): 268–291.
• Hugh Robert Mill (1908). The International Geography. D. Appleton. p. 316.

I'd agree that most English writers used Pressburg, but not all. Eubulides 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. So sentence should sound like this? "Before that year, most English-speaking writers referred to the city by its German name,[16] usually spelled Pressburg." Or should I add something else? To the informal sentence, I'd like to preserve it too, however, User:Svetovid removed it twice as "pointless trivia". So what do you think? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather put the fact that English writers commonly used Pressburg next to the the fact that the German name is Pressburg. There's no sense repeating that name more than once. As for Blava, perhaps it would be better to put that nickname in the infobox, next to "Beauty on the Danube"? That is how San Francisco treats Frisco, for example (though "Frisco" is not commonly used by its inhabitants; it's more a name for outsiders). Eubulides 03:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. So "English writers" should be put like this, I suppose: "The German Pressburg (used by most English-speaking writers until 1919) and Slovak..." For "Blava", I'm afraid usage of this name is mixed (i.e. not exclusively by outsiders) and I hesitate to move it to the infobox. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Frisco" is unusual and perhaps I shouldn't have given that as an example. The question is how common the nickname is, not who's using it. For example, Boston's infobox lists Beantown as a nickname. This is a somewhat joking nickname; it is fairly common though not used everyday (it's more of the sort of nickname you'll see in a newspaper headline). What does Brava mean or connote? How often is it used? Eubulides 17:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you meant Blava. If I understood your question correctly, this name is just short for Bratislava. Like this: "Bratislava". Somebody has claimed in the Slovak Spectator interview that it is used because some found Bratislava long to pronounce and shortened it (oh, and shouldn't I change wording from commonly to sometimes?). But I still don't know your opinion: it is worthy to insert or it is just trivia? Personally, I want to have name issues closed once and for all. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I meant Blava, sorry. If you live in Bratislava and you personally hear the name at least once a week then it is not trivia and should go in, I suggest in the Infobox (as with Boston). If you don't hear the name more than once a year then it is rare enough to omit. In between it is a judgment call. Eubulides 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll move in the Infobox, but I'll leave citation just for case, as this isn't much used by English speakers. Agree? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks. Eubulides 15:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• As you can tell from comments above, though this area is much better there are still some motivation issues; the text as written assumes too much knowledge from the general reader about why things happened the way they did. Motivation is probably all obvious to you, but it's not to the general reader, and it needs to be written down.

Eubulides 18:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• As a general rule I'm not a big fan of sections that have subsections right away, without any introductory text. Some linking text is necessary. Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is still a problem with "Cityscape and architecture". Eubulides 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, however, I still can't think of introductory text. Should I transfer something from following parts or try to find something about it and retrieve it? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I added an introductory sentence. Please anyone feel free to improve or expand it. Tankred 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good enough, thanks. Eubulides 01:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The "Early history" starts with Bratislava in 1993, which is disconcerting and confusing (at least in an encyclopedia). How about telling the history in historical time order? That's simplest. Perhaps just discard the first sentence "Even though Bratislava is one of Europe's newest capital cities (since 1993), the territory has a rich history connected to many tribes and nations." Or maybe move it to "History" as linking text. Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed that sentence from Early history and moved it to the intro. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides 18:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In the "Twentieth century" section it's strange that it talks about removal of German and Hungarian citizens after World War II, but it does not talk about the removal and murder of the city's substantial Jewish population during World War II. This is a tricky subject to write about non-controversially, but I'm afraid the current text doesn't do the job. Eubulides 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I haven't noticed that. I'll look up and see if there is something to insert, though I am sure there is. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So I've inserted some information about fate of the Jews during World War II. Probably it isn't what have you expected, but is still better than nothing, isn't it? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I knew nothing about the fate of Bratislava's Jews during WWII before today, though I would have guessed the Nazis and their sympathizers exterminated most of them. The info you put in says something, but is the story really so simple that everything can be blamed on Nazi Germany? Now that I've looked into it myself, for example, why were there anti-Jewish riots in Bratislava in 1946 and 1948, if the Bratislava Jews were killed or driven away during WWII? I'm not saying all this detail needs to be here (some could be in the history subpage) but I'm afraid the topic does appear to be covered poorly now. The German and Hungarian expulsions are mentioned, and the concentration camps are mentioned for Jews, but the point is that the city has a history of multiculturalism interspersed with cultural conflict (or worse) and this overall topic is not covered. Eubulides 18:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sure there was something like anti-Jewish sentiment, but I need to find that thing first. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue is now covered in more detail. But I think the story (various ethnic groups living in the same space and having a love-hate relationship) is typical for any bigger European city and does not need to be discussed in such a brief overview. History of Bratislava would be a better place. Tankred 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Too much indenting so I'm reverting indentation in the next bullet.… Eubulides 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I still disagree about the issue of historical coverage. In the Featured Articles for eastern European cities, namely Sarajevo and Belgrade, about half of the "History" sections cover 20th-century history. This is about right for a general-interest encyclopedia, as the public is generally more interested in recent than in long-ago history. But Bratislava gives maybe a quarter to 20th-century. This isn't decisive, but it suggests that either there's not enough coverage of the 20th-century in Bratislava, or alternatively there's too much coverage of older history. Eubulides 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know why this should be an issue, but OK, I don't have anything against your opinion. Sarajevo covers around 60% about 20th century and Belgrade does around half. Our does about a quarter. Another of my "excuses" would attribute this to Sarajevo and particularly Belgrade events in 20th century, I just don't know for what world knows Bratislava particularly well in the 20th century, well, maybe except Velvet Revolution or Velvet Divorce. From Belgrade, it doesn't seem that we cover too much pre-20th century, but from Sarajevo it does. I'd rather expand 20th century than cut previous ones. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• We don't need to worry so much about what most readers know (most will know very little of Bratislava before reading this page); we merely need to worry about what the consensus of expert opinion thinks is important about Bratislava. For a few cities (Venice, say), the older history is definitely more important; Venice's years of dominance were long ago. But Bratislava is not like that: it's a modern city, it's only been a capital since 1993, and its 20th century history is bound to be more important to the general reader than its pre 20th-century history. The 20th-century events also include WWI, the founding of Yugoslavia, Slovak Republic, Nazis, WWII, Holocaust, Red Army, Communist takeover, explusion of Germans and Hungarians, recent economic growth, etc. There is plenty of history there, and it's far, far more important to the general reader than Andrew III in 1291 or the Habsburg crown jewels leaving the city in 1783. Eubulides 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• So let's recapitulate what we have so far: 1918-1919 period, wartime Slovak Republic, expulsion of Germans and Hungarians, Communist coup, expulsion in the 1950s, note about population growth, candle demonstration in the 1980s plusand Velvet divorce. Now I understand why you'd like some more coverage, because maybe except 1950s and pop. growth, these events are known to some extent and we don't want to just repeat facts known elsewhere. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope the most recent expansion of the contemporary history section[1] has addressed this issue in a satisfactory way. After my last edits, approximately one third of the whole history section is devoted to the 20th and 21st centuries. I think it is pretty adequate as many events in the earlier history of the city are more notable (at least in the Central European context) than the few notable events of the 20th century. I think it is not completely meaningful to compare Bratislava with Sarajevo and Belgrade as the latter two cities are best known among the readers because of wars in the 1990s. There is no comparable event in the recent history of Bratislava, I am afraid. Tankred 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's much improved, thanks. But before jumping into copyediting the new version I still think it's a bit light on the 20th century. I mentioned Sarajevo and Belgrade because they are the only two cities on the European continent that have featured articles right now, not because of any special relationship between them and the 20th century. Other (non-featured) articles of eastern European cities also apply about half their history section to the 20th century: see, for example, Bucharest, Vienna, Warsaw, Wrocław. There are a few examples of history-oriented cities whose articles do focus on pre-20th century events (Venice, Krakow), but is Bratislava really in that class? Bratislava does have a history of course, but I think of it as more of a modern city: more like Wrocław than like Venice, if you will. Eubulides 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So now we have two options: either cut down previous parts of History or beef up 20th and 21st centuries by adding some more text. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the recent history section again and made some cuts. I do not think I can do more. If more changes are needed, a new quick hand with a fresh mind will be needed. Tankred 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Tankred. Now I think modern history should take around 40–45% of whole section, what is IMHO acceptable. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the amount of 20th-century coverage is now acceptable. However (and I'll revert indentation next)… Eubulides 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Much improved, but there's still not enough motivation in the history section for the period from 1860–1960. The connection between the historical changes noted under "Demographics" and the historical events from 1860–1960 isn't made. In particular:

• There's no mention under "History" of the Maygarization efforts from 1867 until World War I.
• The events of 1918–1919 are not clearly identified as a major transition from Hungarian to Slovak political (albeit not ethnic) dominance.
• The important events of the 1930s are not clearly motivated. I am thinking of things like the Slovak, Czech, Hungarian, and German actors behind the First Vienna Award of 1938-11-02 and the dramatic events of 1939 (the suppression of the German and Hungarian political parties, the Czech putsch, the Slovak-Hungarian War). The section doesn't have to cover all this stuff, but the current text doesn't cover the First Slovak Republic and associated events at all well. A bit more detail might be needed here, but at any rate the motivation needs to be described.
• The current text makes it sound like the Slovak government expelled Jews because of Nazi Germany. This oversimplifies the actual situation, as the (minority) pro-Nazi wing of the Slovak People's Party was instrumental in the persecution of Slovak Jews. We don't need lots of detail here but the summary needs to be more accurate.
• The current wording makes it sound like Nazi Germany annexed Petržalka and Devín; this needs to get reworded. I assume German troops occupied that area without annexing it? But the more important question, again, is motivation: why did they occupy it?
• I am still puzzled about the anti-Jewish riots in Bratislava in 1946 and 1948 and the exclusion of the remaining Bratislava Jews from public life after WWII. This don't match the current description well. I assume this was related to Stalin's postwar anti-Jewish line? Again, the article doesn't need to go into great detail, but the overview needs to better discuss the complicated postwar situation in Bratislava.

Eubulides 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ow, it seems that this is bigger problem than I expected (at least I know that reviewers will nitpick every detail). When I added note about Magyarisation to the Demographics section, I wondered why is this missing in History section, and you confirmed it. And yes, describing all those in the 1930s and 1940s will take some research. I just hope that we can do this in timely fashion. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick edit — I added a mention of Ausgleich, Magyarisation plus events of late 1918. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so far so good, though it will need a copyedit. Eubulides 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I added mention that Slovak government expelled Jews under influence of Nazi Germany and "of the pro-Nazi wing of the Slovak People's Party". All right? And also, to the Petržalka and Devín boroughs, although what I've found so far is that based on ethnic grounds, I'm pretty sure that it was also on strategic - why they would occupy Devín, after all? For the 1930s, I assume you expect us to add something of this type "Deteriorating situation in the 1930s..." or similar. For the anti-Jewish riots, I'm not very sure - I added new book to citations and it says that most of the remaining Jews moved in the 1950s. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The pro-Nazi wing stuff is fine; thanks. You need to be careful about wording for the 1930s to achieve NPOV; from the Nazi viewpoint, after all, the situation was not "deteriorating". But yes, something needs to be added to describe the big events around 1939 and the motivations behind them. The same is true for the anti-Jewish riots: what were the motivations? Eubulides 18:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that wording – I haven't picked best option. A better version would be "Rising influence of Hitler's Germany in the 1930s..." or something. Well, I don't know if I can express that, but I feel that already quite much is inserted in the History, and detailed stuff like anti-Jewish riots or such are better described in the History of Bratislava article (which itself needs major work). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true that History of Bratislava needs work, lots more work than Bratislava #History does. But as part of a featured article, Bratislava #History must stand alone as a brief, high-quality summary of Bratislava's history. The average Wikipedia reader knows nothing about the motivations and actions of Bratislava's current and former residents. Conflicts within living memory that were associated with many deaths and the expulsion of ethnic groups comprising the majority of the city deserve adequate coverage in any historical section of this size. The subject is unpleasant, but it is far more important to the general reader than many historical topics that are already covered. Eubulides 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

...(sigh)...Okay I guess so. The 1930s and 1940s are still quite recent events (why then some Hungarian politician still opens Beneš decrees and demands apologize or financial reparation) and I guess Beneš decrees are more important than which tribe settled in the [insert whatever] century. I think I could do some on the 1930s but I still don't get idea of anti-Jewish riots after WWII, though yes, this is quite unpleasant topic to write. Well, I'm just not very sure if all actions of autonomous Slovak government are needed, when the Bratislava itself was at stake. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You needn't write about all the details of the unpleasant events. The important thing is to focus on events roughly in proportion to their effect on Bratislava. This is a history of Bratislava, after all, not of WWII or of Slovakia. Events that happened in Bratislava proper are more worth highlighting. Outside events are less interesting, unless they had a crucial effect on Bratislava. Also, please don't get discouraged from all my comments; I have pretty high standards, as you can tell, and I am spending so much time reviewing because I think there's an excellent article in the making here. Eubulides 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not discouraged, it is just quite lot. I see you have high standards, but it is after all justified, as this is review for FA level, at highest criteria, not like GA, when I got few comments (mainly prose) and that's all. I'll just repeat my comment down that I hope we can fix all crucial issues and get this promoted (well, maybe I'm replying like that because this is my first FA nomination). OK, back to our topic. Which topics should be added or clarified? Hmm, hmm, using your own words, I'm pretty sure that displacement of the Jews in WWII has more effect than two anti-Jewish uprisings, when there were only 1,500 Jews remaining (not like 15,000 in 1938), though, some of them still live here, albeit in lower number. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. By the way I have found an English-language web source of the history of Jews in Slovakia, from a Jewish point of view, with some coverage of Bratislava (with photos!). Some if it might be suitable Bratislava, or perhaps for History of Bratislava.

• Ariel Scheib (2007). "The virtual Jewish history tour: Slovakia". Jewish Virtual Library. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Retrieved 2007-08-07.

Eubulides 08:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not bad read, it has some useful info, which are however better suited to an article named "Jews of Slovakia" or similar. At least it confirms that 15,000 Jews lived in Bratislava just before World War II. Not sure from where they got 1,000 Jews today, as last census estimates around 750 of them, but it is Jewish point of view page. But back to my question: should I add something after all or not? If so, what exactly? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• If there were an article specifically about the history of Jews in Slovakia, that reference would be better suited for it, yes. But there isn't so in the meantime it would be better suited for History of Slovakia or History of Bratislava or something like that. Getting back to your question, the primary thing missing from the 20th century section is motivation for the events from about 1910 to about 1960. More-explicit info is needed about the motivations of the various actors in Bratislava during this important period. For example, why were the representatives of Bratislava reluctant to join Czechoslovakia in 1918? Was the annexation of Petržalka and Devín by Germany (not "German troops") part of a deal with the conservative Slovakians when the republic was declared, or was it later imposed by Germany over Slovakian opposition? The article makes it sound like the expulsion of the Jews continued throughout the war, but the Jewish Virtual Library says, "By 1942, nearly three-fourths of the Slovakian Jewry had been exterminated." Apparently most of the expulsion was done by 1942 with Slovakians approval; then the Slovakians stopped; then Germany took over in 1944 and began again. The article need not go into this much detail, but the overall summary is a tiny bit misleading now and needs to get reworded. Going further, why did Beneš decree the expulsion the Germans? Which sort of citizens were expelled during the 1950s and why? Were they expelled to prison or what? Much of this stuff is obvious to people who know Bratislava well, but it's not obvious to the general reader. Eubulides 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• To answer your questions about years from 1910 to 1960: 1. When you'll take look on the ethnic composition before 1920s or so, you'll see that Germans and Hungarians were dominating, with a portion of Slovaks. And the trouble was, in that chaos in 1918 everyone wanted to have the city in their state, i.e. Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, Germans (possibly) in Austrian, and Hungarians in Hungary. As the Germans with Hungarians were dominating, it's natural they resisted incorporation to Czechoslovakia so they wanted to either join the other state or (when it became more clear that the city will be part of Czechoslovakia) declare a free city. 2. Looks like the first is true, Petržalka and Devín were annexed by Germany in 1938, approximately half year before the republic was formed. 3. That's true. The transports were stopped in 1942, but were restored again in 1944, I'll see if I can reword that acceptably. And finally 4. Don't clearly understand Beneš decrees, but the citizens in the 1950s were expelled from the major urban areas under so-called "Action B", because as one might know, Communists did not really like middle classes and in Bratislava there were lots of them, and as such they've decide to move it out and replace it with "working" class. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I tried to reword some of the points, however, I'm not sure 'bout Beneš decrees and I have no idea how to word displacement of the Jews in two waves from its current form. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, the 1918 part is clearer now and the "German troops" has been fixed. However, the chronology is mixed up now, as one sentence talks about the 1939 creation of the Slovak Republic and the next sentence talks about the 1938 annexation; wouldn't it be better to tell the story chronologically? Perhaps one of the other editors can help out with wording of the two waves (I assume the first was larger?) and the Beneš decrees. Eubulides 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good, I tried to reword it that way so annexation comes before declaration of the Slovak Republic. I mentioned two waves of displacing Jews, however, I'm not very sure if that matches the text well. And finally, Germans were expelled under Beneš decrees, what that article says, for their collaboration with Nazis, but I don't know if this is good for text, though I added a mention about fate of Hungarians after the war ('cause Germans were in the text, but Hungarians were not). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, but the text currently makes it sound like the first wave was in 1942; it ended in 1942 but started before that. Eubulides 07:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're right — I've forgot of that, the Jews were expelled even in 1941, but not directly into Auschwitz or other concentration camps, yet into some equivalent of gulags. I've fixed that... mea culpa for not adding that. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 07:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Eubulides 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• So after fixing this one, is there anything to be fixed from the content or factual side here? As I'm not native speaker (though I have CAE but only barely), I'll leave copyediting for someone else. When there's nothing to do here (not sure about comparing Bratislava to other multi-cultural city) we can move to something else. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• I replied at the end of my comment (too much indenting here). Eubulides 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• One way to improve the story of expulsions during the war would be to use a better photograph. The current photo of a couple of water-filled bomb craters could be improved on. The major story here is a human one, not a story about railroad ties, and so it would be better to have a picture with people in it. One possibility is to use a photo like Image:RudolfVrbawithArnostRosin.jpg, a photo taken in Bratislava in summer 1944, with a caption like this: "Rudolf Vrba (right, in Bratislava, June/July 1944) was expelled from his Bratislava gymnasium (high school) in 1939 under the Slovakian version of the Nuremburg Laws and was deported by Slovakian authorities to the concentration camps. He and Arnost Rosin (left) escaped from the death camp at Auschwitz." Perhaps you can find a better photo, but this is the best one I found in Wikimedia commons. Eubulides 18:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not saying that it is bad idea, but what relevance has that photo to the Bratislava article, when he's more known for escape from Auschwitz? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• There are two connections between the photo and Bratislava. First, Vrba was expelled from his Bratislava gymnasium in 1939 and so there is a human connection there. Second, the photo was taken in Bratislava in 1944 after he escaped, and while he was hiding in Bratislava. I'm sure it's not the best photo to describe the circa-1940 history, but it's more apropos than the one that's in the article now, and it's the best I found in the Wikimedia commons. You may prefer some of the other images I found that show the human side of circa-1940 history better than the bomb-crater photo does, e.g., Image:Rodobrana.jpg, Image:Antisemitismus10.png, or Image:Tuka.jpg, but to my mind the Vrba one is the best currently in Wikimedia. It could be that we need to add an image to Wikimedia; what would be better than any of the above is something like Image:Vertreibung 1.jpg but of course that is not suitable as it is about the Sudetenland, not about Bratislava. Something more like the expulsion of Slovak Jews in 1942 but that's not in Wikimedia and besides it's not quite right for this article either as Yad Vashem says most Jews were expelled from Bratislava in October 1941. Eubulides 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh well, I guess some picture of someone with such connection is still better than looking into water-filled bomb crater, though I wonder if this one will be accepted. But still better photos would be needed. So I'm replacing. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I struck out that objection above, leaving in the optional suggestion to use a better photo if one ever turns up. Eubulides 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm quite sickened from constant History and Names editing, I've just reworded sentence so it partially explains why Czechoslovakia broke up. "Hitler's rising influence in central Europe..." should be OK in my opinion. All I hope now that this issue can be brought to satisfactory state and of course, that we can persuade you about qualities of this article once crucial issues are done. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now we're just focusing on the substance; copyediting can come later. There's one part of the rewording that I'm afraid needs to be clarified and/or changed back (and this is partly my fault: sorry, I didn't realize annexation had occurred). The current text says "Petržalka and Devín on were occupied by German troops on ethnic grounds" whereas the previous text said they were annexed and not merely occupied. They were eventually annexed, right? If so, that should be said. Eubulides 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted word "occupied" to "annexed". Yes, these were normal part of the Third Reich, however, German troops occupied (not annexed) part of Slovakia (Schutzzone = protective zone) and of course when Slovak National Uprising broke out. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• It might be helpful to compare Bratislava with other multicultural border or close-to-border cities in Europe, e.g., Wroclaw. Gregor Thum (2005). "Wrocław and the myth of the multicultural border city". European Review. 13 (2): 227–235. doi:10.1017/S1062798705000360.

• Frankly speaking, I'm not even sure if this is worthy of coverage. Is this necessary for the successful finish? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Names", "When we copped it on Presburg Street" does not confirm that "Presburg" was a common spelling of the city's name. It merely confirms that there was a "Presburg Street" in London. I imagine that some English-speaking writers before 1919 used "Pozsony" as well as "Pressburg".

Well, to be honest, I don't agree with this reference and I think it isn't very necessary, though I'm not author who inserted this one. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed this one. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Eubulides 03:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "History", a general problem with this section is that the text is a series of sentences, each reasonable standing alone, but without much connection between the sentences. Example of disconnected sentences (which might be removed, or which require rewording for flow) include:

• "The Romans introduced wine growing to the area and began a tradition of winemaking which survives to the present."
• "The name Pressburg first appeared in the 15th century." - removed
• There are a lot more where those came from.

Well, the first one may be moved to History of Bratislava or reworded, so I'm not sure yet about this one. The Pressburg sentence is better suited to the Names section, just need to know how to word it carefully. Not sure about last third. Could you explain? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more sentences that seem disconnected from the previous text (at least to this non-expert), but again these are just a sample.

• "In the 9th century, the castles at Bratislava and Devín were important centres of the Principality of Nitra and later Great Moravia."
• "The first written reference to the city (as Brezalauspurc) dates to 907." (Is this sentence necessary at all? The topic is now covered in "Names".) - I removed that sentence, though I am unsure if the text flows well. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• "Today's Bratislava was granted its first known town privileges in 1291 by Andrew III."

To fix this problem you might try reading the section out loud to someone who's not an expert, and ask them to tell you when things seem to jump or are disconnected. Eubulides 18:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to copyedit this section, so the text flows a bit better and the previously isolated sentences are now logically connected. Perhaps you can look at the section again and point to the remaining problems if there are any? Tankred 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Much improved now, thanks. Before further copyediting let's think about the problem of emphasis mentioned in the comment above about Warsaw, Wrocław, etc. Eubulides 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The history section jumps over the 17th century; why?

Again, good catch. Well, maybe because of numerous Anti-Habsburg uprisings. I'm going to look up for something from the 17th century. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried and mentioned 17th century, however, it is only a single sentence right now. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better, though "is marked" should be "was marked" and the sentence is merely a laundry list; it doesn't continue to tell a story, as it should. Eubulides 18:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC) - fixed grammar, I have to think about better option, though I'm just afraid I can't do well-flowing text as non-native speaker. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Eighteenth and nineteenth century" it's said that the crown jewels were moved to Vienna but doesn't say why, or why that was a big deal. This section is particularly disjointed: it seems like the subject changes in nearly every sentence, and there's no story here at all.

I haven't found so far anything detailed on this; all I found is that Joseph II was less interested in Pressburg (Bratislava) than Maria Theresa of Austria. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Early history", "wine growing" is a misnomer; you grow grapes, or make wine, but you don't grow wine. But the sentence about viticulture doesn't really belong here; best to remove it from this paragraph (maybe moving it to History of Bratislava).

Explained above. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Twentieth century", why were representatives reluctant? Why was the Slovak Republic formed? Again, the sentences are too disconnected. It's better to throw some stuff out of here (and into the history subpage) in order to make the story flow better.

I'll look into first two objections. Which stuff do you mean in general (citizens expelled in the 1950s)? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the previous remarks (above) I was too hasty about throwing things out. Still, the section does not flow well. There seem to have been five major shocks to Bratislava in the 20th century, namely 1919, 1939, 1945, 1948, and 1988–1993. This should be the focus of this section. Some of the details are already covered elsewhere, e.g., the 1919 name change. Sometimes more detail is needed, as in my questions above. Eubulides 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Geography", "south-western Slovakia" should be "southwest Slovakia".

OK. Fixed. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I should write something more to the "representatives' reluctance", as it is explained in the Names section. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why does "Rusovce" talk about Gerulata? It's not clear from the text why the two topics are related.

I would tell because one of the few signs of Roman presence in present-day Slovakia. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the text is confusing. Gerulata is introduced with a sentence about "The borough", but what's "The borough"? No borough is previously mentioned in this section. The first sentence makes it sound like this section is about Rusovce mansion but the second sentence appears to abruptly change the subject, at least for readers who are not already experts in this area. Eubulides 18:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Tankred 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Under Demographics there are a lot of statistics but no explanation. For example, the population of the city declined from 2001 through 2005: why?

Simplest explanation would be because more people moved out than in or such. But I need to find something about it first if I can. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if I could do something about this, however, I've read two days ago an article in online Sme edition and it says something about population numbers for last year and although it isn't directly related, this passage may indicate something: "Senec District gets the most from the proximity of Bratislava: 77% of newcomers are from Bratislava and further it says that this is typical sign of suburbanization." Though I have another idea but I'd like to ask first if it is good to insert historical population like in Boston, Massachusetts page. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, historical population figures as in Boston#Demographics would be fine, though that Boston section is pretty boring. It would be better to provide some motivation/explanation too, as is done in Belgrade#Demographics. Eubulides 06:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that demographics in U.S. cities pages were generated by some bot or something. As for historical population, I found one website but can't remember it now (sigh!). And yes, for explanation, I have one idea in my mind: you mean ethnicities (e.g. mostly German town until 19th century etc.)? That reference which you gave almost at the end of this page might come handy. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've found that website I had in my mind: here it is. Although it tries to cite its sources, I'm not particularly sure if it can be marked as reliable one. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope better sources are available. Eubulides 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the same, but I haven't found better one so far. Although that site has some useful info and cites some sources, the author claims that it is a hobby site (?) and that's why I hesitate to insert data from it. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've included some insight of historical ethnic composition (diff). Is this what were you waiting for? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. Needs a copyedit but the historical content is much better now. Eubulides 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just done some copyediting of that section. Hope it is slightly better now. Tankred 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• The map of Bratislava doesn't show its foreign boundaries, even though the text talks about it adjoining two other countries.

You mean map in the Gov't section or that in the infobox? Unfortunately, for the first case we would need better maps than we have right now, but alas, I'm unable to make some. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Either map would be fine. Or maybe you can add a new map but that sounds like overkill. If the issue about the two bordering countries is important enough to put in the text, it's important enough to put into the map. Eubulides 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So you mean that either I (when I'll find out how) or somebody else should edit both maps to indicate neighbouring states. Is that right? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'd like if possible. It's not essential, but it would help the article. Eubulides 04:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• The "International relations" section should be spun off to a different page (see Boston).

Well, I must admit I'm not fan of spinning off twin towns/international relations to separate page and how to do that without that "see also"? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that international relations are really just trivia: the "sister cities" stuff is about as important as what is the state bird of North Dakota. The page is a bit long now and this is the most obvious section to put into a subpage. A "See also" would be shorter than what is there now. Eubulides 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I'll spin this one off and put it into separate article and leave a see also link. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Economy" continues the problem of listing a lot of stuff but not tying it together much. For example, 1991 was clearly a big year in Bratislava's economy; this needs to be explained. You can't assume that the reader knows political details here. It's more important to explain the big picture than to give lists of companies (e.g., the paragraph listing Slovak Telecom etc. should go).

"Explain 1991 + big picture than to list companies". So you'd like to explain why all those Western-style office blocks, malls and similar popped up? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Why did Bratislava prosper so much since the early 1990s, while other cities in similar situations back then (Belgrade comes to mind) did not? Was it luck? Tax reforms? That sort of thing. Eubulides 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some English-language sources on the subject of Bratislava's recent economic good fortune:

• Stephanie Jasmand, Silvia Stiller (2005). "Capital cities in the new EU states—economic status quo and current trends". Intereconomics. 40 (5): 298–304. doi:10.1007/s10272-005-0161-4.
• Vladimír Baláž (2007). "Regional polarization under transition: the case of Slovakia". European Planning Studies. 15 (5): 587–602. doi:10.1080/09654310600852639.

Eubulides 06:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to say that you haven't made an effort to search something for improvement, but paying 25$ for viewing article once or twice doesn't sound very well. Nothing is free I guess... or I don't understand the "system" or intention? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have access to a good university library nearby? They should have this stuff. That's where I got my copies. There's no rush. Eubulides 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well... I still haven't found a good source, though I hope I'll get access to one (but alas, it requires subscription). But if I'll think about it, few reasons come up: 1. There wasn't any war industry, but auto plant (since 1991), refinery (Slovnaft) + some others 2. It is a capital 3. And don't forget location - bordering two states plus it's a transportation hub with the Danube. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• These are all plausible reasons, but you really need to read the sources. Here's another good source: Mark Burnett's 2005 Ph.D. thesis at UCLA, Making a capital city : national identity and the post-socialist transformation of Bratislava, along with the scholarly papers that have been generated from that. I doubt whether your local library will have a copy of the thesis, but for something like this your best bet may be to write the author and ask nicely for a copy of the thesis or of related papers, explaining the situation. Please don't expect a quick answer, though: it's summer. Eubulides 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misspelling: "ihas".

I just can't find it. You could at least indicate where it is. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no search function in your browser?!? Try Mozilla Firefox instead. Anyway, never mind, I fixed it. Eubulides 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, you don't need to jump on me immediately. I think we don't need to end in an argument, or do we? I have Firefox, I was either bit lazy or bit tired. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• In "Transportation", "Geographical position of Bratislava" should be "The geographical position of Bratislava". There are too many subheads here; this section should be made briefer and should just have paragraphs, not subheads.

Fixed error. So which kind of information should be binned? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First, remove the subheads. They are not needed. Second, remove unnecessary details like names of motorways, motorways not yet built, names of bridges, names of train stations, who the airport is named after, what kind of flights the main airports serves, the exact number of passengers served in 2006, names of transport junctions, etc. Then combine adjacent paragrphs as needed. See Belgrade#Transportation for an example of what it should look like when you're done. Transportation is not a crucial topic deserving lots of coverage here. Eubulides 05:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I binned some info (except airport passengers) and deleted subheads. Though I tried to follow Belgrade example, I'm not exactly sure if it is good enough to be acceptable. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. Eubulides 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• As someone who cannot read Slovak alas, I found the references less useful than I would have liked. I realize the Slovak references are typically more authoritative, but what can I say? I can't read them. I went looking for some good English-language references. I didn't find much, but you might want to check these out if you can find them. There should be a slight bias for English-language references.

• Silvia Miháliková (2006). "The making of the capital of Slovakia". International Review of Sociology. 16 (2): 309–327. doi:10.1080/03906700600708949.
• Eleonóra Babejová (2003). Fin-de-siècle Pressburg: Conflict & Cultural Coexistence in Bratislava 1897–1914. University Presses of California, Columbia and Princeton. ISBN 0880335157.

I could try looking for some English-speaking, but I'm quite wary of using some types of websites or journals and some information are either hard or aren't to be found in English-speaking pages. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that English-language sources are not always available, but the sources I mentioned are from reputable refereed journals or high quality publishing houses; there shouldn't be any problem on the quality score. Both authors are respectable academics in Slovakia, as far as I know. Eubulides 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a freely-available English-language source that is highly relevant to 20th-century history of Bratislava. The author is at the Institute of Ethnology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

• Peter Salner (2001). "Ethnic polarisation in an ethnically homogeneous town" (PDF). Czech Sociological Review. 9 (2): 235–246.

Eubulides 04:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't turn sources into predominantly English one over short time. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think part of the problem is that too much info is being stuffed into the page. It's better to leave some info out, in order to make the page flow better and easier to read. The goal is to give the reader the big picture of Bratislava (why does it exist? what does it feel like to live there? what are its people like? what makes it special?) rather than worry about details like the name of the king that founded the Universitas Istropolitana or the date that the A6 motorway will open. One symptom of the overstuffing is the page's 153 footnotes, mostly citing foreign-language publications. Another is that many of the subheads are not in the table of contents (I guess because the table of contents would then be too big; that's a worrisome sign).

OK, I'm waiting for suggestions what to include, if it is missing or what to throw out. Yes, I've manually set the Table of Contents to not show three-level headings or less, because of the concern you made. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A better solution is to use the default Table of Contents, and to change the article so that it does not need so many subheads. For example, see Autism and compare it to its old state which used a similar trick with Table of Contents. The new Autism doesn't need the trick, even though it covers the same material and more. In Wikipedia articles that need lots of subheads are giving off danger signals that they're too large or need reorganization or both. Above I suggested omitting the subheads for "Transportation". Bratislava could also easily lose the "Budget" subhead, along with the subheads of "Government", "Cityscape and architecture", and "History". This should be enough so that you can use an ordinary table of contents scheme. Perhaps a bit of linking text would be needed to replace the subheads, and maybe some material would need to be yanked to make the text flow better, but those subheads should not be needed. Eubulides 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've returned to default Table of Contents, and I've cut so far Transportation, trying to word it like in the example you gave and History, where subheads were removed. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped. The Table of Contents is still a bit large but is acceptable. Eubulides 16:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, it's a very good article, better than the usual GA class. But it needs a careful copy-edit along the above lines.

Thank you for your review. I'll look to the above objections and see if I can do something about them. If I can't, I'll call in someone who can. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides 07:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Some recent edits have messed up Bratislava #Climate right now. Eubulides 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted those edits so table looks normal again — though I don't understand that author, first edit summary here being "rv illicit date-delinking campaign". Removal of the last "accessdate" line messed up table. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing it. Eubulides 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here's my summary of remaining issues in this objection.

• The 17th century coverage is too cursory, compared to adjacent centuries. More balance is needed. It may have been a bad time for Bratislava, but there is history in bad times as well.

• I've expanded details about this; but I guess I overstuffed that again. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, much improved. Eubulides 08:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• (This point is fixed now.) The 1783 moving of the crown jewels isn't motivated.

• Sorry, but I still can't find real motivation, except this vague meaning that "Joseph II wasn't very much interested in Pressburg (Bratislava) as Maria Theresa of Austria". MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• So what do you suggest? Should I keep trying to find some reason or... settle with this one? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• You should be able to find a source. Perhaps in English? Josephinism says it was part of Joseph II's strategy of integrating Hungary into the empire (i.e., making Hungary less of a special case). Here lies Joseph II who was unfortunate in all his undertakings says something similar: it was a deliberate slight to Hungarian national pride, Joseph II thought "national pride" was really the privilege of Hungarian nobility and clergy to live at the expense of the rest of the country. That's the sort of motivation we're looking for here: it's much juicier and more informative than the bare fact that the Crown of St. Stephen moved. Perhaps you can find better sources for this sort of thing. Eubulides 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, hmm... after reading these I don't get many ideas because as I read, Joseph II wanted to stengthen unity of Austria + Hungary, but for central offices I'm still not sure... maybe Buda was rebuilt enough after Turkish wars? I just can't think of wording... but regardless how I'll insert reworded sentence, this is going to need extensive copyedit – some sentences are particularly disjointed: "Under the reign of Maria Theresa's son Joseph II, however, the crown jewels were taken to Vienna in 1783 and many central offices moved to Buda, with a large segment of the nobility following along.[31] Bratislava became a centre for the Slovak national movement. In 1783, the first newspaper in Slovak, Presspurske Nowiny (Pressburg Newspaper), and the first Slovak novel were published." and recent rework of 1950s too: "After the Communist Party seized power in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, the city became part of the Eastern Bloc, and hundreds of citizens were expelled during the communist repression of the 1950s, with the aim to replace "reactionary" people with the proletarian class.[50][37] For example, after the Soviets staged anti-Jewish riots in Bratislava in 1946 and 1948, most of the Jewish remnant departed." Yuck. The only good thing is that after this will get done, we will have better chances for success. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, though I added some motivation to the crown jewels, I'm not sure if I've done right thing. I guess next step after this is copy-editing. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, I struck it out. Yes, copyediting is the remaining problem. We're getting there. Eubulides 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• (This is now fixed and is no longer a point of objection.) Lack of motivation and coverage of post-WWII tumult. I just now did a bit more reading on this, and Jewish history of the Czech Republic says that after the Soviet-staged anti-Jewish riots the number of Jews in Bratislava fell from 8,000 in 1947 to 2,000 in 1968, presumably mostly via emigration, and this seems quite relevant to this part of Bratislava's history. The truth about Kielce says the purpose of the riots was to frighten Jews so that they would depart. It's not like this was a new thing: there were anti-Jewish riots or pogroms in Bratislava in 1919 [2], 1882 [3], and 1848 [4]. The text need not go into all this detail, but the current text attributes anti-Jewish sentiment to Nazi sympathies and this is incorrect: the sentiment both predates and postdates the Nazis and this needs to be made clearer. It could well be that other parts of the post-WWII tumult (expulsion of other ethnic groups) also needs better coverage, but I didn't research this.

• Well, I think Jews are researched already too much and although it's true that anti-Jewish sentiment can't be attributed from whole part to Nazis; there was always anti-Jewish sentiment, even in the Middle Ages, and particularly in poor country like this. And where the heck you got 8,000 Jews in 1947?? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not just the Jews. Salner says Bratislava went from being 15% Slovak in 1910 to 30% in 1930 to 90% in 1950, with corresponding declines in other ethnic groups. That's a huge change by any standard. Most of the numeric change was due not to expulsion/murder of Jews, but to other expulsions. The fate of the Jews was by far the worst, and is the best documented, but it's certainly not the only story. That being said, the current text is still not quite right. Not only does it give a misleading impression of the motivation for the expulsion and murder of the Jews (as I mentioned above), it gives a misleading impression of Hungarian exclusions; according to Salner the Hungarians went from over 15% of the city in 1930 to under 4% in 1950, which is a pretty rapid decline. Eubulides 08:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Not that this number needs to be in the article, but I got the 8,000 figure (for the number of Jews in Bratislava in 1947) from the web source I cited; see "ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE" under "Contemporary Jewry"; that section's author is Avigdor Dagan, who was a coauthor of the following 3-volume work: Avigdor Dagan, Gertrude Hirschler (1984). Lewis Weiner (ed.). Jews of Czechoslovakia: Historical Studies and Surveys. Jewish Publication Society of America. ISBN 0827602308.

• OK. You have put your reasons and objections. Now suggest which passages exactly should be changed to approximately which form, so it will be trouble no more. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you asked, so here are some suggestions. Please look at the source, not just the rendered Wikipedia page, so that you can see the suggested references and markup. The suggested material refers to the "Czechreview" citation that is already in the article.

• Change:

After the Compromise of 1867, strong Magyarisation policy was set up, and until then dominating Germans were slowly being replaced by Hungarians.

to:

The Compromise of 1867 transferred political control to Hungary, resulting in a strong Magyarisation policy that ousted Germans from their dominant civic position and doubled the number of declared Hungarians.

• Change:

Hitler's rising influence in Central Europe in the 1930s culminated in the splitting of Czechoslovakia on the will of Nazi Germany, which also annexed yet independent boroughs of Petržalka and Devín in 1938 on ethnic grounds.

to:

Under the democracy and relative ethnic tolerance of the First Czechoslovak Republic the number of declared Slovaks doubled and Czech population increased, while German and especially Hungarian population fell considerably in the city, but the rise of fascist ideas in the late 1930s increased ethnic tensions. In 1938 the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler annexed neighboring Austria in the Anschluss; as part of this Germany annexed the still-independent Petržalka and Devín boroughs on ethnic grounds.

• Change:

The new Slovak government, under the influence of the Nazi Germany and of the pro-Nazi wing of the Slovak People's Party, expelled most of the 15,000 Jews from Bratislava by 1945 in two waves, first in 1941–1942 and second during the German occupation in 1944–1945. Most of the Jews were later sent to concentration camps. Bratislava was occupied by German troops, bombarded by the Allies and eventually liberated by the Soviet Red Army on April 4, 1945.

to (but you'll have to check the references here):

In 1941–1942 the new Slovak government expelled most of Bratislava's approximately 15,000 Jews. This policy was championed by the pro-Nazi wing of the Slovak People's Party, was approved by most of the population, and was not in itself unusual for the city, as Bratislava Jews had been victims of riots and pogroms in 1882, 1848 and earlier. Expulsions resumed in 1944–1945 when Bratislava was occupied by German troops. Most of the expelled Jews were sent to their deaths in concentration camps. Bratislava was bombarded by the Allies and eventually liberated by the Soviet Red Army on April 4, 1945.

• Change:

At the end of World War II, most citizens of German origin were evacuated by German authorities; a small part of them returned after the end of the war, but were removed from the city under the Beneš decrees. The Hungarians were planned to be removed same way, but Czechoslovakia reached only an agreement about partial population exchange with Hungary.

to:

At the end of World War II, most Bratislava Germans were evacuated by German authorities; a few returned after the war, but were expelled under the Beneš decrees. Expulsion of Hungarians was decreed as well, but this was not completed and a minority of the prewar Hungarians remained.

• After:

After the Communist Party seized power in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, the city became part of the Eastern Bloc, and hundreds of citizens were expelled during the communist repression of the 1950s, with the aim to replace "reactionary" people with the proletarian class.

insert:

For example, after the Soviets staged anti-Jewish riots in Bratislava in 1946 and 1948, most of the Jewish remnant departed.

• Change:

However, the population rose significantly as the city annexed new land

to:

The population rose significantly as the city became 90% Slovak and annexed new land

Also, the duplication between "History" and "Demographics" in this area needs to be removed, but that can be done during copyedit. Eubulides 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All suggested changes implemented. Does the last comment mean that I should cut Demographics back to their "pristine" state, or just cut down? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's better to start from where it is now, rather than reverting. The point is that there is some duplication and the duplication should be removed. It could be that some of the stuff from "History" should be removed, not just "Demographics". It'd be nice if "Demographics" had some motivation rather than just being a dry list of statistics. Eubulides 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All I'm afraid that Demographics with dry data are unavoidable, but if one can insert some explanation, they will be softer. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• General feeling that the article is too large and is over-footnoted. Some of this can be addressed by removing duplication in "Demographics" and "History", other by copyediting (see below), but you may need to create a subarticle or two and or edit more ruthlessly. Let's put it this way: Bratislava is 89,501 bytes, Vienna 42,431, Warsaw 43,296, Sarajevo 43,283. Even Belgrade (a too-large page in my opinion) has only 86,185 bytes and 134 footnotes; Bratislava has 159 footnotes. It's like an overstuffed pillow and someone needs to yank some stuff out.

• So I understand that I should throw out approximately 10–15% footnotes. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a strict numeric target. Possibly the copyedit pass will solve the problem by throwing some of the text and footnotes overboard. Eubulides 08:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Though I have already thrown out some, I'll better wait for user:Tankred or someone else to copyedit the article. Or maybe should I post to the League of Copyeditors when all other major issues are done? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• If the League can do it, that'd be great. I've never used them so I cannot advise in detail. Eubulides 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Though they have commonly a backlog, I'll check again if it is worth a try. Owing to the Joseph II fix, all other major issues are done. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Though some responses are instant, most of them are quite long after request has been placed, so I'm not very much preferring this option. Some policy or essay or whatever has said "copyeditors will always be in short supply". And considering attention here, I think it would just linger. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article will need a good copyedit pass at some point (I assume we're all taking this for granted, I'm just writing it down to make it explicit).

• Unfortunately, I can't do it for two simple reasons: too much associated plus not very good at this.

The other parts of my objection are fixed, or are so minor that they aren't worth worrying about. Thanks and good luck! Eubulides 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. The article IMO has been greatly improved and satisfies the FA criteria. Tankred 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm tracking the FA-review process daily, but holding back on doing any copyedit work for the moment. I intend to give the whole article a thorough treatment, but only after the substantive edits have died down. I'll want to devote a couple of hours to the job, and my schedule lately is only going to allow me to do that once. Come yell on my talk though if there's anything that really needs attention to keep moving forward, I don't want to hold up the works! — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗}

• Comments. I won't oppose at the moment, because it's not too badly written; but it needs to be copy-edited throughout by another collaborator.
  • MOS breach: hyphen as interruptor at the end of the opening para. Read MOS on dashes.
  • "as well as" is marked; any reason? "And" would be smoother and plainer.
  • Call me old-fashioned, but I hate the new "headquartered" verb. "The headquarters of many ... are located in ...".
  • "The current name, Bratislava, has its beginnings in 1837,"—"had". Tense is an issue here, too: "Even though Bratislava is one of Europe's newest capital cities (since 1993), the territory has a rich history connected to many tribes and nations." "Even though Bratislava has been one of Europe's newest capital cities since 1993, the territory has a rich history connected to many tribes and nations." But surely you can say whether it's the newest? Fuzzy.

And lots more. Tony 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed examples except "headquartered" verb – I don't know, but your suggestion sounds bit wordy, though I have no better idea. Now I'd like to find some good copyeditor who isn't very familiar to this article – though not sure if League of Copyeditors with their backlogs can help. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Fixed "headquartered" and the hyphen. Tankred 14:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)