Talk:Revival Process/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pietrus1 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 02:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I will review this as part of GARC#89. I will need a few days to go through the article and sources. A.Cython(talk) 02:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Let me know if you need anything. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I promise to finish the review by the end of the weekend. A.Cython(talk) 23:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a larger article. Take all the time that you need.

Pietrus1 (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading about the Revival Process, a topic that admittedly did not know much. So it is great that Pietrus1 has made the effort to compile the sources and write this article (95% contribution). It was no easy job given that it is not an easy topic to write about. Overall, it has the potential to reach the finish line, but first there are a number of minor issues that need to be fixed. I provide my comments in detail below. A.Cython(talk) 21:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Various

• No edit war
• Neutral
• Broad+Focused
• No copyright issues detected, Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives 19.4%
• No issues with figures, all are free of copyright except the infobox image which is under the fair use justification

Prose & MoS

• While this is a special/controversial topic and citations may be required, I feel there are a bit too many citations at the lead and at the infobox. The relevant policy is MOS:CITELEAD. I think there two solutions
  1. Remove citations on non-controversial statements. For example, at the infobox, Location Bulgaria does it need a citation? See also WP:CITETRIM
  2. You can reduce the effect of citation overuse with merging the citations together, i.e., WP:CITEMERGE

• I will definitely do this. Will you take a look at the relevant diff? Pietrus1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

[AC] Once you finish with all the changes, then ping me to read the article again. No need to micromanage and if you disagree explain the reason for me to understand.

• Acronyms, if you define them then use them in the text otherwise there is no need to define them. So use them or remove them
  • EEC, UNESCO, OSCE, ESGRAON, KGB
• remove intraarticle wikilinks, these tend to break when target is renamed, e.g., death toll estimates vary among sources
• new government under Petar Mladenov → new government under Petar Mladenov
• forced assimilation and an "assimilation campaign" → an "assimilation campaign" (they are kind of the same thing, no?)
  • I complete agree with you, but I was trying to tip-toe around this. One of the sources also discusses nuances in terms (in Bulgarian). Another source which I did not link to not overcite this also discusses nuance in terms (in English). For now, I changed it to just "assimilation campaign."
    • [AC] Noted
• in majority Turkish areas → in the majority Turkish areas
• insisted Bulgarian Turks → insisted that Bulgarian Turks
• two–three months → two to three months
• susbsequently spelling?
• affected Bulgarian affected the Bulgarian
• four–seven → four and seven
• By late 1984, communist Bulgaria was party to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, even as it continued to pursue assimilation policies in contravention of these. → By late 1984, communist Bulgaria belonged to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, while continuing to implement assimilation policies in breach of those obligations.
• One theory traces the Turkish community to migration from Asia Minor, while the other rejects such migration. so what is the second theory? I assume religious conversion when the Ottomans arrived?
• Shortly before the Revival Process, the state made education policy more assimilationist, promoting mixed marriages, and requiring Turkish-minority teachers to undergo ideological training. → In the period leading up to the Revival Process, the state intensified its assimilationist education policies by promoting mixed marriages and subjecting Turkish-minority teachers to ideological training.
• as security concerns → as security concerns (add relevant wikilink)
• Avoid WP:WEASEL words, try to quantify if possible
  • expelled many Turks from the country how many 200, 10,000?
  • Non-fatal injuries Several thousand provide a range
    • For non-fatal injuries, the source is a bit vague. It does not provide a numeric range. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    • [AC] Noted.
• remove the wikilinks from existing countries, i.e., Greece and Iran, per MOS:OVERLINK
  • Done, but I have kept the link to Baathist Syria for now since it recently went away. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
    • [AC] Noted.
• The same study found that Bulgarian Turks generally blamed Todor Zhivkov and his "circle" rather than ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Only 2 percent blamed ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Both sentences say the same thing, perhaps merging them?

Sources

Spot check: 3, 15, 26, 39, 56, 65, 83, 86, 125, 127, 130, 148, 150, 153, 189, 205, 275, 278, 285, 292, 293, 296, 317, 316, 323

• Try avoid sequential citations,
  • the country.[262] The events of 1989 intensified the crisis.[262] here remove the first one
• Citation 153: This relies on a witness account that I am not entirely sure if this can be deemed reliable. At the very least an explanatory note is needed here with regard where this number is coming from, i.e., it is not an independent academic estimate but from a US official at an informal interview.
  • I have deleted this source entirely.
    • [AC] Noted.
• gradually released the results. the source says until the end of 1987 perhaps this needs to mention, i.e., it took more than a year to publish the census result? Otherwise "gradually" is a vague term.
• Citation 189: it might be helpful the reason why Bulgarians have been indifferent: Since the Turkish minority was heavily concentrated in two regions of the country, most of the ethnic Bulgarians had no contact with it and were largely indifferent. (added emphasis)
• Diplomatic pressure on Bulgaria from Turkey also increased. How? Please clarify.
• Citation 275: In protest, ethnic Turkish schoolchildren in the south-east boycotted schools. This seems important context.
• Citation 278: This fact points to some secret negotiations between Moscow and Washington, which prevented treating such a unilateral breach of the NATO-Warsaw Pact military frontier as a casus belli. This is not mentioned in the article and it appears important.
  • I was not sure if I should include this sort of detail in this article without substantial support. I have added that with attribution.
• Citation 316: The majority of the Christian Bulgarian respondents in an opinion poll, which was a part of the study, defined the ‘renaming’ as ‘a crime.’ Those who thought that it was not a crime were 29% This does not automatically mean 71% considered it a crime, probably a range of 51–71%, since we do know how many refused to answer the poll.

I wanted to post a reply as well. How would you suggest that I handle the cases where the sources are "mixed" across several sentences with respect to combining citations? What I mean by mixed is cases where a source is used in different combinations with other sources. For example, a source might be used by itself in one sentence then in the next is used in conjunction with another source. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Not need to merge citations in the main body, as (and to my understanding) this is not part of GA criteria. However, the lead is a different story. I merged the citations at the lead with the use of sfnmp template. A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

Can you take a look at the other comments that I made underneath the individual points?

02:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Pietrus1 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I gave responses for now. Once you finish the changes, ping me to re-read the article. A.Cython(talk) 02:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting my edits:

• While this is a special/controversial topic and citations may be required, I feel there are a bit too many citations at the lead and at the infobox. The relevant policy is MOS:CITELEAD. I think there two solutions.

You have taken care of the lead. I am taking care of the infobox. I have removed all of the citations, as I think it was sufficient to direct people to the information with notes.

• remove intraarticle wikilinks, these tend to break when target is renamed

Done

• new government under Petar Mladenov → new government under Petar Mladenov

Done

• forced assimilation and an "assimilation campaign" → an "assimilation campaign" (they are kind of the same thing, no?)

Done

• Various small copyedits following that.

Done

• By late 1984, communist Bulgaria was party to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, even as it continued to pursue assimilation policies in contravention of these. → By late 1984, communist Bulgaria belonged to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, while continuing to implement assimilation policies in breach of those obligations.

Done

• One theory traces the Turkish community to migration from Asia Minor, while the other rejects such migration. so what is the second theory? I assume religious conversion when the Ottomans arrived?

Done

• Shortly before the Revival Process, the state made education policy more assimilationist, promoting mixed marriages, and requiring Turkish-minority teachers to undergo ideological training. → In the period leading up to the Revival Process, the state intensified its assimilationist education policies by promoting mixed marriages and subjecting Turkish-minority teachers to ideological training.

Done

• as security concerns → as security concerns (add relevant wikilink)

Done

• expelled many Turks from the country how many 200, 10,000?

Done

• Non-fatal injuries Several thousand provide a range

Not done as the original sources did not give specific numbers.

• remove the wikilinks from existing countries, i.e., Greece and Iran, per MOS:OVERLINK

Done

• The same study found that Bulgarian Turks generally blamed Todor Zhivkov and his "circle" rather than ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Only 2 percent blamed ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Both sentences say the same thing, perhaps merging them?

I combined these two.

• Try avoid sequential citations

There is still a lot of instances to take care of here.

• Citation 153: This relies on a witness account that I am not entirely sure if this can be deemed reliable. At the very least an explanatory note is needed here with regard where this number is coming from, i.e., it is not an independent academic estimate but from a US official at an informal interview.

Deleted this.

• gradually released the results. the source says until the end of 1987 perhaps this needs to mention, i.e., it took more than a year to publish the census result? Otherwise "gradually" is a vague term.

Changed it.

• Citation 189: it might be helpful the reason why Bulgarians have been indifferent: Since the Turkish minority was heavily concentrated in two regions of the country, most of the ethnic Bulgarians had no contact with it and were largely indifferent. (added emphasis)

I've added this.

• Citation 275: In protest, ethnic Turkish schoolchildren in the south-east boycotted schools. This seems important context.

Done

• Citation 275: In protest, ethnic Turkish schoolchildren in the south-east boycotted schools. This seems important context.

Done

• Citation 278: This fact points to some secret negotiations between Moscow and Washington, which prevented treating such a unilateral breach of the NATO-Warsaw Pact military frontier as a casus belli. This is not mentioned in the article and it appears important.

I've added this information.

• Citation 316: The majority of the Christian Bulgarian respondents in an opinion poll, which was a part of the study, defined the ‘renaming’ as ‘a crime.’ Those who thought that it was not a crime were 29% This does not automatically mean 71% considered it a crime, probably a range of 51–71%, since we do know how many refused to answer the poll.

I've changed this.

Pietrus1 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that I have taken care of the few small remaining things as merging in the body is not required. @A.Cython

Pietrus1 (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Final comments

Thank you for making the changes. The article's subject was interesting and complex. While there is always room for improvement even for a FA article, I believe that for the current article has reached the GA level so congratulations to Pietrus1 for this. Well done! A.Cython(talk) 00:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.