Wikipedia:Peer review/Revival Process/archive1

Peer Review

I'm not sure if this is would be more appropriately listed under socsci or history, but I think it leans more towards history. Maybe I will seek a socsci review after the history review.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to what is missing from the article currently. I believe on the old "who, what, when, where, why" test, it often fails the who part to some extent as I often say X was done by "the state" rather than department Y within the state. I have also substantially reworded and reworked sections of the article after adding citations, so surely the alignment between the text and at least some of the citations will not be perfect.

This is also liable to be a contentious topic, and I don't intend to come across as blaming any particular group beyond maybe the Bulgarian Communist Party of the time, so I'd like suggestions of content to add that would increase the overall neutrality of the article where simply seeking to use neutral language might not be sufficient.

Edit: Note that this article is intimately connected to the 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria article. I have not had time to expand that article to the same extent as this one, but that one cannot really be understood without this article, though I do think they should be separate pages as that article is for the culmination that became true ethnic cleaning.

Thanks, Pietrus1 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's an additional question:

I tried to mix academic and news sources. Should I purge the non-academic sources from the document as most of what they say is repeated in academic sources anyway? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to additionally ask if I could receive suggestions as to the aftermath and legacy sections. The 1989 exodus linked in the article was split off into a child article and only a summary remains in the Revival Process article, however, much of the aftermath and legacy of the two events is connected.

Should these things be separated? Presented together in the Revival Process article? I want to avoid duplication.

Pietrus1 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I have now listed this peer review at the FAC sidebar. Pietrus1 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Vice Regent

• The first reference doesn't explicitly use the term "Revival Process". Its fine to use such references later in the article. But the very first reference should be an English language reference, accessible online, that says something along the lines of "The Revival Process describes a period in history where..." It builds the reader confidence in WP:V.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  Replaced, thanks. Would you recommend using a number of sources that use the term exactly in the lead or just a one or two? Pietrus1 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby

I bothered @Chaotic Enby about this on discord, and am moving their comments here for the future:

Small details from a first quick scroll:

• The "Timeline" section being in a table is not very practical (and might go against MOS:EMBED, which is required for GA)

Should I remake the timeline as prose? I kind of wanted to maintain a timeline section of some sort since there are a fair number of specific dates mentioned.

That's what the lead is for! You want it to summarize the article, so having a short prose timeline with the main points is exactly what you're looking for (after describing the event itself in the first paragraph)

• Especially in short sections, it's better to put the "Further information" hatnote at the top rather than between the two paragraphs

Pietrus1 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Femke

• I found the lead a bit odd, in the sense that we start with something that feels relatively minor (name changes) and only see the full scale of repression in the second paragraph of the lead.
• Sentence fragments in captions should not have a full stop at the end (i.e. the caption starting with Todor)
• The section on casualties mostly does not note what happened. Where there more protests? Prison deaths? People 'resisting arrests'?
• Economic Effects > rm capitalisation
• A similar distinction between "political" and "criminal" offenses led to condemnation in instances beyond Bulgaria > I dont know what you mean here
• In general, a see also section should not have subsections. For the more obscure terms, use an annotated link
• Your notes are uncited.
• You cite an MA thesis. Typically, per WP:THESIS, they should only be used when they have had scholarly influence (that is, if they have been cited at least by a couple of independent folks)
• These events made the effects of the Revival Process on the Bulgarian economy clear > Did it? With multiple crises at the same time, sometimes it's more difficult to disentangle. Are there estimates of the economic effects? I find the paragraph quite vague at the moment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  How do I insert sfns into notes? At the moment, this causes issues? So I have put the citations outside of the notes. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  • I found the lead a bit odd, in the sense that we start with something that feels relatively minor (name changes) and only see the full scale of repression in the second paragraph of the lead.
    • I will rework this shortly.
  • Sentence fragments in captions should not have a full stop at the end (i.e. the caption starting with Todor)
    • Fixed.
  • Economic Effects > rm capitalisation
    • Fixed.
  • A similar distinction between "political" and "criminal" offenses led to condemnation in instances beyond Bulgaria > I dont know what you mean here
    • Hopefully fixed without getting into OR.
  • In general, a see also section should not have subsections. For the more obscure terms, use an annotated link
    • Fixed.
  • You cite an MA thesis. Typically, per WP:THESIS, they should only be used when they have had scholarly influence (that is, if they have been cited at least by a couple of independent folks)
    • I have begun addressing this. Sourcing currently reliant exclusively on theses is slowly being replaced.
  • These events made the effects of the Revival Process on the Bulgarian economy clear > Did it? With multiple crises at the same time, sometimes it's more difficult to disentangle. Are there estimates of the economic effects? I find the paragraph quite vague at the moment.
    • The sentence I cited is the best summary sentence I could find from the source. I added one word, which is in-line with the source before the "made clear" sentence. I also added some links. There is also the Sinatra Doctrine, which wikipedia unfortunately does not flesh out very much currently, but is cited at times for actions like the USSR not bailing out Romania financially.

  Pietrus1 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have reworked the lead as well now. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  All MA thesis references are now gone. Pietrus1 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  All changes have been made, I think. Pietrus1 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)