Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Peer review/2008

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece | Peer review
WikiProject Greece [ edit · changes ]
Project pages
Related pages
Article alerts

Today's featured articles

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(8 more...)
Article statistics

This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.
view full worklist

Greek articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 15 32 47 1 98
FL 1 1 1 22 25
A 2 9 15 1 27
GA 8 41 105 301 20 475
B 47 161 342 659 111 1,320
C 38 240 566 1,821 427 3,092
Start 38 405 1,826 10,168 1 1,897 14,335
Stub 1 57 679 10,572 3 3,766 15,078
List 4 14 102 653 75 386 1,234
Category 13,703 13,703
Disambig 321 321
File 580 580
Redirect 12 79 543 1,040 1,674
Template 1,379 1,379
NA 52 52
Other 3 58 61
Assessed 140 948 3,741 24,804 17,212 6,609 53,454
Unassessed 1 5 1 541 548
Total 140 948 3,742 24,809 17,213 7,150 54,002
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 179,359 Ω = 5.21


Sparta

edit

I have recently completed a major edit of this article. More work is needed, but I would appreciate comments. Lexo (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerakas

edit

I complete Domirsitanos' request.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • Lead toooooooooooo long. Please, read carefully WP:LEAD and the relevant instructions. You have to make the lead a comprehensive summary of the whole article. It is not right now! And not more than 3 paragraphs.
  • "The first permanent residents descent from Northern Greece as Makedones from Makedonia and Arvanites from Ipiros, and inhabit around the old Athens-Lavrio railway that passed through, working at agricultural works, as well as islanders from the Aegean Sea that work at the famous Pentelikon marble workshops at the northern fields." Bad English. Wrong tenses. I do not understand what you mean exactly. Ancient Makedones inhabit modern Gerakas?!
  • Do not wikilink dates or years or decades. Per WP:MoS.
  • Byzantine, Roman, Greek. Capitals needed! You need assistance in prose. Very poor.
  • Very few inline citations and all in the lead. Wrong! Cite properly the main text, and read carefully WP:CITE. When referencing, make also use of these templates: Template:cite web, Template:cite news, Template:cite book, Template:cite journal, and Template:cite encyclopedia.
  • "The male resident of Gerakas is called Gerakiotis and the female is called Gerakiotissa. In plural, they are called Gerakiotes and Gerakiotisses." I am not sure about the necessity of that.
  • "According to the great historian". Remove "great".
  • Why don't you ever use past tenses?!
  • "According to the Gargittius historian Epicurus". As far as I know, Epicurus was philosopher; not historian.
  • Picture galleries are not recommended. Incorporate in the article the pictures you want, and the rest of them save them in COMMONS so as not to lose them.
  • Proper order: First "See also", then "References", then "External links".
  • You should add more aspects, not only geography and history. Culture? Transports? Demographics (you have some info at the end of "history" but this should be a separate section)? Why don't you take as a model a FA about a city?
  • I think coordinated should be in the Geography section.
  • About how to write dates, numbers, units etc., you need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

I could mention a lot of further problems, but this is not helpful right now. What the article first needs is good English, a proper structure, citing, and a careful watching of MoS. It is very positive that the article is informative, and its main editor looks eager to further improve it.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus

edit

Dear Sirs, I request a formal peer review for the article, Military Operations of the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. I have spent a couple of weeks extensively upgrading and cleaning up the article with new sources, citations and information. Many thanks.

(Dogfight1001 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination completed by me.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • I see no lead! Please, read carefully and implement WP:LEAD.
  • "Combatants" should somehow be incorporated into the infobox.
  • Why should "Events leading up to the 1974 Invasion of Cyprus" be divided into two stubby sub-sections. One comprehensive section would be enough.
  • You have neither pictures (only two not very helpful maps of Cyprus) nor maps.
  • "The rule by the military in Greece started in the morning of April 21, 1967 with a coup d'état led by a group of colonels of the military of Greece, with the government-in-exile". ??!!! What do you mean? Which government-in-exile. Another article with poor English.
  • Citations go always after the punmark with no gap between the punmark (full stop, comma or semi-colon) and the citation.
  • "The period of 1964 to 1974 was a turbulent era for the island, with the apparent breakdown of relations between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides right across the spectrum of social and political ties." Bad prose again.
  • "In 1963, the Turkish Cypriots had abandoned, both voluntarily and by external pressure, their constitutional presence in the Cyprus Government." What external pressures? And provide sources.
  • "In the early hours of the 20th of July 1974" Why bolding? And about MoS rules concerning the way we write dates, read here.
  • "The coup represented both a provocation against and an opportunity..." What does "provocation against" mean?
  • In your references, when citing printed sources, always provide pages. You don't as I see, but you should!
  • When referencing, make use of these templates: Template:cite web, Template:cite news, Template:cite book, Template:cite journal, and Template:cite encyclopedia.
  • In four of the article's sections I see tags with concerns about the tenses. These things should be fixed. And indeed you switch tenses and make other similar mistakes.
  • "There was little or no armed contest at the beachhead on 21 July 1974, and during this time, the second wave of Turkish forces departed from Mersin port." Avoid stubby paragraphs. Merge or expand.
  • Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph.
  • "This however, was a signals deception performed by the Greek Cypriot Naval Command, which transmitted false radio signals indicating that three Turkish destroyers (looking for the Lesvos) off Paphos, were in fact Greek ships." Another example of bad prose.
  • "23 July 1974" A heading with no section!
  • "At 18.00hrs, Security Council Resolution 353 is adopted unanimously. A cease-fire is to take effect on July 22 at 16:00." Again bolded wrongly. Read WP:MoS in general and in detail.
  • There are also problems with wikilinking. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) carefully.
  • Tense problems in "23 July 1974" as well, although it is not tagged.
  • In "Clashes from 24 July to 13 August", except from switching tenses, you also switch the way you write tenses from one paragraph to another!
  • "Attila 2 Offensive" is a mess. Stubby sections, stubby paragraphs and tense problems.
  • "T-34/85 Main Battle Tank" has no sources.
  • I see no ISBN in the printed source of citation 4. Fix this and all the other citations with the templates I proposed above.
  • There is no "assessment" sections, offering overall assessments and analysis of the invasion.
  • There is no "aftermath" section.
  • Hmmmm .... Notes 53-55 are very problematic. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. See WP:OR. You may see the article tagged for this problem. Please also read WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:Reliable sources.
  • Don't put in "See also" section articles already linked in the main text.

Need work in terms of prose, MoS, and structure. You can use a military-related FA article as a model of you. Cite properly the article, format properly the citations, and avoid original research.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleftherios Venizelos

edit

Since February I have been editing this article, and for some reason I am almost the only one. I am relative new here in WP and I would like to request from other people to check the progress done so far. Any kind of comments are welcomed.A.Cython (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit

And you have done a great job! Further suggestions:

  • "was one of the greatest statesmen of modern Greece", "Venizelos defined an entire era in Greek history, and is still a point of reference in Greek politics today." I would not say that this is POV, but in my biographies I avoid such strong assessments, relying on facts and concrete historical assessments by prominent scholars (see for instance the Pericles' lead). But this may just be a personal preference!
  • The lead may need some expansion per WP:LEAD; it should be a comprehensive summary of the whole article.
  • Try to have at least one citation in each paragraph.
  • "In 1935, after a failed coup attempt, he left from Chania once again into self-imposed exile in Paris. A year later, in 1936, on 18 March, the "light of the Great man went out"." Try not to be repetitive. This is also mentioned at the end of the article. And I am not sure if the "Personal life" section is well-placed. You analyze his political life, and in the middle of it you speak about his personal life from 1891 to 1935, and then you continue with the political life. And 1920 etc. has nothing to do with his "early life" as the section's heading is. Maybe a solution is to place the "personal life" as a separate section at the end of the biography, checking that you avoid repetitions. And maybe you should mention that Sophoklis also followed a political career (you don't even wikilink him!).
  • I unlinked "Enosis" - the article is about Cyprus - maybe you should think about creating a stub about Crete.
  • "he Ottoman Empire, in reaction to the rebellion of Crete and the assistance sent by Greece, relocated a significant part of its army in the Balkans to the north of Thessaly, close to the borders with Greece.[citation needed]" There is a request for citation here.
  • Throughout the article the wikilinking could be improved. Interesting links missing.
  • His "Political Career in Crete" is overanalyzed compared to the following sections. I see you try to make in the following sections a use of [{WP:SS]], but this should also be the case in the above section as well. In any case, there should be a balanced analysis in terms of length throughout the article.
  • "In August 1909 the Military League". What is that? Explain for the ignorant reader with very few words. The linking to the main article is not enough.
  • Prose problems exist throughout the article. This is an example:"In August 1909 the Military League, displeased with the social and military status quo, carried out action against the government, followed through into a type of lockout in the Athenian suburb of Goudi. Even thought it did not overturn the government with a coup d'etat, it forced the Dimitrios Rallis' government to resign and a new one was formed with Kiriakoulis Mavromichalis. ". It is not just the repetitions; the reader throughout the article gets the impression that the prose is not of a native English speaker. Some copy-editing will be needed.
  • "Venizelos ordered, long before the liberation of the city, the transport of the Cretan Gendarmerie to Thessaloniki.[citation needed] " Again a request for citation.
  • Link full dates date-month-year throughout the article. You are not consistent.
  • Some main articles links of you are not IMO in accord with WP:SS. Your World War I section is not a summary of the WP article [{World War I]], but an analysis of what Venizelos did during this war! I think more of these main articles links of you should be reconsidered. Read carefully WP:SS!
  • There is no analysis of Venizelos' conduct after his return on 1917. For instance, Karolidis accuses him of dictatorial attitude. And I also see nothing about the Dragoumis execution. The criticism against Veizelos and his environment for this period should not be omitted.
  • The 1928-1932 period definitely needs more analysis in terms of both internal and external policies, as well as the reasons for his defeat in 1932.
  • "The pro-royalist tendencies of the government led to an attempted military coup in March 1935, under the leadership of Venizelos and General Nikolaos Plastiras." I think that some further analysis of this controversial decision of Venizelos (maybe the most controversial of his political career) and some historical assessments is needed.
  • In the "See also" list what Greek military junta of 1967-1974 or metapolitefsi have to do with Venizelos?

More work is needed but the article is on the right track.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more suggestions:
  • I think a "legacy" section at the end of the article would be very useful. What is the heritage of Venizelos and what is velizelism exactly? Is Venizelos' legacy present in modern Greek politics? Are modern Greek parties evoking him? And how do we assess as a whole his decisions?
  • Some more issues: Does he bear any responsibility for the defeat in Minor Asia? What the historians say about his decision to go to elections in 1920? You should possibly also mention the fact that he lost the elections, although he had the popular vote.
  • "Venizelos assumed the leadership of the Greek delegation that negotiated peace terms with the Turks." I think that we need more about his role in Lausanne, the importance of his presence, his strategy, and his negotiations with Inonou.
  • Make sure that you include in your references the full data of your inline sources as well (the templates Template:cite web and Template:cite news would be helpful maybe).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Cython

Yannismarou, your comments will keep me busy for the next two months :) , however, I want to add some comments and questions.

  • I am relative new to wikipedia, and I am not sure about certain things. e.g. you mention dates, should I wikilink all dates, i.e. even dates that have only years and not day & month?
  • It is true that the last parts of his life are not well developed, but that is because of not finding enough sources to write about it. All primary sources (such as biographies) stop on 1921-3, that's it. I am sure there are enough sources, but it will take some time.
  • You mentioned interesting wikilinks are missing. I am not perfect so if anyone wants to add them, please do.
  • I will slowly make the corrections based on your comments, probably it will take a couple of months, but after this is done, will the article be close to upgrade to a good-article? I am just asking to understand a little better how quality scale works.
  • Again, thanks for the comments, they will help me. A.Cython (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me myself, when I was a newby in wikipedia, I wanted to make Pericles FA and I had the same questions with you! I also envy you a bit, because, although friends of mine were telling me all the time "do something with Venizelos! Make a better article for him! He deserves it! Don't care about other articles", I was answering to them sarcastically that "I am not the right person for the job, because I am anti-Venizelist"! But I am happy that at last somebody worked seriously on the article. The answers to your questions:
  • Read WP:MoS. You wikilink only full dates: date-month-year. I'll go through the article to fix the links I'll find.
  • You can always search Google Book. I have also some pro-Venizelist sources, including our prime minister's book, and I'll have a look.
  • I'll do some wikilinking.
  • You can always have a look at the quality scale of the WO:GREECE. You can go first for a GA review (check WP:GAC) and then for a FA candidacy or skip GAC, and, when you think you are ready, go straight for FAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, when i started to edit this article I didn't know almost anything about Venizelos! After almost a decade from high school and then you realize you do not remember anything. All I knew was that he was important for some reasons... so I thought it needed an expansion (look at the history before early Feb) and add some references.
I do search at Google Books, but sometimes the chapters you want are not available!
And don't get me wrong I am not Venizelist or non-Venizelist, if sometimes it looks POV it is because it is copied from POV source :( i will do what I can to keep it at minimum. lol A.Cython (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Macedonian language

edit

I have performed [these edits][1], cited and referenced my edits, and explained the reasons on the talk page, the Users Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) and 3rdAlcove (talk · contribs) have reverted back to original research, while the user Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) has banned me for violating the three-revert rule.

As you can see from the History page, my reverts, are cited and referenced, while theirs are not.

Please take notice, and conduct appropriate action.

The only edit that i have not cited, is the "evolve" term replacing the term "replaced". But the term "replaced" as it stands needs further clarification in the light of the Linguist List classification. It oughts to be made clear that the Koine replaced the Ancient Macedonian on an equal footing that the Koine replaced the Ionic and Doric, which are classified together with the Ancient Macedonian in the Linguist List.

Thank you. --Elampon (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

edit
  • The prose in the first paragraph of the article is a bit choppy.
  • The citations of the third paragraph of the lead should be turned into proper citations. Check if it is necessary to cite there per WP:LEAD. And I am not sure if such an extensive analysis of Pella curse tablet in the lead is necessary or if it could take place in the main body of the article.
  • "and Elean, North-West dialect, by exception) bra[3] but Attic phrater and phratra all " ", the form κεβλήπυρις keblēpyris ('red-cap bird') is found, sh" External jumps should be turned into proper citations.
  • The article goes straight to "Properties" without introducing the reader to the language's history a bit. The lead is a summary of the whole article (or is supposed to be so), and cannot perform the above role. I also want to point out that this section (like some of the following ones) are not supposed to look so listy. Except for the examples and the tables, an article should also have a proper prose flow. "Classification" is also listy IMO.
  • "A. Garrett "has surmised" that Macedonian may at an early stage have been part of a dialect continuum which spanned the ancestor dialects of all south-western Indo-European languages (including Greek), but that it then remained peripheral to later areal processes of convergence which produced Greek proper. He "argues" that under this perspective" Tense consistency.
  • "Vladimir I. Georgiev[15] places Greek and Macedonian on a common branch of an IE family tree; this branch he groups together with Phrygian and Armenian to form a grouping termed "Central" Indo-European. Similarly, Eric P. Hamp [16] assumes a common branch of Greek plus Macedonian, with the next larger unit formed together with Armenian and termed "Pontic South Indo-European"." IMO the citations should be at the end of the sentences.
  • "Macedonian in Classical sources" is not comprehensive. It gives two-three examples without offering a comprehensive overview of the language's presence in Classical Sources.
  • "Adoption of the Attic dialect" consists of one sentence and a longer quote. Problematic section within a problematic structure. Merge or expand and think of the overall structure.
  • "Greek Epigraphy: isn't it related to "Macedonian in Classical Sources"? And again it is so listy just like "Hesychius Glossary". I am not sure if these lists belong to this article or if they could constitute a different article named List of Macedonian words in epigraphy.
  • "Political controversy" needs some analysis.
  • I did not go through the "References" but the layout looks to me problematic. Take advantage of the following templates: Template:cite book, Template:cite web, Template:cite journal, Template:cite news, Template:cite encyclopedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greece/Peer_review/2008&oldid=990294153"