Talk:Battle of Porta/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 14:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving a look. —Ed!(talk) 14:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * "but its authority with the Greek people was minimal," -- Authority might not be the best word here. Legitimacy?
 * Good point, altered
 * "who created a patchwork of separate jurisdictions." -- Unclear. A patchwork of separate political units under the puppet government, or a patchwork of separate puppet governments in parallel?
 * This refers to the previous sentence ("Most of the country was left to the Italian forces, while Bulgaria annexed northeastern Greece and German troops occupied the strategically most important areas.") Tried to rephrase to make this a bit clearer. Please have a look.
 * "As a result, the Italian high command, the 11th Army in Athens," -- "High command" might not be the best term, as that would indicate the leadership of the entire military. In this case, sounds like you're referring to the commanders of the occupation in this country. Any chance you know if this was Carlo Geloso?
 * Clarified the "high command" bit; Geloso was dismissed in early May, so likely the CinC meant here was his successor, Vecchiarelli, but this is not mentioned explicitly. Geloso was possibly also involved in the planning prior to his dismissal, or it may have been an internal proposal from the staff, or... Since we don't know exactly, it is better to leave it out.
 * I'll suggest the nom de guerres of the partisan commanders be converted into notes for easier reading.
 * Hmmm, that creates a problem: in Greek literature, most of these people are known by their noms de guerre, rather than their original names. If I were writing this article in Greek, then I'd be using them throughout after the first mention; I am not sure how to handle this in the English WP, so I've preferred to use the civilian names so far.
 * "Headquarters reluctantly conceded them liberty of action, " -- What does this mean?
 * Mistranslated "freedom of action". I must have been half-asleep when I did this...
 * "advancing at the double." -- What does this mean?
 * Added wiktionary link
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not Yet
 * The lead should be expanded a bit more to summarize the entire article.
 * Done.
 * Data in the infobox needs to be cited.
 * Per WP:INFOBOXCITE, if it is covered in the main text of the article that is not necessary.
 * "a fortnight before the battle they began preparing extensive fieldworks" -- When specifically?
 * No exact date given, but the timing is clear from the framing dates: the battle was on the 8th, a fortnight before that would be in late May; the Italian operation began on 22 May, and the eastern Thessalian forces withdrew west over three days (ca. 25 May).
 * "In early June 1943, the Italians held Trikala with a cavalry and an infantry regiment," -- Which units specifically? And how many soldiers? Some numbers are in the aftermath section but should be moved up here so the situation is more clear.
 * Unclear from the Greek sources; the regiments clearly came from the Pinerolo division, which was the area garrison, and the cavalry regiment at Trikala were the Lancieri d'Aosta, which came under Pinerolo's operational command. Ditto for the precise numbers; what Italian sources I could find do not mention the battle (the Italian occupation of Greece is still a *very* overlooked topic to this day, unlike the Greek General Staff, for instance, the Ufficio Storico dello SME still doesn't have a single publication dealing with it), but the units were not at full combat readiness (added a reference to that effect). Given the chaotic events that followed in Greece after the Italian surrender, the civil war, etc. I wouldn't expect any detailed reports to have survived either way; particularly since the Pinerolo division surrendered to ELAS in September.
 * "The forces amassed for the operation against Porta numbered two full infantry battalions from the Pinerolo Infantry Division," -- Number of troops needed here too, and who commanded them?
 * Same as above.
 * "During the night, Italian vehicles brought up more troops from Trikala and as far away as Larissa" -- How many?
 * Same as above.
 * "a certain "Flogas" ('flame'), proved crucial," -- I assume this is another nickname, probably can be removed if his proper name can't be found.
 * The Legionary as a military unit should be explained as they don't really have a lot of discussion here.
 * This isn't really the place to do it, as there is an article on the Vlach "Roman Legion" that is already linked directly above.
 * "Aftermath" -- Additional detail could be added about what the Partisans were doing between then and the end of the war. Was this a morale victory? Did it lead to more people joining them? What became of the Italians?
 * What happened to the partisans after 1943? Details until the libration of the country are helpful to explain this battle's impact if it was the last major conflict between partisans and occupation forces.
 * Added some info on the Italians' fate in Thessaly, which I think deals with the local impact of the battle. I'll need some time to write up a brief section on the subsequent fate of ELAS and the Greek Resistance movement.
 * Also worth
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Some wording has been removed for NPOV purposes ("daring" etc. describing the partisans) and suggest giving another look to ensure this policy is met.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Images tagged CC and PD where appropriate.
 * 1) Other:
 * On Hold Pending a few additions. 15:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, so noting a lot of additions in response to these comments, thinking the article is good to go as far as meeting the GA criteria. As such, going to Pass. Thanks for the work on it! —Ed!(talk) 03:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, so noting a lot of additions in response to these comments, thinking the article is good to go as far as meeting the GA criteria. As such, going to Pass. Thanks for the work on it! —Ed!(talk) 03:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)