Talk:Eleftherios Venizelos/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not believe that this article meets the Good Article criteria at this time, for the following reasons: I hope you are not put off by this list; it would be a very worthwhile article to reach GA standards. At the moment though, I think it just misses the overall level expected of Good Articles. Gheorghe Tătărescu would be one option as a model, there are others if you look at the Good articles/History under 'Historical figures: heads of state and heads of government'. Once this issues have been addressed, I would welcome renomination, although as the first reviewer it would be best if I did not conduct it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The overall level of inline referencing is insufficient. Criterion 2b reads "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for ... controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" and I do not believe this to be the case at the moment. I have added citation needed tags where at a bare minimum citations would be needed, but I would recommend that the referencing be overhauled to provide more end-of-statement references and fewer end-of-paragraph references. The information I've requested cited includes a large number of clear factual statements, many controversial. I do not believe that placing the article on hold would provide a long enough time frame for this to happen.
 * The article needs a good copyedit. The prose for large sections seems awkward. If you want an example, I suggest looking at the short "The war in Thessaly": "Conclusion" section. I've added one clarify tag, but I think a copyeditor would add many more. I would request a 'partner' though, with the issues of this size, someone who can guide you through the sorts of things you need to do. Taking a look at the pages of the Guild of Copyeditors maybe be helpful; they have a 'Requests' page.
 * With reference to criterion 3, I think the article puts the emphasis firmly on Greek events that affected or involved Venizelos, rather than the man himself. It's not just what it says, but how it says it; we should follow the personal narrative even if it is in the context of wider events.
 * I find the "The events at Akrotiri" section's use of quotations very confusing. I don't understand what actually took place, nor what Venizelos did. I think it needs a rewrite to clear this up, avoiding most of the direct quotations – which, with its use of exclamation marks – seems rather partisan and not as an uninvolved summary as it might be.
 * Try to phase out the For more detail tags. It's kind of part of the personal narrative issue; it should be possible just to link those pages when describing Venizelos' role. This isn't a GA requirement.