Talk:George II of Greece/GA2

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Two initial comments:


 * There are some Harvard errors that immediately stick out. Some citations, such as Mateos Sáinz de Medrano 2004 and Vacalopoulos 1975, don't point to any reference: conversely, the Clogg reference doesn't appear to be cited. The Φύλλας Μιχάλης reference should also be translated into English: the title can be left in Greek using, translated if you wish using , and the rest should be translated. Suggest using User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to catch and fix the errors. ✅
 * There are also some easily-fixed typographical mistakes in the article: I noticed a tag on display, for example. ✅

Discussion
Give me a ping when this stuff is sorted and I'll review the article in more detail. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for much for starting this review so soon! I have fixed the second point that you brought o my attention above. As for the first point, a lot of these references were taken from the French Wikipedia. I am not exactly sure how to do what you have asked — clearly I am not very experienced in it. Would you mind pointing me towards how to fix this? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I think I was able to do it.Does everything look okay? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Improvements made: Clogg is still uncited, and there are some sources cited in full in the footnotes but not cited in the bibliography. This isn't a critical problem for GA, but does make a difference to the article quality. On a different note, I don't think Queen Maria of Romania (d. 1938) wrote a book in 2006: this is almost certainly a reprint/compilation of earlier work, and should probably be cited as such. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed the Clogg reference now(?). As for the Queen Maria of Romania citation, I actually copied that from the French Wikipedia and you are right, it seems very improbable that she wrote that source 68 years after she passed, haha. So how would you recommend we fix this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The orig-date parameter can be used to indicate the work's original publication: I'd suggest tracking down some information on the original work's bibliography, and citing it with something like "republished as ...". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I have completed all these initials tasks now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am writing to express my concern about the extensive use of sources that seem to me to be of questionable reliability as far as Greek politics and especially the monarchy's role is concernced. Large parts of the article's text rely on works of royal biographers, such as John Van der Kiste, Hugo Vickers and Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark. I am wondering whether the nominator would like to explain how s/he sees these works fulfilling the encyclopedia's criteria for being reliable sources for Greek political history. The reason I am asking this is that the account provided in sections and parts of the article heavily relying on such sources is largely at variance with the image one forms about political developments when consulting mainstream works of contemporary Greek historiography.

I will refer to one IMO glaring such case. The first paragraph of the section "Restoration of the monarchy" states that "This "regime issue" that arose just after the proclamation of the republic, haunted Greek politics for more than a decade and eventually led to the restoration of monarchy. In just over ten years, Greece had twenty-three governments, thirteen coup d'états and one dictatorship. On average, each Cabinet lasted six months and a coup d'état was organised every 42 weeks. Having failed to restore political instability, the republicanism movement in Greece became criticised and opposed by the public. Gradually, there were more and more protests that voiced to restore the monarchy." The article proceeds to describe in the next paragraph the events that led to the restoration of the monarchy in 1935 as if they naturally ensued from this supposedly growing number of pro-royalist protests. However, if one is to compare this passage to what s/he reads e.g. in the work of (university historian/polsci) George Mavrogordatos Μετά το 1922: Η παράταση του διχασμού (After 1922: the prolongation of the Schism), which, according to a reviewer, "προτείνει την εκλεπτυσμένη εκδοχή μιας κρίσιμης ιστορικής περιόδου" ("suggests a nuanced version of a critical historical period"), one will notice great differences. For, Mavrogordatos records (p. 61) that after the elections of 1932 "[ο Τσαλδάρης] αναγνώρισε επίσημα και ανεπιφύλακτα την Αβασίλευτη Δημοκρατία" ("[ Panagis Tsaldaris ] officially and unreservedly recognized the Kingless Republic"), that the 1935 referendum was a "farce" ("φάρσα") and that its result of an majority in favour of restoring the monarchy is "belied by previous and subsequent electoral data" ("διαψεύδεται από προγενέστερα και μεταγενέστερα εκλογικά δεδομένα"), while no mention of this supposedly growing dissatisfaction with the republican regime is made.

Another crucial point is the importance of the constitutional issue and of the king's personal stance for developments in the period from 1941 and up until 1946. I am quoting from Sfikas, "Churchill and the Greeks", Journal of Contemporary History: (p. 312) "British policy, therefore, was to support the Greek king and the government-in-exile. Yet the overwhelming majority of Greeks, for whom the constitutional question had assumed the explosive proportions of a genuine national schism in the inter-war years, thought otherwise. After the demise of the short-lived Greek Republic, George II had been restored to his throne in November 1935 by way of a farcically rigged plebiscite; less than a year later he had collaborated with Metaxas in establishing the general's dictatorship. His conduct inevitably led to a massive proliferation of republicanism among Greeks," and later on (p. 314) "EAM/ELAS was convinced that the British, bent upon imposing the monarchy on the Greek people, were weakening the leftist resistance in favour of other rival organizations. It was primarily for this reason that EAM/ELAS set out to consolidate its power by disposing of its rivals. Civil war erupted in October 1943 between ELAS and EDES,". Dimitrakis (2009) states in page 36 (already referred to in the article) that SOE operatives "were able to assess the feelings of the Greeks towards the return of the king" and in the very next pages states that "Major David Wallace, an SOE officer and a man ‘of very balanced judgment’ the Foreign Office trusted, estimated that ‘there was practically no support that you can trace anywhere for the immediate return of the King.’"". Again, the extent of popular dissaproval of the restoration of George II at the time is nowhere stated in the article (let alone its lead) and is constantly toned down (as "dissensions both inside Greece and among the Greeks abroad"), while the crucial role of the king's instransigence (along with that of his British supporters) for the eruption of intra-resistance infighting/civil conflict between ELAS and EDES is not even hinted at.

I am thus worried that the article fails to cover the criterion about neutrality, due to its heavy reliance on non-scholarly sources of questionable scientific reliability and of pro-royalist bias for important aspects of Greek political history. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I will let Therealscorp1an reply to this, but a few points on the GA criteria and what they are not -- there is a useful contrast here with the FAC criteria:
 * A Good Article needs to cover the "main aspects" of a topic: it does not need to be comprehensive and to cover everything important about them, unlike an FA. For biographies in particular, main aspects is a low bar: it is very rarely appropriate to fail a GA for not including a particular set of facts about a person's life.
 * The sources for a GA need to be reliable (that is, in general, published in reputable media), not to pass the bar of high-quality reliable sources needed for an FA. While an FA review would favour scholarly sources, academic presses and so on, this is not a requirement at this level.
 * This is not to say that improvements can't be made, but it's important to keep in mind the purpose and level of this review process -- even once an article has passed GA, it will almost certainly have areas for improvement, and often evolve considerably if it subsequently goes on to FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist, I thank you for your response, but I am still wondering: are the sources I mentioned in my comment above reliable sources for Greek political history? How so? I doubt it and I have now marked a passage exclusively relying on them until a persuasive explanation has been given from the nominator or any other editor. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of a GA nomination, yes, I think they are. There are very few situations in which a published, printed source would not meet the (fairly low) bar for inclusion in a GA: self-published sources, sources which were written by the subject of the article themself, or sources generally agreed to be unreliable are really the only major ones I can think of. However, if there is a widely-held alternative side of the story, which also has a lot of reliable sources behind it, WP:DUEWEIGHT (which is a GA criterion) means it should be included in due proportion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just failed Talk:Paul of Greece/GA1 for similar reasons; however the George II article appears to be more thoroughly and broadly sourced, and from a quick perusal of the article I cannot find any glaring omissions or inaccuracies. There are points where more nuance and context might be required, but IMO it is enough for the fairly low GA bar. The one change I would strongly advocate for is to replace the explicit reliance on Van der Kiste in the article on facts or assessments of events (rather than the personalities), as in or . Van der Kiste is a royal biographer, not an expert on Greek history. Appropriate RS should be used for these sections instead (and afaict none of these statements are actually under dispute, they represent facts/scholarly consensus). Constantine   ✍  10:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Constantine, in my previous comment above I have identified two passages that depend on books by van der Kiste, Vickers and Palmer and prince Michael (who was George's first cousin and a member of the same family -- incidentally, how is using as a source a book on The Royal House of Greece co-written by a member of this very family compatible with the policy on using independent sources? -- independence being a component of reliability per the relevant policy page) and present an account of the Greek political landscape that is at odds with the one presented in scholarly reliable sources. In the former, the restoration of the monarchy in 1935 is presented as a quasi-natural consequence of growing demands for the abolition of the Republic due to its supposedly inherent instability, while the latter presents the Greek populace as divided about the prospect of the king's return after WW II. After raising my doubts about the reliability of these sources, UndercoverClassicist has argued that the only problem is one of due weight. This might be in a sense understandable in the latter case in which the innacuracy of the historical landscape is produced through largely rhetorical means, vagueness and the omission of incuding informations contained in proper scholarly sources cited in the paragraph (such as Dimitrakis's statement about there being in occupied Greece "practically no support [...] for the immediate return of the King". However, I must insist that there is a problem of reliablity (strictly understood, as a problem with statements being "under dispute" and not "represent[ing] facts/scholarly consensus") at least in the former case. I think this is appositely illustrated in the fact that, in order to create the image of Republican instability leading to popular demands for the restoration of the monarchy, the article colours the Second Hellenic Republic with "thirteen coup d'états" "In just over ten years". May I ask Therealscorp1an, qua nominator, to please be so kind to enumerate these thirteen coups that are listed in the sources used for this passage? That would be very helpful, as lists that I have in mind (see List of Greek coups d'état) do not reach such a high number. While waiting for an answer from the nominator at least on this specific question, I would like to point that, even though UndercoverClassicist suggests the policy on neutrality as a remedy for the use of sources like Prince Michael's book, this is a policy that deals with the balance in presenting different viewpoints between scholarly sources (even if the term is broadly understood), and the case still remains to be made that as far as retelling Grek political history these books are reputed and truly are works of proper scholarship to begin with. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As a point of fact, the relevant part of WP:REPUTABLE is that Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (emphasis mine). This is an ideal, and certainly comes into play when discussing FA status, but it is also a higher bar than the GA criteria require: in particular, the use of the word should rather than must means that a potential GA can be promoted without fully meeting this criteria. The key at GA status is that no sources, in the reviewer's opinion, are demonstrably unreliable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I confess that I find this interpretation of Wikipedia's policy - deducing that using "reliable, independent, published sources" is practicaly optional throughout this encyclopedia except for its featured articles - truly amazing, but in any case I am wondering, UndercoverClassicist, whether you could please explicate (a) what are the criteria by which, as a reviewer of this nomination, you adjudicate whether a source is "demonstrably unreliable" or not and (b) how you see these criteria holding for each of the three sources discussed above. Thank you, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I can really add to the explanations I've given above: for the standards of GA (which is far from the same as "to make the article perfect"), a published history book is almost always going to be considered a reliable enough source. Of course historians have biases, and some have more biases than others, but the way around that is to include the views that have been expressed in scholarship in due proportion to their place in the academic discussion of the topic. For GA, a reviewer should not ask for a source to be removed simply because it takes a side on a contentious issue. If you want a more thorough discussion or debate about what constitutes a reliable source for a GA nomination, this isn't the place to have it and I'm not, honestly, the person to have it with: I'd suggest asking a question on the main GA talk page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist, you claim that Wikipedia rules stipulate that "for the standards of GA [...] a published history book is almost always going to be considered a reliable enough source". In a previous message above you wrote that "The sources for a GA need [...] not to pass the bar of high-quality reliable sources", which you stated are "needed for an FA." However, in past GA reviews you have not presented such a view that almost anything printed goes, but have held that "The rule (as with many things on this site) is to include what's been said in reliable, high-quality secondary sources" (my emphasis, as in what follows). Little more than a couple of months ago you argued that "We need to positively demonstrate the source's reliability, and would usually do that by the credibility of the author, the academic status of the publication, the review process, etc etc". You also stated that "For WP:RS, the key question is whether the content undergoes editorial or peer review, and what form that review takes." You have insisted on such criteria for reliability, proposing that "The fact that the author [of source X] is a known scholar is a start, but not sufficient" and some sources are "not reliable sources because they fundamentally have only the author's input, rather than full peer review. Funding from universities is good but, again, is no proof that this is a rigorous, fact-checking system". You have even been "a little concerned that an article relies heavily on older research" and suggested "to cite the key matters of historical fact to up-to-date sources where possible". You have remarked as problematic that a source "has a clear political slant and it isn't clear to me how much editorial control, peer review etc exists over its content" and you have suggested "using a more academic source", explaining that it was because the source "didn't give off a great "smell"" as you found "it blurs the line between scholarship and advocacy". You now appear to eschew all such concerns about the reliability of sources that you have yourself expressed in a number of GA reviews up until a short while ago. All this amounts to so dramatic and radical a differentiation in this present GA review of the stance you seem to have consistently held in past reviews concnerning the requirements to regard a source reliable that it desperately cries for an explanation.
 * Regardless, in your last reply you claim that the article must "include the views that have been expressed in scholarship in due proportion to their place in the academic discussion of the topic", yet the authors of these three books have actually little to absolutely no standing in scholarship as far as Greek political history is concerned - with the exception of trivia about the private life and the personal actions of members of the royal life. These are not examples of scientific/historical scholarship that has been written to provide a scholarly account of the past, which happens to "tak[e] a side on a contentious issue", but include a book that has been written by a first cousin of George II and is advertised as a "celebration of six generations of a courageous monarchy". To treat these sources in the way that this article and your review does would be mutatis mutandis akin to basing a substantial portion of an article about a high-profile Nazi officer on the nonetheless published works of non-academic Shoah minimizers, the authors including an actual first-degree relative of a family of Nazi dirigeants, whose work has been pointed out to contain outright falsehoods and are explicitly written to celebrate these historical agents and, after all these remarks have been made in the course of a GA review, to attempt to justify the alleged absence of any problem with valuing it as a "good article", in a stark departure from the reviewer's previous statements, by way of appeal to the (false) claim that they are "published history books". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing this: I appreciate your thoughts. Ultimately, a GA review is conducted by a single editor: I don't think we're likely to fully agree on this issue. I agree that there's currently a DUEWEIGHT problem and that the issue of George's unpopularity is not yet correctly handled; however, I disagree that this source should be blacklisted. If the article passes GA nomination and you think it does not meet the standards, the correct action would be to make the improvements you can, or nominate it for reassessment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This DUEWEIGHT issue is probably the main one remaining: do you have any plans to work on it? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late reply, I have been quite busy lately. I'm sorry, I'm still a bit out of the loop; what changes exactly need to be made? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's quite a lot above, but the basic principle is that the article doesn't always reflect the scholarly consensus, and sometimes is more positive about George than the consensus of HQRS. I'd encourage you to read through the above, but a few specifics to pick out:
 * Van der Kiste is quite a partisan source: it isn't a problem to cite sources with a particular view, as long as they are considered factually reliable, but it would be better to find alternative or additional sources for statements of fact where possible, and be clear when we are citing Van der Kiste's subjective judgements. Similarly for Vickers and Palmer/Michael. Particularly the last one of those needs to be used with extreme caution: one of the co-authors has a very clear conflict of interest.
 * A verification query has been raised over . The paragraph in which it is found is only cited to those three sources, which isn't ideal. Could you find some accounts in other, more neutral sources, and quote something here which supports that statement?
 * Most sources say that the monarchy was extremely unpopular during the Second World War, particularly after George's decision to leave Greece. Our article is far more positive about him and his popular image: it needs to reflect the scholarly consensus here. If you can get hold of Mark Mazower's book on the German occupation of Greece, that has quite a lot of useful material and a good bibliography.
 * <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Therealscorp1an, are you able to get to this soon? If not, it may be best to allow this review to be closed out and to take another run at it when you have more time. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am currently unavailable (away) for the next week. It will be my top priority once I get back. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

More detailed review

 * : this reads as if Constantine was king of Prussia: suggest "King Constantine I of Greeece and..." ✅
 * We don't normally mark stress in Greek-language Romanisation. ✅
 * Many articles do have the stress/accents marked in the romanisation, for example Constantine II of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Katerina Sakellaropoulou. How would you advise we move on from this point? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For GA, we can simply leave it: if the article comes to FA, it would be useful to have an external transcription guide/standard to back up the decision made here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I usually include a footnote to explain the Old Style dates on first use (see for instance Panagiotis Kavvadias). ✅
 * This is in the infobox. Should I add a note after the first case in the prose as well? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would: most readers will read that first. I notice you've used a template here: I've done some stuff so that it can be reused without creating an additional footnote. Strictly speaking, the footnote should be cited too, even though it's not controversial: you can pull the reference from the article I linked, if you like. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:POSSESSIVE,  and similar should be written as . ✅
 * : the MoS would encourage the link to cover the "a" as well. ✅
 * : I would delete after the war as clunky and redundant: we immediately say that this was after 1946. ✅
 * Check parameters in sfn templates: where only one page is cited, use p or page rather than pages ✅

More to follow. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Clogg 1979 and Fillas 2019-2020 now seem to be uncited? ✅
 * I have fixed the Clogg 1979 issues. However, I have bene looking through old revisions, long before I started the expansion, and it appears that the Fillas reference was never used anywhere. What would you suggest we do? Also, continuing from above, would you like me to include the stress marks on the romanisation or not? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fillas: you can either bin it or move it to a "Further Reading" section (add none if doing so). The second option is better if you think it might have something useful for a reader or future editor. If not, the first is better.
 * Romanisation: up to you: as I said, it's no great shakes for GA. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

All the points you have listed have now been completed. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * : it might be worth clarifying that Alexander had died, rather than being deposed.
 * : would cut through his parents: I'm not sure how else he could have been a great-grandson of anyone.
 * : this sounds as though George never joined the Prussian Guard, is that accurate?
 * : this bit seems out of place: for the rest of this paragraph, George is a baby, and we cover his military career later. I would simply remove this from this section and make sure that it's all covered when we get round to it.
 * Is the "1st Greek Infantry" the 1st Infantry Regiment (Greece)? I would use its more formal name, and link, if so.
 * : his mother, surely?
 * : not quite grammatical in English: suggest "A German midwife, sent by his grandmother, Victoria, assisted with George's delivery.}} It might be worth adding something like "Victoria, the Princess Royal" to be clear that this is a different (more German) Victoria.
 * : check the date. Also, give OS/NS, as you have in the lead.
 * Decapitalise "godparents".
 * : we've said that she was his great-grandmother earlier in the paragraph, so I'd cut it here.
 * : again, check dates.
 * : Suggest spelling out "They" as "the Greeks" or similar: as written, it sounds as though the British relatives often stayed in these places.
 * : by whom? Per the MoS, we should always give the author of a statement of opinion in the text.
 * : what does strong mean in this context? Suggest another adjective.
 * : I would shorten to at t he Hellenic Military Academy in Athens: it's pretty obvious from the name that it's a military school.
 * : give the OS/NS date as you have in the lead.
 * : ditto.
 * : in the coup. Argued by whom?
 * : how many people are involved here? Suggest "another neutral candidate, such as George, his grandson".
 * No need for pictured in a picture caption.
 * Suggest a little more clarity on the potential monarchs: e.g.
 * : evacuated. We later say that this lasted three years: that's a bit more than "numerous months" -- why not give that precise figure here instead? ✅

More to follow. Two general points cropping up a lot: firstly, make sure that all dates are given with both OS and NS where appropriate; secondly, make sure that the main narrative is written in the past tense, not the present. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you, I will get to these soon. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These changes are now complete. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to disturb you, I am just wondering if there will be any more changes to make for this GAN? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: here's a few more.


 * : better simply as the First Foot Guards Regiment of the Prussian army (no need to say it's a regiment twice). It might be worth a brief comment as to how prestigious that regiment was, and its strong (German) royal connections.
 * : the passive voice is odd here: roughly, how did this happen?
 * : as officers, and you generally serve on someone's staff.
 * : wasn't this also a battle? If so, we need something like "Among them" rather than "also". Do we know what any of the other battles were? I'm also a little dubious about "on the frontlines": a senior officer's staff would generally be quite a long way from those. What exactly was George doing there?
 * : reigning rather than concurrent (I think you mean current, but that's not quite right here either).
 * : George's father, surely?
 * : I would mention who her parents were: she wasn't just any Romanian.
 * : does this mean won the war? When did this happen?
 * : give FF's name again, as it's a new paragraph, or simply "The assassination".
 * : the idiom you're going for here is outbreak.
 * : we haven't actually said who the Triple Alliance/Triple Entente were.
 * : better as was occupied by the Western Allies (who are these?)
 * : the Allies actually did occupy Athens. We've also moved between "Entente" and "Allies": I think we need to either stick with "Entente" or be clear as to why we've switched (presumably because Russia is out and the United States are in?)
 * : why would this upset the French? We just said that they wanted Greece to have a king (part of me is also a bit quizzical on "French princess": would anyone outside her family have accepted that title?).
 * There are a lot of day-month dates in WWI that need to be clarified for calendar.
 * I'm sorry, I am not too sure what you mean by this. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Greece used the Julian Calendar until 1923. When, was that November 8 as most readers would understand it (that is, the article anachronistically but reasonably uses the Gregorian date), or November 21 (that is, the article uses the Julian date, as would have been used by the people at the time, contemporary sources, etc). It's the former, but we need to use the OldStyleDate template to clarify that. Ditto any other time a date including a day is used before March 1923. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * : which ones? They should be named in the text.
 * : what marked the first time they had contact? Didn't they serve together in WWI and live together as children?
 * : I would cut this, since they then had to move across the Tyrrhenian sea and over some of the Alps: it's a bit poetic and not quite accurate. Simply "moved to Switzerland".
 * : why the plural?
 * : are these the same illness?
 * : "commoner" and "aristocrat" are antonyms.
 * : by Rallis?
 * : were
 * : turned out, return. ✅

The above points have now been finished. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Another batch (I haven't gone through the above to check/reply: can do that in a second run after the whole article has had a first pass. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

* : we haven't actually said that this war broke out, or what it was. I'm also not totally clear what Mustafa Kemal is doing here: we wouldn't say "Germany's war against George V's Britain".
 * : suggest wounded Greek soldiers and civilians in hospital: at the moment, I'm not clear on the distinction between the two categories here.
 * : this is quite confusing, in part because we don't really have a proper overview of the military picture here.
 * : as we have for the future-but-not-yet Carol II, we should say "the future..." her to avoid being anachronistic.
 * : accent on the a of Sainz.
 * : this is backwards; the burning was just over two weeks after the Turkish army took the city.
 * : this needs some explaining. That's also a big range: any way to narrow it down?
 * The source I think gives the same estimate that is given within the Burning of Smyrna article itself. How would you propose we could fix this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Most good, recent sources that I can find seem to err on the high side (see here, here, and here), going for "up to 100,000", "tens of thousands", or similar. The "tens of thousands and up to 100,000" figure is given here (p. 21) if you want a specific citation. Certainly, I can't find the 125,000 figure being seriously used anywhere, but 10,000 seems pretty low. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what do you suggest I change it to? Should I say "around 100,000" instead? And what sources do I use for this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would personally go with "tens of thousands". To me, the HQRS consensus is that a) 10,000 or fewer is too low and b) >100,000 is too high. Any formulation that gets that across is fine. As for sources, I've given you four in the comment above -- take your pick! <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : hold on: what was this one all about? Also, 11 September by which calendar?
 * : on Corfu. Suggest also royal residence
 * I have made this change. I understand that it is because Corfu is an island, but is it not still grammatical to say "in"? Personally, it seems a bit odd to say "on Corfu" out loud. But I'm not too fussed either way! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right: as it's an island, it's on. There are a few special cases, usually when the island is also a country or city -- "People drive on the left in Cyprus" -- but those don't apply here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 10:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, better as "the republican prime minister, Gonatas"
 * : what does this mean, exactly? ✅

Thanks for your help! The above points have now been completed as well. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * : the tone here is drifting into non-NPoV: "assuaged her weariness in too rich food and gambling", or the idea of "taking advantage of a visit to flirt with her own brother-in-law". We need to keep things to the facts and avoid anything that could be read as moralising.
 * : what does this actually mean? There's a definite imbalance here in the blame the article apportions to George and to Elisabeth: is the massively greater focus on her WP:DUE based on secondary sources?
 * : who is this?
 * : explain who he was and the significance of "under" here.
 * : per MOS:BIRTHDATE, bracketed dates like this are discouraged; if her date of birth or death is relevant, it should be introduced in prose as and when it becomes so.
 * : Wallach's affairs, or George's? I also note that we've been much kinder to George here than we were to Elisabeth earlier, which is not WP:NPOV.
 * : probably worth saying that it is generally labelled as "quasi-fascist" in scholarship.
 * : what are "the provinces" in a Greek context? "The country"?


 * Hello, sorry I am taking a while, I have been busy. I will complete these within the next few days. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Changes now complete. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)