Talk:Hellenic Army/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Initial comments
 * I have taken a quick look at the article and feel that it is not yet at the standard expected of a GA. I have not completed a full review, though, as I feel that with some work it could be brought up to GA status. As such, I will list the most significant concerns below. If these can be addressed in the next seven days, I will then complete a full review. Please feel free to question anything you don't agree with:
 * lead: currently the lead does not summarise the whole article. Per WP:LEAD, it should be able to stand alone, so as it stands it should be expanded;
 * referencing: currently there are a number of paragraphs or sentences that appear to be uncited. For instance, in the Mission section, the peacetime objectives need a reference. In the History section, the last part of the first paragraph needs a reference.The Structure section doesn't appear to be referenced; neither are the Personnel, Equipment and Uniforms and Ranks sections. A good rule of thumb is one citation at the end of each paragaph (but more is better, if multiple sources were used for the information contained in the paragraph);
 * referencing: what references that are currently used appear to be largely Greek language. While there is no issue (at least in my opinion) with some Greek sources being used, for a successful GA rating, I feel that these need to be balanced with English language sources also;
 * coverage: the history section should be expanded to summarise that Army's involvement in the conflicts that are listed. While I understand that there are main articles to these linked, a GA such as this should use an appropriate summary style to deliver a broad overview of the topic, rather than use list format as this one currently does in a number of its sections;
 * coverage: the Structure section needs some sort of introduction/overview prose;
 * coverage: the Personnel section mentions conscripts, but doesn't mention how long they are engaged for, or what sort of training they receive, etc. Also are women allowed to fill the same roles as men, or are there roles that they are excluded from? What age can personnel start serving and when are they retired, etc?;
 * coverage: the equipment section should be expanded to give a broad overview of what type of equipment the Hellenic Army uses. For a good example, please take a look at Australian Defence Force, which is a Featured Article (I didn't have anything to do with writing it);
 * English variation: be careful to use only one English variation. I found some US and some British (for example "armor" v. "armour" and "defense" v "defence"). Either is fine, but consistency is the key;
 * image gallery: I'm not sure about the use of the image gallery, per the guidance at WP:IG it should probably be removed and the images worked in individually (if the content was expanded as per my above suggestion, this would give more scope to add the images in throughout the article). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "which occurred in the last decade" - this should be made clearer. As time progresses, this will need to be updated if it remains in its current form, so it might be better to say a specific date;
 * there is inconsistent capitalisation throughout the article. Only words that are proper nouns or titles, or words that appear at the start of sentences need capital letters;
 * this is a very awkward sentence: "After a major reorganization which occurred in the last decade, which included..."
 * the prose is a little choppy in places and I feel that, once the article is expanded (per my comments below), that it would need a copy edit;
 * I'm not sure that the flag icons in the Army formations are really necessary. Do they serve a purpose?
 * the web citations should have publisher and accessdate information added to them. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * as mentioned above, the article does not meet GA referencing requirements. At a bare minimum, each paragraph should end with a citation, even if it is a duplicate link;
 * the majority of the references used in the article are not in English, which makes it difficult to determine whether they are reliable. While I'm prepared to accept good faith on some, for GA they should be balanced with English-language sources also;


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * as mentioned above, some expansion is required. For instance, the History section stops at 1829 and then employs list formate. The items in the list should be mentioned in prose using an appropriate summary style;
 * there is information in the lead, that is not covered in the body (e.g. the information about HELBROC). That should be covered in the body of the article;
 * the lead should be expanded to summarise the whole article, albeit in a very broad brush stroke;
 * you might consider adding a current operations section;
 * the additions to the Personnel section are good, but I really think the role of women should be covered given the global trend in Western militiaries towards more female involvement. If women can't serve, or are exempt from conscription, then simply just say so;
 * the Structure section should have some prose. For instance see the Australian Army section in the Australian Defence Force article (which is currently a Featured Article);
 * the equipment section also needs expansion;
 * the Uniform and ranks section doesn't seem to mention uniforms at all and only mentions the highest rank. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * The article needs expansion before this can be determined. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues, that I can see. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * As above, I have concerns about the use of the Gallery, per the guidance at WP:IG. The images should be worked into the article individually (if the content was expanded as per my above suggestion, this would give more scope to add the images in throughout the article
 * "File:The sortie of Messologhi by Theodore Vryzakis.jpg", might need a US licence added to it, given that the current licence that is used on it says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". It would, I think, just need a US-PD tag added;
 * "File:Greek Army uniforms, 1833-1851.png", probably needs an English translation of its source, and a US licence;
 * "File:AlexanderYpsilantisPruth.jpg", probably needs a US licence per the advice in the current licence on the description page (as above);
 * "File:Nikolaos Plastiras.jpg" - needs date information and English translations of author, source and permission fields on the description page;
 * "File:Greek Parade Paris 1919.jpg": probably needs a US licence as well as that which is currently there. It also probably needs a date of death for the author to be added to the description page to make certain that it is PD. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Please address my initial comments (listed above). I will then complete a full review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This review has been on hold for seven days. While some improvements have been made, I do not feel that they are sufficient to result in it being promoted to GA at this time. If more significant work was being undertaken, I would be inclined to leave the review open to allow editors more time to bring the article up to scratch, however, I do not feel that this is likely at this stage. If anyone disagrees with my assessment, please feel free to list it at WP:GAR. Conversely, once you feel that you have addressed the concerns listed, please feel free to relist at GAN. Regards and good luck with taking the article further, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)