Talk:Noemvriana/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meishern (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I will review this article. I read the intro so far. What I don't like is that there are no references in it, please reference it. Once I read through it, I will correct some of the grammar issues (not a big deal) without changing the meaning of each sentence. I will gladly help you polish this article as much as I can. Please give me 24-48 hours to look it over. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input! I will do the changes asked in the next couple days. A.Cython (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the cartoon on the very top should be moved somewhere else. It would be real nice if there was a photo of the king and the prime minister with each other, since that paragraph sets up the causes of the conflict and is primarily about those 2 people. If nothing is found, I will quickly photoshop a photo of them two with a vertical line between. Your views? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I read through the article and edited maybe 75% of it. I am confused as to why the Noemvriana itself takes up 15% of the article with a 70% introduction? I can rewrite it into 1 paragraph without such in depth details that really have nothing to do with Noemvriana yet make the reader understand the event itself and the causes behind it. I will finish editing the article, but you cant have only 15% of this related to the event itself. Need details about warfare during the event, not details about bulgaria and serbia 3 years earlier who took no part in Noemvriana. most of this article is rehashing the Greek reasons for their position during WW1. arent there details like .. colonel stephadopelous shot general le monchie in the eye fighting for possession of the Acropolis? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all the event is just a tip of the iceberg. Essentially the Noemvrina were the clash between two men (Venizelos vs Constantine) two ideologies (republic vs monarchy) the countries (New and Old Greece) two alliances (Entente vs Central Powers) and which started taking shape after the entrance of Germans + Burgarian forces in the Greek territories. Without describing these events that led to those days then the reader cannot really appreciate its significance or understand what are the motives behind the key players. Unfortunately there aren't many details on the military conflict during those days, and believe me I have look every possible book (Greek or not) related on this issue. But I have to insist that the description of these events beforehand are essential. Now about the cartoon.. it is drawing actually of that era of the following photo. Both are valid since the drawing is historic... well maybe it is not as realistic but its essence is the same. I haven't checked you changes yet but your effort is much appreciated. Thanks.A.Cython (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will finish polishing the last 2 paragraphs. I will re-read the entire article (as should you). However in my view there is way too much detail, that in my opinion distracts from the point of the article. (Venizelos vs Constantine) (republic vs monarchy) (Entente vs Central Powers) definitely need to be explained to set up Noemvriana, yet i am not sure such detail is needed. Maybe I am wrong. It is something to think about. Its a shame that none of the participants wrote about what they experienced. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@A.Cython, In section 'Political situation in Greece and Europe', its written: 'In France, the presidency of Aristide Briand, a leading proponent of engaging with Constantine to bring about a reconciliation...'. The next sentence says 'With the fall of the Romanovs in Russia (who was refusing the French proposals for Constantine's removal from the throne)'.

So was France a proponent of engaging with Constantine and reconciliation or France wanted Constantine's removal? Please clarify. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aristide Briand and some of his followers wanted reconciliation... but not everyone on the French government wanted that nor the French press/public. In fact after the failure of all diplomatic attempts and the events of November the position of Briand become so weak that he had to give in to position of removing Constantine. On the other side of the spectrum Russia was a monarchy and would oppose any change or proposal that would benefit the republican France. Great Britain, a parliamentary monarchy and the third protecting power of Greece, was annoyed by Constantine but at the same time they were hesitating to agree with the French.


 * I you want you may check the French version of this article. It is based on the translation of my version and now it is a FA article there. They have maintained most of the details that I written.


 * Hope that helps.A.Cython (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added some citations at the introduction, as requested. Btw I have read all the changes you made and I agree with many of them them, although I made some small changes. The changes were mainly to correct some language mistakes and preserve the detailed description I had. The key issue is that these details are necessary for avoiding misunderstanding for both the Greek and non-Greek readers.A.Cython (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks!A.Cython (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Correcting me is not a problem since I focused on grammar (run-on sentences etc..) than content. If the meaning was accidentally changed by me, its a good idea to correct me. I don't know a single thing about this time in Greece, which what I think makes me qualified to examine this article from an unbiased position.


 * I will re-read right now, look at references, look at french/greek etc version of article; spend an hour looking for any other info about the events themselves: I do wish we could expand that section a bit, but if nothing else found, things are looking fine for approval. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Second Read
In the intro I rephrased as "By the end of the summer of 1916, the failure of negotiations, along with the Bulgarian army's attacks against the Greek Macedonian army, led to a military coup by Venizelists military officers in Thessaloniki. "

The original intro, said 'destruction' but never explained if the Greek Macedonian army was destroyed, or what exactly was the destroyed. Would you take a look, and see if Bulgarians attacked, destroyed, captured,... etc what exactly occurred. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "destruction" meant (from the author I was reading) the Greek population . If Bulgarians entered in these areas (as they did) would displace the Greek population (as they did) with any means destruction of fields, killings etc. Now from the Greek perspective this means the destruction of anything Greek there, i.e. people, wealth, etc etc. Any ideas to improve the text?
 * Yes, I have a better idea of the situation now. Improvements on the way. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question is your use of the word 'ill-treated' about Benakis imprisonment without quotation from source. It could be interpreted as anything from brutal torture to not having his favorite chef prepare his breakfast each day. Was he tortured, beaten, raped, starved, degraded? Do we have anything specific, because I understand the aristocrats of the early 20th century lumped everything I wrote before as ill-treated. It would be nice if we could somehow rephrase this expression which is no longer used, to beat-up or humiliated... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean. Unfortunately the best description (I do not have that particular book in front of me) I have is that his health was quite poor (he was old as well) and despite the pleas from his daughter to the king (if i remember correct) no effort was taken to acknowledge or accommodate that. Do not forget he was a mayor of the capital not a petty criminal. Ill-treated seems to me appropriate (it is not as heavy as tortured) for knowingly ignore the health conditions of someone. If you think there is better description feel free to make the necessary changes.
 * Thanks. I have a better understanding now. I will try to phrase it so other readers will get the gist of the situation. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Athens
This sub-title needs to be changed. The 'Battle of Athens' is too vague, since over the thousands of years, too many occurred. How about we call it '1916 Battle of Athens' or 'Battle of Athens: 1916' or 'Noemvriana: Battle of Athens 'or just unite it all under Noemvriana. Lets at least put the year in the title? Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am ok with that.

You restored my removal of Franco-British Secret Services. The implications here is that there was a secret service/police/spy agency jointly operated by England and France. I spend 30 mins looking on the web, and such a joint venture never existed since despite being called Allies, neither France or England cared much for each other. They each had independent spies and collaborators, jealously guarding secrets discovered from each other. Read how I rephrased it in (Repercussions of Noemvriana) to clear up any misunderstanding. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am ok with that as well.

I am not trying to nit-pick or whatnot. I just would like this article to be the best it could be. If these minor issues could be compromised somehow, its ready. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Approved
After spending close to a week researching this article, I have concluded that it met all the requirements to be upgraded to GA status. My reasoning is explained below:

According to Wikipedia rules regarding GA approval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles) this article conforms to each rule listed below:

1. Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling, grammar, formatting etc..

2. Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources, etc..

3. Without original research.

4. Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions.

5. Written from a neutral point of view.

6. Stable, with no ongoing edit wars (constructive routine editing is fine).

7. Compliant with image use policy. Images should have free licenses, or have appropriate fair use rationales.

If you have any questions regarding the review process, please feel free to contact me. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)