Talk:Paul of Greece/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An important article, will take this review on. Constantine  ✍  21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I really appreciate you doing this. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Cplakidas! I hope you are well. Sorry if this disturbs you. I was just wondering when this review will begin? I'm just asking because my schedule will be getting busy in the next few weeks. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

sorry for the delay, real life tends to be a bit unpredictable lately. Here are my first comments after a first read-through:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lede
 * two suggestions: one, the title used in the infobox and the succession box is that of 'King of the Hellenes', so some mention of this should be made here; second, perhaps 'the sixth King of Greece'?
 * Spell out the year, the reader shouldn't have to calculate the date from Paul's age ;)
 * Done.
 * very abrupt change of time and topic. At least split the sentence in two. and 'National Schism' is peculiar to Greece as a term, so 'a National Schism' won't mean much to the average reader. Consider briefly introducing it.
 * Done.
 * would move the year to the mention of Constantine and Paul's exile
 * Done.
 * as the name is Wikipedia's way of describing the event and not a proper name used in historiography, I suggest something like 'However, in 1924 a referendum...' and simply pipe the link there. Ditto for the, perhaps 'after another referendum in 1935'? Although I would at least add 'after a royalist coup' here, since the referendum was neither free nor fair.
 * Done.
 * did he really fight? As heir-apparent he naturally did not have any combat role nor leadership role. Recommend striking this.
 * Done.
 * add a year at least
 * the former is somewhat redundant since 1947 is mentioned, which is clearly after 1945. I would suggest adding two things after : one, that George returned to Greece in 1946 after another referendum, and the outbreak of the civil war.
 * Done.
 * add year and link the communist forces to Democratic Army of Greece
 * Done.
 * the term will be unfamiliar to most readers; add a brief explanation, e.g. 'enosis, the union of Cyprus with Greece'
 * Give a proper link for
 * 'commended'? By whom and for what? This is the standard job of a head of state. Something is missing here...
 * Done.
 * This was amended to but I don't see anything like this in the article. The text mentions his state visits, but nothing about them being commended, or being particularly successful or his role being singled out. In fact, IIRC the state visit to the UK in 1963 provoked a political crisis and the resignation of Karamanlis as PM. A more nuanced summary of Paul's role in foreign relations is warranted here. Constantine   ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * add at least that he was the last king of Greece?
 * I see a change to this is clearly incorrect. Constantine   ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am missing at least two things from the lede (haven't had a chance to look at the main body of the article yet) that are pretty much the most important domestic aspects of his reign: his role in bringing Karamanlis to power and then dismissing him, and his role in the establishment of a nationalist-royalist para-state in Greece during the 1950s.
 * Early life
 * Old Style or New Style? Greece did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until February 1923. Ditto for all dates before then.
 * Done.
 * Where did you get the OS date? Put another way, how do you know that 14 December is not the OS date? Plus you should use the dedicated Template:OldStyleDate for the OS/NS dates. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The last male mentioned is Crown Prince Constantine.
 * Done.
 * Does this meant he Palace Guard (now the Presidential Guard) or one of the Evzone regiments?
 * Should his military training not be mentioned in chronological order, after references to his birth and early life education? Also, when did this education take place? It is nowhere mentioned again.
 * it was not the Presidential Mansion then.
 * link to the Goudi coup, and the coup was not as such against George I (though there were elements in it who favoured a republic). This part is contradicted by the article itself when it states right after
 * There is some critical context missing here as to the dismissal of the princes and the otherwise unspecified criticism levelled at Constantine; namely Constantine's role in the 1897 war and the princes establishing cliques around them in the army officer corps.
 * National Schism
 * this is potentially misleading phrasing; Constantine was supporting the Central Powers, because he believed they would win. His neutrality was because Greece was hopelessly exposed to the Entente navies and an entry into the war would have been disastrous.
 * as noted above, there is no other National Schism, so the 'Greek' is redundant. Some dates would be relevant here as well.
 * Done.
 * Dates? Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an opinion and needs to be attributed; and as an opinion it is also rather at odds with scholarship on the matter, e.g. Constantine was pressured to oppose Venizelos by Ioannis Metaxas. Ditto for the caption in the photo saying.
 * Still the picture presented is misleading and does not reflect scholarly views on Constantine's motives. You have the choice, per WP:SS, of removing this altogether and simply state Constantine's pro-German leanings, or actually go through additional sources and present a nuanced view. Greece during World War I has some insights here. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * Link Charles Jonnart
 * Done.
 * this is incorrect; Constantine never officially abdicated, he left behind Alexander as a placeholder of the throne. This is in fact clearly stated further down, ...
 * Done.
 * something is missing here...
 * an explanation is needed here, i.e. that George was also seen as pro-German
 * Done.
 * Exile to Switzerland
 * I assume the is the German Imperial Naval Academy? Please name and link it.
 * Done.
 * can a revolution sprout?
 * Done.
 * A revolution also does not 'arise' normally; 'break out', perhaps? Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * dubious, afaik the mutinies began by the crews, the officer corps by and large remained loyal to the Kaiser. Cf. (and link) Kiel mutiny.
 * Done.
 * Just by appending 'and their crews' is not enough; this goes to the same as with all the other issues of accuracy in details in the article: I understand the reluctance to delve into details that are not directly relevant to Paul himself, but this is not an excuse for factual inaccuracy. If you want to tighten it up per WP:SS, that is fine, but if you want to go into detail on context, it needs to be correct, and properly researched and referenced. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * over-simplified, but yes, that is correct; but at least mention that these gains were codified in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. is a monumental understatement; add at least something to the effect that there was a war going on between Greece and Kemal's Turkish nationalists.
 * Done.
 * as before, replace the descriptive name with more elegant phrasing}}
 * where and when? I am not aware of fighting (ie. a civil war) during the election. And not 'a sector' of monarchists protested for this, there was the so-called 'United Opposition' of all non-Venizelist parties that campaigned for Constantine's return.
 * Would recommend moving the references to the war earlier, as mentioned, and strike the rest; the vacancy of the throne was not really relevant to the war at this point.
 * introduce her (Paul's grandmother and queen)
 * Done.
 * Return to Greece
 * they did not return because they felt safe, but because royalist parties had taken over...
 * Done.
 * 'demonstrations in support'?
 * Done.
 * confusing; 'most of whom'? who were not? nominally Greece was in Anatolia on behalf of the Entente...
 * 'their war' means 'the Allies' war'...
 * Done.
 * Kemal did not at this time make any territorial gains against the Greeks; the battles of Inonu did not impinge on the Greek zone of occupation in Anatolia.
 * Done.
 * Per above on matters of detail, just tweaking the wording is not enough. Please take the time to rewrite this section properly. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Turkey first defeated Greece at the August 1922 offensive, which had the burning of Smyrna as a direct consequence.
 * Done.
 * what does this mean? This is vague to the point of irrelevance. Per above, please take the time to rewrite this section properly. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall, the context of the Greco-Turkish war is very convoluted and over-simplified to the point of containing several inaccuracies. Strongly recommend using a specialist work to rewrite this part. Alternatively, you can condense the whole section into the essential dates (Greek defeat in August 1922 and consequences) and focus on Paul's life during these years.
 * Yes, it is bound to be simplified. Paul did not play a huge role in that war. This article is about Paul, not said war or another war under his father's reign. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * True, which is why I am perfectly happy to leave you with the option of condensing the section to bare essentials; but over-simplification is not an excuse for factual errors or misleading phrasing, even if it is inadvertent. Constantine  ✍  18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Puh, I will stop here. There is a lot to improve, and we are not even half-way into the article. I am willing to shepherd this through section by section, but it will need time. I will continue with the rest of the article once the above comments have been addressed. Constantine  ✍  20:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * Please provide proper referencing for 'The Duke: Portrait of Prince Philip. Written by Tim Heald'. Also, I cannot find the information referenced by this source (e.g. Paul's military education and Sandhurst) in the book.
 * Done.
 * Can you provide some additional details typically given with bibliographic references? Year, location, publisher, OCLC/ISBN? Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hachette 2006, Prevelakis & Η Ελλάδα από το Α έως το Ω: Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος 2011, Schain 2001 are referenced but do not appear in the article.
 * Done.
 * The former were removed, but the referenced section remained in place, without a corresponding notice that it is now unreferenced. Constantine   ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I see a very heavy reliance on Van der Kiste, Hourmouzios and Sáinz de Medrano, who are royal biographers. I don't know the latter, but I know Van der Kiste's work, it tends to be very sympathetic to his royal subjects, quite at odds with historiography on the topic otherwise. Which is something I also see missing here in general. There are plenty of Greek-language and English-language sources on the political events referenced here that would be necessary for context, but they are not used, starting with the go-to Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους and going to more specialist works (e.g. recently Mavrogordatos' works on the National Schism, or Mazower, Close and Iatrides on the civil war, etc etc) Ditto for other events mentioned here, like the Kiel mutiny; Hourmouzios clearly isn't the best source to use to portray these events.
 * Most Greek royal articles do have a big reliance on these sources.
 * Yes, that does not mean it is a satisfactory situation or that it meets WP:RS criteria. The life of a monarch is tied up with the history of his country during his reign; there should be at least a few sources from historians, and not royal biographers, especially on a matter as controversial as the Greek monarchy, whose legacy is mixed to say the least. A very clear example:, i.e. the only two sources extensively used in the article and both of them not actually historians nor experts on modern Greek history (John Van der Kiste is primarily writing on royalty and an amateur historian at best, while Hourmouzios was personal secretary to King George II and King Constantine II, so hardly the most unprejudiced author), are used to refute these claims in Wikipedia's own voice, and no sources are examined to check whether they might be correct. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. That is not to say that Van der Kiste and Hourmouzios can not or should not be used; Hourmouzios especially, as to date the only biographer of Paul, is referenced by mainstream historians as well. But judgment and critical view needs to be based on a broad assessment of scholarly opinion. This is missing entirely. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This source might be useful for some additional details.


 * Mostly done. More to follow. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Have removed the block strike-throughs; I will strike through were issues have been addressed after review. In the meantime, please simply mark the issues you have addressed as done or otherwise reply to any suggestion. That way if an issue needs to be discussed further it can be done. Constantine  ✍  19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

As of today, there's still a few things unaddressed from my previous review, even though the corresponding sections were originally striken through. It has also become clear that the article, as it stands, is essentially an (unattributed) translation of the equivalent French article, albeit by someone not entirely familiar with French or English (otherwise I cannot explain things like 'une partie de l'armée' becoming 'a precinct of the army'). Translation issues aside, this poses two problems: First, the main author and nominator of the English article obviously has not read the sources for themselves, and has little actual knowledge of Greek history, as is evident from the replies above or some very vague/incorrect formulations that are the result of poor translation evidently made by someone who doesn't know the actual context. Second, as with the French original, there simply are not enough WP:RS by professional, expert historians in the article, nor is it to be expected that they will be included soon, at least without a major rewrite of the article itself to a form that is quite different to the French original. I am therefore failing this nomination at this time. Constantine  ✍  09:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)