Talk:Stamata Revithi

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Review
I've been asked by Yannismarou to review this article for prose and content. Since it is easier for me to fix prose errors than to try and point them out for someone else to fix I will do so and trust that they can be reviewed in the article's history. I will make content and citation suggestions here for further collaborative work. H1nkles (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 1896 Marathon Sub-Heading;
 * You have quite a few names of people and places in this section w/o wikilinks. I assume that is because no articles exist for these people and places.  I would suggest wikilinking anyway to help prompt others to start articles.
 * I don't like so much red-linking, and I also try not to overwikify. But I'll add some red links.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Understandable, perhaps wikilinking Parapigmata as a location. Just a thought.  H1nkles (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "From that moment the idea to run the Marathon stuck firmly in Revithi's mind." I think this line is a bit unencyclopedic, you may want to consider rewording.
 * Indeed, you are correct. I'll rephrase.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mention the Mayor of Marathon taking her into his house, do we know who the Mayor was in 1896? His name would be good to add here.
 * I find in the sources his last name (Koutsogiannopoulos) but not his first name! I don't think its nice to add half the name!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "She answered the reporters' questions, and was quick-witted, when a male runner from Chalandri teased her." You have a cite for the sentence prior to this one but no cite here.  This tid bit of information is great for providing color and flavor but we'll need to dig up a cite.
 * Cited.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The following sentences are a bit confusing: "In the end, as with Carlo Airoldi Revithi too was refused entry into the race by the organizing committee, not because she was a professional, but because she was a woman. The official excuse was that the deadline for participations had expired, and thus they could not accept her." Officially she was denied entry because she was too late in applying for entry.  If that is the case then stating she was denied entry because she was a woman appears speculative. No doubt she was denied entry because of her gender so I think this needs to be worded differently.
 * Ok, then I have to clearly distinguish in prose between the true reason of the exclusion (she was a woman), and the officially used excuse (she was too late in applying for entry).--Yannismarou (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * She received a signed statement from "the teacher, the mayor and the magistrate...." The only one of the three mentioned in the context of the paragraph is the mayor.  Who is the teacher and the magistrate?  If there isn't a clear indication of who these were then they need to be generic (eg "...a signed statement from a teacher, the mayor of Marathon, and a city magistrate....")
 * I'll rephrase, although I wrote it this way because at the time Marathon was a village, and there was only one teacher and one magistrate (I mean judge as a matter of fact)!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh that is interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Then perhaps just adding something like this "....a signed statement from Marathon's only teacher, the mayor and the city's magistrate...." would fit the bill.  H1nkles (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-Commissioned officers, are these Greek military officers or Olympic officials?
 * They were not Olympic officials. Probably military officers.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "It seems that she intended...." This is speculative. Instead perhaps "Historians believe that she intended...." or "Available sources indicate that she intended...."  H1nkles (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Aftermath subheading
 * We'll need to find a cite for the assertion that newspapers were building up to her Marathon run prior to the race. That is an interesting fact and points to the notoriety of her accomplishment.
 * I;ll find that!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise aside from some minor prose massaging that I'll do this section looks good. H1nkles (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added Benoit's winning time to the end of this section. My thinking was that since you had included the first officially timed marathon run by a woman, I would include this Olympic time to show how far women's athletics had come.  If you feel it is superfluous or the detail is too far off topic then please remove, it won't bother me in the least.  H1nkles (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Melpomene Heading
 * You may want to add a [sic] to the quote by Kémény where he says she completed the 40 kilometers since you mention that the actual distance is 42 kilometers from Marathon to Athens.
 * Added.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in the quote you say 'This was reportedly denied by the commission.'" This is included in Kémény's quote, did he say that?  It's just odd that he would say "reportedly" but if he did then that's fine.
 * It is within the quote.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You mention Estia, which I had to click on the wikilink to figure out it was a Greek newspaper. You may want to identify it a little in the article.
 * Done.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the final paragraph in this heading you have the date March 1 1896 but you do not put in the [ O.S....] as you do with all the other 1896 dates in the article. Is this intentional?
 * Yes, because I had included the OS for this date above, when I had used it again. I really don't know what to do with these OS! If I have to use them all the way around etc.
 * I've reworded this sentence: "Faded for about 30 years, Messager's report was revived in 1927 in an issue of Der Leichtathlet" primarily because Messager is not a person. Please review and see if it fits with your intentions, if not then please revert.  H1nkles (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is fine.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This sentence is not clear to me: "On the other hand, Tarasouleas argues that no contemporary press reports in Greek newspapers mention Melpomene by name, while the name Revithi appears many times;[14] according to Martin and Gynn this was described in foreign reports many years later." What confuses me is this last line attributed to Martin and Gynn.  Is this their response to Tarasouleas' argument?  If so it should be its own sentence and this argument expanded a little bit.
 * As a matter of fact it is the continuation of Tarasaloueas argument: the name Revithi appeared in Greek newspapers, while the name Melpomene was described in foreign reports many years later (this is not again completely accurate, since in appeared in a contemporary newspaper published in Athens in 1896, which however was written in French).--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is interesting to me in the dual identity debate is that no mention is made of the discrepency in the times for the marathon runs. An hour difference in the times is pretty significant.  H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the time 5 1/5 is connected by the sources with the name Melpomene, while the time 4 1/5 with the name Revithi. It is a pity we'll never learn if we speak about the same person or not! And it is pity we'll never learn what this or these woman or women did after the end of the Games.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Overarching comments
 * The article is well-written. She is a compelling story - single, unemployed mother who runs the marathon to prove a woman can do it.
 * You mention a need for more citations. I spent a considerable amount of time looking for more references only to find everything that was already cited.  I'll continue to look for more cites but that is a bit demoralizing.
 * You are far more versed with issues related to MoS so I won't comment on that.
 * A need for this article is a solid background section. You have 4 sentences on her life prior to the marathon, which is folded into the 1896 Marathon Race subheading.  You mention several newspapers were covering her in the run-up to her marathon but they don't discuss her background?  Is there a way to look into how Greek society at the end of the 19th century would treat an unemployed, single mother without falling into original research or speculation?  That's a tough task I know.  If Greece was like most of the rest of the world at that time she would have been treated very poorly, which makes the mayor, magistrate and teacher's support for her endeavor that much more remarkable.  Getting some original newspaper accounts much like your Estia and Messager references are the best citations!  More of these would take this article to another level.
 * Here are my opinions on GA status:
 * 1. Resonably well written - yes
 * 2. Factually accurate and verifiable - already discussed, as verifiable as possible. Sources cited with no original research.
 * 3. Broad in its coverage - All issues including dual identity and controversy about her inclusion as an athlete are addressed.
 * 4. Neutral? - Article presents both sides of the dual identity arguement without giving POV.
 * 5. Stable? - Check history, no edit wars.
 * 6. Images - Both photos fit copywrite and fair use criteria, links are good. Caption under muse photo could be trimmed and a bit more specific.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article and for allowing me to give my "2 cents", I will continue to follow this article in the hopes that it acheives your goals for it. Cheers! H1nkles (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your edits, and this insightful review! I'll do my best to bring this article at the best possible quality level.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the amount of work and improvements to this article I have taken it upon myself to upgrade it to a B-Class article. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing it as a GAC and who knows perhaps an FAC?!?  Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre claim regarding children / marital status
The article makes no mention of a marriage. It names two children, then says "Contemporary sources do not mention her husband, so she was likely widowed." There is no citation at the end of this sentence. I would suggest that, statistically, the most likely explanation of a 30-year-old woman having children with no named husband is that she was a single mother, not a widow. The cited source does not state any belief that she was widowed. I don't think we should be making any OR conclusions, so I'm editing that phrase out hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, you should not make making any conclusion one way or the other.  But your "statistics" are rubbish.  120 years ago,  a 30 year old woman with 2 children and no husband was much more likely to be a widow,  than unmarried.   A lot more men died on the job, in those days.Eregli bob (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Over the years I have consulted hundreds of census pages from that period, including thousands of entries, and do not agree. Unmarried motherhood was common; widowhood likewise, but not to the same degree. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Low credibility claim.
" Officially, she was rejected because the deadline for participation had expired; however, as Olympic historians David Martin and Roger Gynn point out, the real problem was her gender."

So if some random MAN off the street turns up at the start of the Olympic marathon on the day of the race,  he will be allowed to join in the race,  on the spot ? Of course he won't! Don't substitute mincing correctness posturing for officially recorded fact.Eregli bob (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you know that anything demanded by political correctness must be accepted with enthusiasm lest you be branded a bigot? Radio Sharon (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not expert on this topic, but I'd like to point out that the Olympics were likely very different in 1896 than they are today. I think consulting literature with regards to formal entry procedures (if they existed) from this time period would be prudent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.126.0 (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
In the Running Encyclopedia she is listed as being born in 1865. - Theornamentalist (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cause of Death
Would be interesting to know why she has died so young. --Melly42 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * She didn't, if you read the article you will see it states that details after the run are nonexistent. – Connormah (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Variety of English used
I corrected a misquotation in a photo caption (what was written as 'program' was spelled 'programme' in the original quotation) and this led me to notice a problem with the version of English used in the main text of this page (ie NOT including quotations). In the main text both British/Commonwealth English spellings ('kilometre') and American English spellings ('kilometer' and 'program') are used. It should be one or the other, not a mixture. 86.133.213.39 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Athletes at the 1896 Olympics category
Sadly I think it isn't right to have her in this category. She didn't enter any races, nor was registered for any. At it's most extreme it'd be like me going to Rio, doing the marathon course the day before and then adding me as an Olympic athlete Cls14 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)