Talk:Treaty of London (1915)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. It's a long article so once I get started, I might spread my comments over a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

Lead
 * and Italy with the aim of enticing Italy: suggest replacing the second Italy with "latter" to avoid the close repetition.
 * The Entente powers hoped to force the Central Powers: another repetition issue, suggest replacing the first powers with "countries"
 * link Rijeka?
 * and D'Annunzio proclaimed short-lived Italian Regency of Carnaro in the city: seems like a "the" is needed before "short-lived"?

Background
 * obtain Bulgarian alliance or neutrality,: the grammar isn't quite right here. My suggestion would be "obtain an alliance with Bulgaria or at least secure its neutrality,"

First offers
 * He told Imperiali that the UK would not consider the matter: you don't use the abbreviation UK anywhere else, suggest: "He told Imperiali that Britain would not consider the matter"
 * and wanted to force Germany to divert some of its forces away from the existing battlefields.: Germany is used earlier in the sentence, suggest replacing it here: "force it to divert"
 * irredentist groups such as Trento and Trieste led by: grammatically not quite right, I think. Suggest: "irredentist groups in areas such as Trento and Trieste that were led by"

Occupation of Vlorë
 * there would be question of the South Slavs in Italy in place of the same in Austria-Hungary.: not sure what is be said here.
 * to let him have this without anything in return: suggest "to let him have this without making any concessions in return"

Seeking Bulgarian alliance
 * I suggest making it clear that this was concurrently with the attempts being described in the last paragraph of the previous section.

Final six weeks of talks
 * Grey turned Sonnino's 16 points into a draft agreement: this is the first time it is specifically stated that Sonnino had 16 conditions - in the "Sonnino replaces Castello" section, it is referred to as "a specific list of conditions" and in the "Seeking Bulgarian alliance" section, "16 conditions" is stated but without saying those were Sonnino's 16 points.

Terms
 * specifically its part North of a line running northeast: not quite clear, I think "specifically the part north of a line running northeast" works better
 * The paragraph dealing with Articles 1 to 3 is out of place with the others; even within that paragraph, Article 3 is discussed before Article 2 and from the content, it doesn't seem necessary.

Up to the Aftermath section, more to follow. I have been making minor grammar edits and tweaks as I have been going through, please check that you are happy with these. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you very much for taking time to review this article. I have addressed most of the above concerns as suggested and edited others (e.g. Sonnino's 16 points issue, South Slavic question, reordering of treaty terms) to clarify. "Trento and Trieste" is actually the name of a group. I tried to clarify this by adding its actual italian name Trento e Trieste and then Trento and Trieste in brackets. Could you please have a look at those edits?


 * I also took a look at your edits and - no objections there. I'm looking forward to the rest of the review. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath
 * In return, he demanded the Entente to refrain ...: the use of "In return" is probably inappropriate. It implies that Pašić made some sort of concession. The "to" in this quote should be deleted as well to be grammatically precise.
 * Removed "in return" and the grammar-offending "to". I meant to say Pašić was prompted by conclusion of the arrangement with Italy to preemptively ask to be involved in any future negotiations with Romania and Hungary. The request was purely academical in case of Hungary and ignored in terms of Romaina, so maybe the article is better of with nothing in place of the removed "In return". (T)


 * Grey declined both requests.: Pašić's demands were to the Entente powers, not just the British. Presumably since he was UK based, he was protesting to the British so maybe that should be reflected here.
 * Actually Pašić (and the rest of the Serbian government) was based in Niš (Serbia) at the time of the treaty (April 1915) and would only move out o the country in October. The cited source confirms this explicity and says the exchange was made by telegraph through British ambassador to Serbia (who also moved to Niš at the time) Charles Louis des Graz. Looking at the Embassy of France, Belgrade article it appears there was no French ambassador in Serbia after 1914 (presumably after outbreak of the war or retreat from Belgrade). I'm struggling to find information on Russian ambassador to Serbia in 1915, but there may have been none. Nicholas Hartwig died in July 1914 at that post and it is not impossible he was not replaced due to outbreak of the war (his body was not taken to Russia for burial, and buried in Belgrade instead). Maybe Pašić had no other channel to communicate except des Graz. Unfortunately I have no source to back this Franco-Russian guesswork right now. I edited the article a bit to clarify how they communicated though. (T)


 * Grey responded by reiterating that in case of war victory,: suggest "Grey responded by reiterating that in the event of victory in the war,..."
 * Amended as suggested (T)


 * Russia speculated on existence of a non-aggression agreement...: suggest "Russia speculated on the potential existence of a non-aggression agreement..."
 * Revised as suggested (T)


 * ...Central Powers in the 1917 Battle of Caporetto. Following a major pullback,: suggest "Central Powers in 1917, at the Battle of Caporetto. Following a major retreat,..."
 * Revised as suggested (T)


 * after early Entente setbacks at Gallipoli.: because you use Entente twice in this sentence, and because the Russians weren't at Gallipoli, I suggest amending this section to read "after early British and French setbacks at Gallipoli."
 * Revised as suggested (T)


 * Following the capture of Kaunas in Lithuania in late June during the 1915 Russian Great Retreat by the Germans,: suggest "Following the German capture of Kaunas in Lithuania in late June during the Russian retreat,"
 * Revised as suggested (T)


 * Under the provisions of the border settlement,: the phrase "under the provisions" is used near the end of the previous sentence, suggest rephrasing
 * Rephrased (T)

Other stuff
 * No issues that I can see with the sources/referencing
 * Dupe links: there are three, Sazan Island, Istria and Julian March but these are all at the very end so perhaps could be justified.
 * Removed anyway. (T)

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Image tags check out OK


 * Thank you for the comments tidying up grammar. I think I have addressed all the issues you brought forward along the lines you suggested except the Pašić-Grey exchange issue because Pašić was not in London at the time (see above). I edited this paragraph to clarify and added comments above, so could you please take another look at the matter. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

did you get the chance to take a look at the changes regarding Pašić–Grey correspondence above?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing as GA. Good work! Zawed (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)