Wikipedia:Featured article review/Names of the Greeks/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:24, 3 August 2009.

Review commentary
''Main editor User:Deucalionite has been blocked indefinitely. There seem to be no other main editors. I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Etymology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy.''
 * WP:CGR should be notified; they are likely to be the most helpful.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was promoted in 2005 and since then much text has been added to it. Currently the article has numerous citation needed tags, a POV tag, and an accuracy disputed tag. There do not seem to be editors actively interested in improving the article.

The original nominator of the article Colossus has not edited since Spring of 2008. However, one of his last edits addressed the problems with Names of the Greeks on the article talk page. He agrees that the article's quality has fallen sharply, despite having many references.

I feel that the article fails the following: &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1a - there are questions about article quality. The article is hard to follow and varies in quality of prose. Editors appear to add and remove material without discussion on the talk page.
 * lc - it has many citation needed tags. There are uncited quotations, eg 'Cicero delivered the coup de grace by coining the truly derogatory term, Graeculi, "contemptuous little Greeks".' Some sections are entirely uncited.
 * 1d - questions about its neutrality per the disputed tag and pov tag.
 * 1e - questions about its stability as there is adding and removing of tags and material without consensus or discussion.


 * Yeap, the article has great problems. And I am not sure I have the time or the material or even the appetite to work on it at this phase. I can promise I'll have a look at it during the weekend; and it is really unfortunate that both Kekrops and Deucalionite are blocked (both of them unfairly IMO). I don't promise anything, but if I do some cleaning, I suppose I can count on Mattisse's copy-editing skills!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, their absence offers some hope of making the article less like a Greek high-school textbook, of some thirty-five years ago. It is filled with nonsense and nationalist POV, and always has been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will help in any way I can. I suggest that you remove material that is not well sourced. I am hesitant to do that myself as I am unfamiliar with the subject matter and do not know what is important and what can easily be referenced. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mattisse, in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Factual errors begin in the intro: Much more could follow; but it may be simpler to add a new layer of cn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * '' virtually all Greeks were Roman citizens and therefore considered by name to have the right to be free and own property
 * The two halves of this sentence have nothing to do with each other; one never needed to be a Roman citizen to be free or to own property.
 * In fact, I have done so; see my comments, and Macrakis', and Fut. Perfect's - not just in the last sections, but throughout Talk:Names of the Greeks; please leave me a message when this goes to FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What I would do, if I were Jimbo, is to remove all the non-linguistic assertions, including the claims about what the Aetolians did in the twelfth century BC (about which we have no reliable information at all), the point-scoring about Philip of Macedon, the assertion (above) that Cicero coined a perfectly normal Latin diminutive, the claims that the Greeks felt superior to other peoples (and who hasn't?);  limit the linguistics to what is plainly consensus; and then consider whether what is left would be better on Wiktionary. Whether the result would deserve to be an FA is another question; but it would meet my standard: not being a public embarassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is full of tags, added some more
 * I noticed many WP:PRIMARY non-English sources are used. The author may have mis-interpreted the Greek source, at least citations to English translations needed or secondary sources. e.g.
 * Herodotus, "Histories", book II, 158
 * Saint Paul, "Epistle to the Romans", 1, 14
 * Aristotle, "Republic", I, 5
 * Homer, "Iliad", II, 498
 * Thucydides, "History", II, 68, 9 and II, 80, 5 and I, 47, 3 -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those do just as well as citations of translations; it's much easier to find Romans 1:14 in English than in Greek, and equally easy to find Iliad II, 498. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hieronymus wolf2.JPG: PD of course, but it's always nice to know the original source and artist. Otherwise, images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what a horrible mess. Even the title is misleading. I went there expecting an article about names of individual Greeks, but find instead one about names of the Greek nation. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, POV, accuracy, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, as the original FA criteria  concerns remain.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. Someone would need to step forwards and put considerable effort into this article before it might reasonably be considered to meet the FA criteria, and there's no sign of that happening. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. I think I see how to improve this (as above), but the result would be a much shorter article, which should be considered for FA on its merits, when trimmed. (And the Romioi question may require Demotic sources, which would be difficult for me.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. Needs a lot of work to become an FA again. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove. I don't have the time to work from scratch on the article right now.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.