Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Peer review/Battle of Greece

Battle of Greece
This article has been greatly improved recently. I want it to become FA-class but I need your help! Any suggestions or constuctive criticism would be welcome. Periklis* 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou
In general, this is an excellant article. If you add the necessary citation and you have another good copy-editor (like Uber Cryxic) to go through your edits, I think the article will probably have a good result in FAC. I'm sorry I'm not a native English speaker and I cannot give a high level copy-editing to the article myself!--Yannismarou 18:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "stubborn Greek resistance": I don't like the "stubborn" word. It could be regarded as uncyclopedic. Choose another adjective: intense maybe.
 * I think the lead, in general, needs some copy-editing. Leads are a strange thing! And it is the first thing a FAC reviewer sees. I saw Uber Cryxic volunteered to copyedit the article. Take advantage of his offer! He is an excellant editor and a nice copy-editor.
 * "Is credited by some historians such as John Keegan": I'd like to see a citation here. You may give it later, but, when you explicitely name a historian, it is nice to give straight away a citation.
 * Nazi Germany: You wikilink it twice - try not to overwikify the article. Once linked it is Ok.
 * "Greece had been friendly towards National Socialist Germany, especially profiting from mutual trade relations". I want a citation here!
 * "Mussolini preferred that the Greeks would not accept the ultimatum but that they would offer some kind of resistance." I donot like the way this assessment is introduced. It would be better to say: "According to the X historian, Mussolini probably preferred ... " In general, be careful with such assessements.
 * "The principal Italian thrust was delivered ... a full scale counterattack was in place." These two paragraphs need citations.
 * In section "British aid to Greece and the diplomatic background" some assessments in the second paragraph need citations.
 * "The product ... German threat." Uncitated paragraph.
 * In "Metaxas Line" there is a . Provide the citation.
 * "Vevi" is undercitated. Especially the first two paragraphs. The same with "Olympus and Servia passes" where I also see a.
 * "Other historians such as Antony Beevor claim that it was not Greek resistance that delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, but instead the slow construction of airfields in Eastern Europe." Citation?
 * A once again in "Homage to the Greek resistance".
 * Citate properly external links of the notes 8, 10 and 13 (title, author if there is one etc.).
 * Do not have in "See also" links you've already wikilinked in the text. Do you really need this section? I know Kirill and other reviewers do not like them! In any case, if you keep one (after you clean it from the redundant links) put it before Notes.


 * Thanks, I will be sure to act on your suggestions. Periklis* 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made more citations and touched things up a bit. How are things looking now? Do you think the sources I cite are reliable? Another question:Do you think there is too much POV for the Greek/Allied side? Periklis* 03:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "humiliating Italian military pretensions". "The Greek troops fought back with great tenacity" Avoid such expressions. Choose neutral words. They could be regarded as POV. When writing the article try to put yourself in a neutral point, in the middle of the story, where you take no sides, but you just narrate trying to be objective. I know it is difficult, but it is necessary! I also don't like it, but, unfortunately, NPOV it is a Wikipedia policy.
 * "as being "decisive in determining the future course of the Second World War"[3] as the invasion of the area made it impossible for Hitler and Stalin to come to an agreement". "Germany had unleashed its Blitzkrieg and overran much of Western Europe. Benito Mussolini had grown jealous of Hitler’s conquests and wanted to show his Axis partner that he too could lead Italy to similar military conquests. Italy had already..." Repetitions in the prose. Try to avoid them, especially in the lead! I suggest you rephrase.
 * "Benito Mussolini had grown jealous of Hitler’s conquests and wanted to show his Axis partner that he too could lead Italy to similar military conquests." This is an assessement you then citate, so it seems Ok. But the expression "had grown jealous of..." seems to limit the causes of this conflict in just the jealousy (namely, the subjective sentimentalism of one person). Is this the truth? You narrate politics here and a conflict of interests. Jealousy indicates sentimentalism and does not fully explain (or maybe disguise) some deeper reasons which may have led Italy to decide this attack. Try to stay on the facts and a strictly scientific approach for every event: cause(-background) → fact → result. You mention "the Italian sphere of influence" and the eagerness of Italy to expand it. This is a very interesting point. Can you a bit expand on this? What do we mean by "Italian sphere of influence"? How did Italy want to expand it? What was the role of Albania? What was the importance of Albania for the Italian interests? Were there also any financial or commercial reasons that influenced Italy's decision?
 * More about the background. When you analyse the roots of this war, you certainly have to mention the sinking of the Greek cruiser Elli. This is part of the background of this war and indicates that the war was not an instantaneous and sentimental decision of Moussolini, but there was something deeper there. Maybe some expansion of your opening of "Background" so as to become an opening sub-section, analysing the "Causes" of the war could be useful.
 * I also think you could further clarify the geopolitical and strategical reasons that made Germany's intervention in Greece necessary. What implications for the future plans of Germany could have an Italian defeat in Germany and a further delay and military implications in the Greek front for the Nazi's Grand Strategy? Just one or two more sentences would be Ok here I think.
 * "Greece had been friendly towards National Socialist Germany, especially profiting from mutual trade relations". Assessment! You must citate!
 * "Germany's ally Italy was to invade Greece (without Hitler's awareness), partly to prove that Italians could match the military successes of the German Army in Poland and France". Repetition: You alreaydy told that earlier.
 * "He left Albania twelve days later with his prestige tarnished". Maybe you should aslo choose here a more neutral expression.
 * "British public opinion was inspired by the way the Greeks had repulsed the Italians, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill thought it would be dishonourable not to aid the Greeks." Provide some source that verify your assessment.
 * Once again: Check again some other users have put sporadically within the article and fix them.
 * As I told you some POV problems have to do mainly with some choices of expressions, the way you express some assessments and the lack of citations in some of these assessements. I don't think that it is a problem of content or substance. It is a problem of form, you can fix going through the whole article rephrasing and citating.
 * I think your sources are more than fine!
 * As you see, the article mostly needs some minor tweaks. And of course have a copy-editing before you go in FAC.--Yannismarou 09:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)