Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Peer review/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Greece WikiProject page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the main project discussion page.

Contents 1 Roman-Spartan War 1.1 Yannismarou 2 Battle of Greece 2.1 Yannismarou 3 Cretan War 3.1 Yannismarou

[edit] Roman-Spartan War

I've spent quite a fair bit of time on this article over the last weekend and I want to know what I can improve in it.Kyriakos 19:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yannismarou

Nicely done. It is A-Class for me, but needs some more work for FA status. These are my remarks:

• 4-5 paragraphs is a bit long lead for me, taking into consideration that this is not a long article. You could make a more concise 3-paragraphs lead.
• Done, merged a few sentences.
• "During the Second Macedonian War, Philip V of Macedon ordered Nabis the city of Argos if he defect from Rome. Nabis accepted the offer and defect from Rome." Don't you think the prose is a bit repetitive here?
• Done
• In the lead again you can have some more wikilinks. You don't linke Flaminius, Sparta, Rhodes, all the other cities etc. Provide these links.
• Done
• "After one skirmish, the allies retreated after being convinced by the commander of the Achean League". Again prose problems. You see the repetition?
• Done
• My opinion is that in the "Prelude" you could add one-two more sentences about who is Nabis (which you don't wikilink!). After all, he plays an important role in the war. Personalities play an important role in a war, and Nabis is a key personality in this particular war. In general, don't focus only on events when describing a war; take into consideration also the human factor!
• Added some information
• "Nabis did not comply and he mustered an army of Romans and his Greek allies and advanced towards the Peloponnese". Who's he? Nabis or Flaminius?
• Clarified
• I liked the narration in "Laconian Campaign"!
• Thanks
• Could you provide one-two more pictures? It is not of course necessary. Add them only if you think that they will be useful in the article. Not photos for the photos!
• You know what else would be nice: a map! A map of the "Laconian Campaign" with the skirmishes and the siege. But again I don't think it is absolutely necessary.
• In the "Aftermath" you give us some further details about what happened later, but what where the broader implications of this war (if they were any)? Did it further reinforce the Roman presence in Greece? Was this war important for the ancient world? If yes, why? Some scholarly assessments could be useful here.
• Clarified
• About the sources. First of all, in references you have 4 secondary sources, but you citate only 2 of them. The other 2? If they are not used, they are further reading not references. The use of more secondary sources would be welcome. Primary sources are fine, but secondary sources offer usually further analysis, assessments and a critical approach.
• Done

Good work. Let's see what will happen with the A-Class nomination in the military project, and then we'll what will happen!--Yannismarou 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Yanni. How is it looking now? I'll try to find some photos I've taken of the area. Kyriakos 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Yannismarou

• "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 ^{[citation needed]}. Provide the citation.
• "Vevi" is undercitated. Especially the first two paragraphs. The same with "Olympus and Servia passes" where I also see a ^{[citation needed]}.
• "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 ^{[citation needed]} 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.

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)

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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)

[edit] Cretan War

I want to see what improvements I can make to this article to make it better. Kyriakos 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC

[edit] Yannismarou

Very nice indeed. This is an A-Class artile for me and has the potential for FA. My main concern has to do with the prose. Not that it is bad. No! But for FA the prose must be "brilliant" and "compelling". I'm not sure that it is there yet. And in FAC there are some evaluators who will jump on you for even minor prose deficiencies (let's not tell names!). Let' give you an example. I'll start with the prose - first sentence:

"The Cretan War (205 BC–200 BC) was fought between Macedon under Philip V, Sparta under Nabis, the Aetolian League under Dicaearchus, and some Cretan cities (of which Olous and Hierapytna were the foremost) against the forces of Rhodes under Theophiliscus, Cleonaeus and later on Pergamum under Attalus I, Byzantium, Knossos, Athens and Cyzicus."

I count in one sentence five "under" and a meddling of cities, names, persons etc. And all these in such a short space! I cannot breathe! By the way, such a looong sentence for the beginning of your lead is not the best thing to do. Let's continue:

"The war was fought primarily in naval encounters around the coast of Asia Minor, in the Aegean Islands and in Crete. There were a few battles on land in Asia Minor, Attica and Crete. The war was caused by Philip of Macedon having Spartan and Aetolian pirates raid Rhodian ships. He also made a treaty with some Cretan cities. The Rhodians then declared war on Macedon and Crete.[1] The war was going in Philip's favour until Rhodes' allies Cyzicus, Byzantium and Pergamum declared war on Philip. The Macedonian fleet was defeated by the allied fleet at Chios but Philip later defeated the Rhodians at Lade. Philip swept through Asia Minor where he plundered and captured many cities in Caria. Philip attacked Athens which was convinced by Attalus to declared war against Macedon. Rome declared war on PhiIlip so Philip abandoned his Rhodian campaign which left Rhodes with their new Cretan ally Knossos to defeat their main Cretan enemies, Olous and Hierapytna and force them to sign a treaty favourable to them."

Now, in this paragraph (which, by the way, you can split), I count three times "The war was..." and also: "Philip swept ...", "Philip abandoned ...", "Philip later defeated ...", "Philip attacked...". Already dizzy! You get my point? Repetitions of the same forms of expressions. No variety. Not the best article flow. And especially in the lead which is the "mirror" of the article this is a bad thing.
Later the prose gets better, the flow is nicer, but my opinion is to ask by an outsider to slightly copy-edit the article before you go for FAC. I would do it, but I'm not a native English speaker and, as a result, I'm not the best copy-editor around. I also think it would be nice to take a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. This could give you some ideas about how to get improved in prose.
Now, some further remarks:

• In the lead again, Philip V links me to a disambiguation page. Fix that. I want to go straight to the link you want me to send me. I'm a lazy reader!
• "Prelude" could be just a bit expanded to explain the whole framework. By the way, when you mention a thing for the first time explain it for the ignorant reader. For istance, Treaty of Phoenice. What is that? You say later that "Under the conditions of the Treaty of Phoenice, Philip wasn't allowed to expand his territory westward into Illyria or the Adriatic Sea." But right now I don't have a clue. Give us straight away some idea of this thing (a few words, half sentence could be enough). The same things with Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt. Tell us what are these things? Almost all those who will evaluate your article in FAC don't have a clue about this historical period. If you don't explain such things, they will be puzzled and confused.
• I'm not sure with this long quote of Polybius. I think it would be better for the article flow to incorporate it in the flow. By the way, according to Wikipedia recommendations, we do not "quote", but we just "quote". Hence quotation marks are recommended for quotations but not the italics.
• I read in a caption "Coin of Philip V. The Greek inscription reads ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ (coin of King Philip)." I'm not sure why you say twice "coin of Philip".
• "See also" section goes before "References". But do we need it? I suggest that you link as many as possible of these links within the main prose and get rid of this section. "See also" sections are no more in fashion!
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
• Fix your external links. What is that and why are you sending us there. Include title. But is this necessary? You send us to the main page of Perseus. Why? What's the purpose of that? You already link us to Perseus in the Notes wherever appropriate. So, why is this necessary again in the external links? For me, it is not.
• I'm a "source and referencing-freak". I admit my sins! You have two primary sources and three secondary. This is not bad. For FAC it should be Ok, but, believe me, a wider variety of sources is highly esteemed. Some googling or some googlebooking could possibly provide you "treasures" you would not have imagined.

That's all! My remarks where lenghty, but, I repeat, this does not mean that the article is not good. As a matter of fact, it is very good, but my personal opinion is that it needs a slight copy-editing and these minor tweaks I mentioned. I hope I'll soon see it in FAC!--Yannismarou 10:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Yanni, I'll work on it. Kyriakos 21:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it looking now? Kyriakos 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some copy-editing in the lead. Does it look better? I still don't like the first paragraph. But I was more occupied with the next two pars. I may come back. I repeat that I'm not the best copy-editor but I tried to make the prose flow a bit nicer. If you find any syntactical mistakes, correct me. Some furher tweaks:

• In the lead you say "Philip rejected the Roman proposal", without telling what was this proposal.
• "With the treaty concluded, Philip's army then attacked Ptolemy's territories in Thrace. Then the Macedonian fleet ..." Two then in a row. Not nice. These are prose things that worry me! The prose must get even better!
• Oh! And something important I must have missed the first time. In the printed sources in "Notes" you must always mention pages. You don't do it now. This must be fixed, because it is demanded by FAC.

Apart from these things, the article is obviously imrpoving. Nonetheless, I cannot say with absolute confidence that it is ready for FAC.--Yannismarou 08:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw Uber Cryxic started copy-editing the article. This is very nice!--Yannismarou 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ye. I put a request for copy editting on WPMILHIST and Uber Cryxic volunteered. And congratulations for Demosthenes

What do you think about the new type of notes? Do you think the old way of the new way looks better? Kyriakos 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The new is more concise. I think they are Ok. But you still need to add pages in two of your sources!--Yannismarou 10:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)