Talk:George II of Greece

Ancestry

The extent of genealogical coverage in the article should (1) reflect the range and balance of material found in reliable, scholarly sources; and (2) place the life of George II in a suitable context. Consequently, it may be appropriate to expand or contract the genealogical coverage in the article. For example, if the fact that he was a nephew of Kaiser Wilhelm II is important to an understanding of his life, and is mentioned in biographies, then that should be included. Similarly, if it is unnecessary to know either that he was a great-grandson of Queen Victoria or descended from Byzantine emperors, and it is not mentioned in biographies, then these facts can be removed or excluded. Given the context of the times (during and immediately after the First World War) I suspect that his relationships to both the British and German royal families were important up to the 1920s, and given his exile in London and British-occupied Egypt, I suspect his British links remained important in the 1930s and 40s. In contrast, the lives of the Byzantines were many centuries distant from George II's own life, and so it is hard to believe that his descent from such remote times is relevant to an understanding of his life or given notable coverage in verifiable sources. DrKay (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are any references on Byzantine roots of KG II, I would like to know them. It's up to me to decide if I believe them or not, if they mean something to me or not. Some centuries distance from the Byzantine period is not much gap. There are people or nations or civilizations who do not think that ancestors expire after some centuries. See for example the article Davidic line and find that some contemporary rabbis are claiming descendance from King David. The reader does not have to believe this but is a notable information. Modern genetic science can check claims of this kind and sometimes surprising results turn up. See this on common Jewish ancestry, one of the many relevant works.

My opinion: Add a small paragraph under a title like "Possible Byzantine links" or something.

Btw, I see a request for mediation but not a discussion here. What happened?--Euzen (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Birth date

Using what little Greek I know, I think the Greek WP article says, in the text of the article, that he was born 7 July (Old Style) = 19 July (New Style) 1890. That makes sense, because there was a 12-day gap between the calendars in the 19th century. But their infobox says 20 July. That doesn't hang together. I'm trying to establish exactly when he was born in the Old Style calendar then prevailing, but the Greek article turned out to be not much help. Does anyone know for sure? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this has arisen because he was born on 7 July 1890 OS and Greece shifted calendars in 1923, so that year the anniversary of his birth was shifted to 20 July NS (7 + 13 days), whereas he was actually born on the day that was 7/19 July 1890. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:George II of Greece/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johannes Schade (talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I decided to review the article George II of Greece nominated by User:WikiUserREAL on 3 November 2020 for GA status. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Wikipedia lead sections should give the reader a well balanced summary of the article's main body. The lead, as it is now, is too short (see MOS:LEADLENGTH) and not well balanced. On one hand it omits to mention major points made in the main body. For example, it should probably say something about George II and World War II.

On the other hand, the lead states facts that do not appear in the body. His relationship with Prince Philip and Kaiser Wilhelm seems to appear only in the lead. If this is important enough to appear in the lead, it should be substantiated in the body. The right place for such family background is probably somewhere near its beginning in the article's first section entitled "Early life and first period of kingship".

The first sentence of the lead section opens three nested parentheses but closes only two of them. Even if they were balanced, that makes a lot of parentheses. I would suggest to give only years in the lead (as is permitted by MOS:BIRTHDATE), which would allow to omit the O.S. date and the parenthesis around this, and relegate the precise dates to the first section of the body and also explain the O.S. at that occasion. However, there might be other solutions.Johannes Schade (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

GA articles need to provide the WP:MINREF types of statements. The article in question therefore needs additional inline citations to cover the five {{citation needed}} maintenance tags where editors have challenged the given information (the first one is by User:Piledhigheranddeeper, who has 35000 edits to his credit).

To do so the article also may need additional sources for the additional citations, by preference sources that can be read on the Internet to enhance verifiability, such as:

* {{cite book|last=Clogg |first=Richard |date=1979 |title=A Short History of Modern Greece |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |location=Cambridge |isbn=0-521-29517-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/shorthistoryofmo0000clog/ |url-access=registration}} * {{citation |last1=Driault |first1=Édouard |last2=Lhéritier |first2=Michel |date=1926 |title=Histoire diplomatique de la Grèce de 1821 à nos jours |volume=5 |publisher=[[Presses universitaires de France]] |location=Paris |language=fr |url=https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/php/pdf_pager.php?rec=/metadata/9/b/3/metadata-01-0000787.tkl&do=112683_05.pdf}} – 1908 to 1823 * {{cite book|last=Kousoulas |first=D. George |date=1974 |title=Modern Greece: Profile of a Nation |edition=5 |publisher=Charles Scribner’s Sons |location=New York |isbn=0-684-13732-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/moderngreeceprof0000kous/ |url-access=registration}} * {{cite encyclopedia|last=Voglis |first=Polymeris |editor-last=Merriman |editor-first=John |editor2-last=Winter |editor2-first=Jay |editor2-link=Jay Winter |date=2006 |title= George II of Greece |encyclopedia=Europe since 1914:Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction |volume=3 |publisher=[[Charles Scribner’s Sons]] |location=New York |page=1206 |isbn=0-684-31369-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/europesince1914e0003unse_k6g3/page/1206/ |url-access=registration}} * {{cite book|last=Woodhouse |first=Cristopher Montague |author-link=Christopher Montague Woodhouse, 5th Baron Terrington |date=1991 |title=Modern Greece: A Short History |edition=5 |publisher=[[Faber and Faber]] |location=London |isbn=0-571-16122-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/moderngreeceshor0000wood/ |url-access=registration}}

The very first inline citation of the article is not really a citation but rather an explanatory note as it cites no source. It should be presented in manner that avoids confusion with a genuine citation. I would recommend the use of the {{efn}} template. I also feel that it should be moved from the infobox to the main text or duplicated in the main text. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello!

@WikiUserREAL: Dear WikiUserREAL. I should probably have pinged you earlier. Something seems to have gone wrong and I believe you were not automatically alerted of the start of the review of the article George II of Greece, which you nominated for GA status. First of all I therefore want to bid you a belated Welcome to the review process. The process consists of a discussion between you and me and possibly other reviewers and other editors. This discussion should take place on this GA talk page that is dedicated to it. My role is to point out deficiencies in the article where I believe that it does not meet the GA criteria (see WP:GACR). Your role is to edit the article to make it compliant or to convince me that my demands are unreasonable. Please always reply to my demands, suggestions or observations. Your opinion as the subject expert is appreciated. At the end, usually after 7 days that we might count from now, I will either promote or fail the article. Should I fail it, you can renominate the article immediately and restart with a different reviewer. Hoping for a good collaboration and a success at the end, yours Johannes Schade (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello and thanks for the recommendations, I have changed it from "George II (Greek: Γεώργιος Βʹ, Geórgios II; (19 July (O.S.: 7 July 1890) – 1 April 1947)" to "George II (Greek: Γεώργιος Βʹ, Geórgios II); (7 July [O.S: 19 July] 1890 – 1 April 1947)" to fix the missing bracket and removed a pair of brackets and changed it to [] so the full dates can be kept without a overflow of brackets.

I have also moved a sentence to the summary, "He had to flee his country twice in his life, once during the abolition of the Greek Monarchy and in the Second World War. On account of his exiles, he is said to have remarked that "the most important tool for a King of Greece is a suitcase.".<ref>{{cite book |author=[[Antony Beevor]] |title=Crete: The Battle and the Resistance |publisher=Govostis Pub. |location=Athens |year=2004 |isbn=960-270-927-8 |page=104}}</ref> is now inside of the summary making it better in the summarization of George II's life.

I have tried access to sources you have provided me but unfortunately the books from archives.org do not load on my laptop and I cannot read the PDF in French.

Apologies if this is in the wrong section in the page, this is the first real time I have written something on a talk page.

TheRealWikiUser (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear TheRealWikiUser. Glad to finally meet you. That is all fine. I have seen your changes. You are big enough not to follow my suggestion literally. You have your own style. I do not understand how you cannot find the books in Internet Archive. I also work on a laptop and quite a bottom quality one. You must register on Internet Archive. It is for free and has no downsides. I would think that Internet Archive must ask its readers for a registration mainly for book-lending practical reasons. They have old books that are free, unlimited access and then books still under copyright that are also free but that you must take out electronically and they are allowed to lend out only limited numbers. Without an account they would not be able to know which books you have taken out. I usually take books out only for one hour while I am reading and working on the computer and return it as soon as I do not need it any more. It sometimes happens that all copies are taken and you must wait, but it is a rare occasion. You should be able to just paste the given URLs into your browser or better make your own searches. Internet Archive is a marvel. I cannot imagine writing something on Wikipedia without it. With regard to Driault's PDF, do you mean to say that you cannot read French at all? That would be a pity as the article about Georges II in the French Wikipedia is much better than the one in the English one, to the point of being even a bit too long and too detailed. I can help you to some extent on that side. My wife happens to be French and we speak it often at home.

I have registered with the Internet Archive but the books still wont load even when I borrow it I think this is because of the bad internet at my house; And yes I cannot read French at all. TheRealWikiUser (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean with won't load. That also happens to me sometimes and then have to try again or just wait patiently until it does load. It seems to be much more frequent with your line.

Date of birth

The article gives the date of birth as 11:00 19 July 1890, but the citation [3] which is the nearest after this statement gives 7/20 July. How do you explain the contradiction? It appears that this source https://www.greekroyalfamily.gr/timeline/birth-of-king-george-b.html is self-published and poor quality, at least the English text. Can you read Greek? This reference is not used in the French article, probably for good reasons. The book by Julia P. Gelardi, cited in the French article (but the book is in English), gives the date on page 24: 19 July 1890 (N.S.). Please cite the book for the date of birth. Besides I propose to use sfn for all the inline citations. Many and probably most are already using it. It would be nice to have all the inline citations in the same format, but this is not a GA requirement. Gelardi's book is available on Internet Archive:

* {{cite book|last=Gelardi |first=Julia B. |date=2005 |title=Born to Rule: Five Reigning Consorts, Granddaughters of Queen Victoria |publisher=St. Martin’s Press |location=New York |isbn=0-312-32423-5 |url=https://archive.org/details/borntorulefivere00juli/ |url-access=registration}}

I would remove the reference [3] and also the "121 cannons were fired from the shots of Athens" (whatever this should mean?) it probably is a bad translation of the Greek. This comes from the cited website. With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence and used the source you have provided for the D.O.B I think it was a badly translated and a poorly made website TheRealWikiUser (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! We seem to agree on that one.

Lead revisited

We are not finished with the lead section. You must write some carefully phrased sentences summarising the main events of his life. The "Suitcase" quotation you added cannot replace a summary. I think you know this well and agree with me on that topic. It is a sine qua non for the GA.

The birth date is now only in the lead. That seems to be acceptable, but is perhaps slightly unusual. See WP:MOSBIO and the examples given there. I would have repeated it in the first paragraph of the body and moved the citation there. I feel that leads normally should vbe free of citations but there are exceptions and different oprinions on the matter. Please change the citation style from <ref>{{Cite Book|last=Gelardi ...}}</ref> to {{sfn}}and add the {{cite book ...}} to the list of sources. This is the predominant citation style as the article is now. I personally would write the inline citation as {{sfn|Gelardi|2005|p=[https://archive.org/details/borntorulefivere00juli/page/24/ 24]|ps=: "The birth, on 29 Julky 1890 ..."}} to provide a clickable link and a quote, but the predominant style in the article is simpler, e.g. {{sfn|Brewer|2016|p=118}}. Why did you add "24:00" as a time? On what is it based?

Suitcase quote

I would feel that the suitcase quote should probably go back to where it was before in the text or to the paragraph describing his final stay on Crete before being evacuated to Egypt as it seems that it is there that he made this remark. The source is the book by Antony Beevor. I find it on Internet Archive with the date 1994:

* {{cite book|last=Beevor |first=Antony |author-link=Antony Beevor |date=1994 |title=Crete: The Battle and the Resistance |publisher=Westview Press |location=Boulder, CO |isbn=0-8133-2080-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/cretebattleth00beev/}}

You cite it as Beevor 2004. That is different edition that I cannot find online. I feel that the accessible edition should take precedence. In the 1994 edition the quote appears on page 63 and reads "the most essential piece of equipment for any King of Greece was a Revelation suitcase". Revelation is a trademark. Your quotation id quite different. This is a bit surprising. Please use sfn for the citation and add the book to the list of sources. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Early life and first period of kingship

This section gives a hurried impression, a gallop through the subjects, that ought to be given a more detailed treatment, especially if you compare to the French article which dedicate far more space to this part of his life. As already mentioned earlier, the family background needs to be treated here with more detail than in the lead: his father, his mother, his father's and his mothers families. His grandfather who was the ruling king at the time of his birth. I usually also mention brothers and sisters at that stage but many biographies do without it.

You must find the missing citations marked with {{citation needed}}.

The article says "as a member of the 1st Greek Infantry." This is not easy to understand the first what? –regiment, –division? It sounds as if there were something missing. Where does the information come from? Perhaps it also needs a citation.

The article says "When his grandfather was assassinated in 1913 ..." This is the first mention of a grandfather. I suppose that is George I of Greece. Make sure he is introduced during the to-be-added family background so that the reader learns who he was and and is given a wikilink to his article so that he can learn more if he likes.

The article says "After a coup deposed Constantine I during World War I ... followed his father in exile.", Surely, we should be given a dates and some background. This is his first exile. We are not even told where he went. That is not the broad coverage demanded for a GA (see WP:GACR). Essential information is missing.

The article says: "When Alexander I died ..., Venizelos was voted out" It sounds as if Alexander's death cause Venizelos loss in an election. That sounds unlikely. What is really the relationship between the two events, if any? The article should probably tell us.

The artcle says "Crown Prince George served as a colonel, and later a major general in the war against Turkey." This is the first time we hear about another war agaist Turkey. Should this war not have been introduced first? I suppose that this war is the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). There is quite a bit of work to be done. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Failed

Today is the 30th November. There has been no activity on the page since the 25 November. I suppose the nominator has realised that there are too many and too serious issues with the article to fix them within a 7-day GA review. The lead was too short, the section "Early life and first period of kingship" needs to be extended, and the six {{Citation needed}} maintenance tags need to be attended. User:Morningstar1814 has since expanded the lead, which now looks much better. The other issues should be fixed before the article is resubmitted. I therefore fail the GA nomination. The nominator is encouraged to improve the article and to resubmit it later, once the mentioned issues are fixed. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Mary of Romania 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Serial Number 54129 talk 14:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that George II of Greece was named the "Number one enemy of the Reich in Greece" by Adolf Hitler during World War II? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that George II of Greece willingly suspended seven sections of the Greek Consitution to establish the 4th of August Regime with Ioannis Metaxas as dictator? Source:
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Therealscorp1an (talk). Self-nominated at 06:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/George II of Greece; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Unless I have missed something, this is only a x2 expansion, so you would have to get this GA'd to get it promoted here. Gatoclass (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Currently ineligible for DYK, nominator did not respond to a talk page message regarding the above comment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

References

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:George II of Greece/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Two initial comments:

• There are some Harvard errors that immediately stick out. Some citations, such as Mateos Sáinz de Medrano 2004 and Vacalopoulos 1975, don't point to any reference: conversely, the Clogg reference doesn't appear to be cited. The Φύλλας Μιχάλης reference should also be translated into English: the title can be left in Greek using script-title=el:[title], translated if you wish using {{{trans-title}}}, and the rest should be translated. Suggest using User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to catch and fix the errors. Done
• There are also some easily-fixed typographical mistakes in the article: I noticed a </ref> tag on display, for example. Done

Discussion

Give me a ping when this stuff is sorted and I'll review the article in more detail. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Hello! Thank you for much for starting this review so soon! I have fixed the second point that you brought o my attention above. As for the first point, a lot of these references were taken from the French Wikipedia. I am not exactly sure how to do what you have asked — clearly I am not very experienced in it. Would you mind pointing me towards how to fix this? Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I was able to do it.Does everything look okay? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Improvements made: Clogg is still uncited, and there are some sources cited in full in the footnotes but not cited in the bibliography. This isn't a critical problem for GA, but does make a difference to the article quality. On a different note, I don't think Queen Maria of Romania (d. 1938) wrote a book in 2006: this is almost certainly a reprint/compilation of earlier work, and should probably be cited as such. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I think I have fixed the Clogg reference now(?). As for the Queen Maria of Romania citation, I actually copied that from the French Wikipedia and you are right, it seems very improbable that she wrote that source 68 years after she passed, haha. So how would you recommend we fix this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The |orig-date= parameter can be used to indicate the work's original publication: I'd suggest tracking down some information on the original work's bibliography, and citing it with something like "republished as ...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: I think I have completed all these initials tasks now. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am writing to express my concern about the extensive use of sources that seem to me to be of questionable reliability as far as Greek politics and especially the monarchy's role is concernced. Large parts of the article's text rely on works of royal biographers, such as John Van der Kiste, Hugo Vickers and Prince Michael of Greece and Denmark. I am wondering whether the nominator would like to explain how s/he sees these works fulfilling the encyclopedia's criteria for being reliable sources for Greek political history. The reason I am asking this is that the account provided in sections and parts of the article heavily relying on such sources is largely at variance with the image one forms about political developments when consulting mainstream works of contemporary Greek historiography.

I will refer to one IMO glaring such case. The first paragraph of the section "Restoration of the monarchy" states that "This "regime issue" that arose just after the proclamation of the republic, haunted Greek politics for more than a decade and eventually led to the restoration of monarchy. In just over ten years, Greece had twenty-three governments, thirteen coup d'états and one dictatorship. On average, each Cabinet lasted six months and a coup d'état was organised every 42 weeks. Having failed to restore political instability, the republicanism movement in Greece became criticised and opposed by the public. Gradually, there were more and more protests that voiced to restore the monarchy." The article proceeds to describe in the next paragraph the events that led to the restoration of the monarchy in 1935 as if they naturally ensued from this supposedly growing number of pro-royalist protests. However, if one is to compare this passage to what s/he reads e.g. in the work of (university historian/polsci) George Mavrogordatos Μετά το 1922: Η παράταση του διχασμού (After 1922: the prolongation of the Schism), which, according to a reviewer, "προτείνει την εκλεπτυσμένη εκδοχή μιας κρίσιμης ιστορικής περιόδου" ("suggests a nuanced version of a critical historical period"), one will notice great differences. For, Mavrogordatos records (p. 61) that after the elections of 1932 "[ο Τσαλδάρης] αναγνώρισε επίσημα και ανεπιφύλακτα την Αβασίλευτη Δημοκρατία" ("[ Panagis Tsaldaris ] officially and unreservedly recognized the Kingless Republic"), that the 1935 referendum was a "farce" ("φάρσα") and that its result of an majority in favour of restoring the monarchy is "belied by previous and subsequent electoral data" ("διαψεύδεται από προγενέστερα και μεταγενέστερα εκλογικά δεδομένα"), while no mention of this supposedly growing dissatisfaction with the republican regime is made.

Another crucial point is the importance of the constitutional issue and of the king's personal stance for developments in the period from 1941 and up until 1946. I am quoting from Sfikas, "Churchill and the Greeks", Journal of Contemporary History: (p. 312) "British policy, therefore, was to support the Greek king and the government-in-exile. Yet the overwhelming majority of Greeks, for whom the constitutional question had assumed the explosive proportions of a genuine national schism in the inter-war years, thought otherwise. After the demise of the short-lived Greek Republic, George II had been restored to his throne in November 1935 by way of a farcically rigged plebiscite; less than a year later he had collaborated with Metaxas in establishing the general's dictatorship. His conduct inevitably led to a massive proliferation of republicanism among Greeks," and later on (p. 314) "EAM/ELAS was convinced that the British, bent upon imposing the monarchy on the Greek people, were weakening the leftist resistance in favour of other rival organizations. It was primarily for this reason that EAM/ELAS set out to consolidate its power by disposing of its rivals. Civil war erupted in October 1943 between ELAS and EDES,". Dimitrakis (2009) states in page 36 (already referred to in the article) that SOE operatives "were able to assess the feelings of the Greeks towards the return of the king" and in the very next pages states that "Major David Wallace, an SOE officer and a man ‘of very balanced judgment’ the Foreign Office trusted, estimated that ‘there was practically no support that you can trace anywhere for the immediate return of the King.’"". Again, the extent of popular dissaproval of the restoration of George II at the time is nowhere stated in the article (let alone its lead) and is constantly toned down (as "dissensions both inside Greece and among the Greeks abroad"), while the crucial role of the king's instransigence (along with that of his British supporters) for the eruption of intra-resistance infighting/civil conflict between ELAS and EDES is not even hinted at.

I am thus worried that the article fails to cover the criterion about neutrality, due to its heavy reliance on non-scholarly sources of questionable scientific reliability and of pro-royalist bias for important aspects of Greek political history. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I will let Therealscorp1an reply to this, but a few points on the GA criteria and what they are not -- there is a useful contrast here with the FAC criteria:

• A Good Article needs to cover the "main aspects" of a topic: it does not need to be comprehensive and to cover everything important about them, unlike an FA. For biographies in particular, main aspects is a low bar: it is very rarely appropriate to fail a GA for not including a particular set of facts about a person's life.
• The sources for a GA need to be reliable (that is, in general, published in reputable media), not to pass the bar of high-quality reliable sources needed for an FA. While an FA review would favour scholarly sources, academic presses and so on, this is not a requirement at this level.

This is not to say that improvements can't be made, but it's important to keep in mind the purpose and level of this review process -- even once an article has passed GA, it will almost certainly have areas for improvement, and often evolve considerably if it subsequently goes on to FAC. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, I thank you for your response, but I am still wondering: are the sources I mentioned in my comment above reliable sources for Greek political history? How so? I doubt it and I have now marked a passage exclusively relying on them until a persuasive explanation has been given from the nominator or any other editor. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of a GA nomination, yes, I think they are. There are very few situations in which a published, printed source would not meet the (fairly low) bar for inclusion in a GA: self-published sources, sources which were written by the subject of the article themself, or sources generally agreed to be unreliable are really the only major ones I can think of. However, if there is a widely-held alternative side of the story, which also has a lot of reliable sources behind it, WP:DUEWEIGHT (which is a GA criterion) means it should be included in due proportion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist and Ashmedai 119: I just failed Talk:Paul of Greece/GA1 for similar reasons; however the George II article appears to be more thoroughly and broadly sourced, and from a quick perusal of the article I cannot find any glaring omissions or inaccuracies. There are points where more nuance and context might be required, but IMO it is enough for the fairly low GA bar. The one change I would strongly advocate for is to replace the explicit reliance on Van der Kiste in the article on facts or assessments of events (rather than the personalities), as in However, it is argued by Van der Kiste that many of the officers involved in the coup blamed the high-ranking princes for the defeat of Greece... or According to Van der Kiste, the referendum was most likely rigged.... Van der Kiste is a royal biographer, not an expert on Greek history. Appropriate RS should be used for these sections instead (and afaict none of these statements are actually under dispute, they represent facts/scholarly consensus). Constantine ✍ 10:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Constantine, in my previous comment above I have identified two passages that depend on books by van der Kiste, Vickers and Palmer and prince Michael (who was George's first cousin and a member of the same family -- incidentally, how is using as a source a book on The Royal House of Greece co-written by a member of this very family compatible with the policy on using independent sources? -- independence being a component of reliability per the relevant policy page) and present an account of the Greek political landscape that is at odds with the one presented in scholarly reliable sources. In the former, the restoration of the monarchy in 1935 is presented as a quasi-natural consequence of growing demands for the abolition of the Republic due to its supposedly inherent instability, while the latter presents the Greek populace as divided about the prospect of the king's return after WW II. After raising my doubts about the reliability of these sources, UndercoverClassicist has argued that the only problem is one of due weight. This might be in a sense understandable in the latter case in which the innacuracy of the historical landscape is produced through largely rhetorical means, vagueness and the omission of incuding informations contained in proper scholarly sources cited in the paragraph (such as Dimitrakis's statement about there being in occupied Greece "practically no support [...] for the immediate return of the King". However, I must insist that there is a problem of reliablity (strictly understood, as a problem with statements being "under dispute" and not "represent[ing] facts/scholarly consensus") at least in the former case. I think this is appositely illustrated in the fact that, in order to create the image of Republican instability leading to popular demands for the restoration of the monarchy, the article colours the Second Hellenic Republic with "thirteen coup d'états" "In just over ten years". May I ask Therealscorp1an, qua nominator, to please be so kind to enumerate these thirteen coups that are listed in the sources used for this passage? That would be very helpful, as lists that I have in mind (see List of Greek coups d'état) do not reach such a high number. While waiting for an answer from the nominator at least on this specific question, I would like to point that, even though UndercoverClassicist suggests the policy on neutrality as a remedy for the use of sources like Prince Michael's book, this is a policy that deals with the balance in presenting different viewpoints between scholarly sources (even if the term is broadly understood), and the case still remains to be made that as far as retelling Grek political history these books are reputed and truly are works of proper scholarship to begin with. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As a point of fact, the relevant part of WP:REPUTABLE is that Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (emphasis mine). This is an ideal, and certainly comes into play when discussing FA status, but it is also a higher bar than the GA criteria require: in particular, the use of the word should rather than must means that a potential GA can be promoted without fully meeting this criteria. The key at GA status is that no sources, in the reviewer's opinion, are demonstrably unreliable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I confess that I find this interpretation of Wikipedia's policy - deducing that using "reliable, independent, published sources" is practicaly optional throughout this encyclopedia except for its featured articles - truly amazing, but in any case I am wondering, UndercoverClassicist, whether you could please explicate (a) what are the criteria by which, as a reviewer of this nomination, you adjudicate whether a source is "demonstrably unreliable" or not and (b) how you see these criteria holding for each of the three sources discussed above. Thank you, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I can really add to the explanations I've given above: for the standards of GA (which is far from the same as "to make the article perfect"), a published history book is almost always going to be considered a reliable enough source. Of course historians have biases, and some have more biases than others, but the way around that is to include the views that have been expressed in scholarship in due proportion to their place in the academic discussion of the topic. For GA, a reviewer should not ask for a source to be removed simply because it takes a side on a contentious issue. If you want a more thorough discussion or debate about what constitutes a reliable source for a GA nomination, this isn't the place to have it and I'm not, honestly, the person to have it with: I'd suggest asking a question on the main GA talk page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, you claim that Wikipedia rules stipulate that "for the standards of GA [...] a published history book is almost always going to be considered a reliable enough source". In a previous message above you wrote that "The sources for a GA need [...] not to pass the bar of high-quality reliable sources", which you stated are "needed for an FA." However, in past GA reviews you have not presented such a view that almost anything printed goes, but have held that "The rule (as with many things on this site) is to include what's been said in reliable, high-quality secondary sources" (my emphasis, as in what follows). Little more than a couple of months ago you argued that "We need to positively demonstrate the source's reliability, and would usually do that by the credibility of the author, the academic status of the publication, the review process, etc etc". You also stated that "For WP:RS, the key question is whether the content undergoes editorial or peer review, and what form that review takes." You have insisted on such criteria for reliability, proposing that "The fact that the author [of source X] is a known scholar is a start, but not sufficient" and some sources are "not reliable sources because they fundamentally have only the author's input, rather than full peer review. Funding from universities is good but, again, is no proof that this is a rigorous, fact-checking system". You have even been "a little concerned that an article relies heavily on older research" and suggested "to cite the key matters of historical fact to up-to-date sources where possible". You have remarked as problematic that a source "has a clear political slant and it isn't clear to me how much editorial control, peer review etc exists over its content" and you have suggested "using a more academic source", explaining that it was because the source "didn't give off a great "smell"" as you found "it blurs the line between scholarship and advocacy". You now appear to eschew all such concerns about the reliability of sources that you have yourself expressed in a number of GA reviews up until a short while ago. All this amounts to so dramatic and radical a differentiation in this present GA review of the stance you seem to have consistently held in past reviews concnerning the requirements to regard a source reliable that it desperately cries for an explanation.

Regardless, in your last reply you claim that the article must "include the views that have been expressed in scholarship in due proportion to their place in the academic discussion of the topic", yet the authors of these three books have actually little to absolutely no standing in scholarship as far as Greek political history is concerned - with the exception of trivia about the private life and the personal actions of members of the royal life. These are not examples of scientific/historical scholarship that has been written to provide a scholarly account of the past, which happens to "tak[e] a side on a contentious issue", but include a book that has been written by a first cousin of George II and is advertised as a "celebration of six generations of a courageous monarchy". To treat these sources in the way that this article and your review does would be mutatis mutandis akin to basing a substantial portion of an article about a high-profile Nazi officer on the nonetheless published works of non-academic Shoah minimizers, the authors including an actual first-degree relative of a family of Nazi dirigeants, whose work has been pointed out to contain outright falsehoods and are explicitly written to celebrate these historical agents and, after all these remarks have been made in the course of a GA review, to attempt to justify the alleged absence of any problem with valuing it as a "good article", in a stark departure from the reviewer's previous statements, by way of appeal to the (false) claim that they are "published history books". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this: I appreciate your thoughts. Ultimately, a GA review is conducted by a single editor: I don't think we're likely to fully agree on this issue. I agree that there's currently a DUEWEIGHT problem and that the issue of George's unpopularity is not yet correctly handled; however, I disagree that this source should be blacklisted. If the article passes GA nomination and you think it does not meet the standards, the correct action would be to make the improvements you can, or nominate it for reassessment. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: This DUEWEIGHT issue is probably the main one remaining: do you have any plans to work on it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Sorry for my late reply, I have been quite busy lately. I'm sorry, I'm still a bit out of the loop; what changes exactly need to be made? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There's quite a lot above, but the basic principle is that the article doesn't always reflect the scholarly consensus, and sometimes is more positive about George than the consensus of HQRS. I'd encourage you to read through the above, but a few specifics to pick out:

• Van der Kiste is quite a partisan source: it isn't a problem to cite sources with a particular view, as long as they are considered factually reliable, but it would be better to find alternative or additional sources for statements of fact where possible, and be clear when we are citing Van der Kiste's subjective judgements. Similarly for Vickers and Palmer/Michael. Particularly the last one of those needs to be used with extreme caution: one of the co-authors has a very clear conflict of interest.
• A verification query has been raised over In just over ten years, Greece had ... thirteen coup d'états . The paragraph in which it is found is only cited to those three sources, which isn't ideal. Could you find some accounts in other, more neutral sources, and quote something here which supports that statement?
• Most sources say that the monarchy was extremely unpopular during the Second World War, particularly after George's decision to leave Greece. Our article is far more positive about him and his popular image: it needs to reflect the scholarly consensus here. If you can get hold of Mark Mazower's book on the German occupation of Greece, that has quite a lot of useful material and a good bibliography.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an, are you able to get to this soon? If not, it may be best to allow this review to be closed out and to take another run at it when you have more time. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: I am currently unavailable (away) for the next week. It will be my top priority once I get back. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Therealscorp1an, it's been another five weeks and you've made some edits on other Greece-related articles since your return but not this one. This review has now been opened for five months, and your last edit to the article was three months ago. It's probably best that it be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree -- another review can always be opened if/when you come back and want to give it another go. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

More detailed review

• The eldest son of King Constantine I and Sophia of Prussia: this reads as if Constantine was king of Prussia: suggest "King Constantine I of Greeece and..." Done
• We don't normally mark stress in Greek-language Romanisation. Done

  @UndercoverClassicist: Many articles do have the stress/accents marked in the romanisation, for example Constantine II of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Katerina Sakellaropoulou. How would you advise we move on from this point? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  For GA, we can simply leave it: if the article comes to FA, it would be useful to have an external transcription guide/standard to back up the decision made here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• I usually include a footnote to explain the Old Style dates on first use (see for instance Panagiotis Kavvadias). Done

  @UndercoverClassicist: This is in the infobox. Should I add a note after the first case in the prose as well? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I would: most readers will read that first. I notice you've used a template here: I've done some stuff so that it can be reused without creating an additional footnote. Strictly speaking, the footnote should be cited too, even though it's not controversial: you can pull the reference from the article I linked, if you like. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Per MOS:POSSESSIVE, Metaxas' and similar should be written as Metaxas's. Done
• Greece was overrun following a German invasion: the MoS would encourage the link to cover the "a" as well. Done
• George returned to Greece after the war after a 1946 plebiscite: I would delete after the war as clunky and redundant: we immediately say that this was after 1946. Done
• Check parameters in sfn templates: where only one page is cited, use |p= or |page= rather than |pages= Done

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Clogg 1979 and Fillas 2019-2020 now seem to be uncited?</ref> Done

  @UndercoverClassicist: I have fixed the Clogg 1979 issues. However, I have bene looking through old revisions, long before I started the expansion, and it appears that the Fillas reference was never used anywhere. What would you suggest we do? Also, continuing from above, would you like me to include the stress marks on the romanisation or not? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Fillas: you can either bin it or move it to a "Further Reading" section (add |ref=none if doing so). The second option is better if you think it might have something useful for a reader or future editor. If not, the first is better.
  • Romanisation: up to you: as I said, it's no great shakes for GA. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: All the points you have listed have now been completed. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Constantine was restored to the throne in 1920: it might be worth clarifying that Alexander had died, rather than being deposed.
• Through his parents, George was a great-grandson: would cut through his parents: I'm not sure how else he could have been a great-grandson of anyone.
• training with the Prussian Guard: this sounds as though George never joined the Prussian Guard, is that accurate?
• George pursued a military career, training with the Prussian Guard at the age of 18, then serving in the Balkan Wars as a member of the 1st Greek Infantry: this bit seems out of place: for the rest of this paragraph, George is a baby, and we cover his military career later. I would simply remove this from this section and make sure that it's all covered when we get round to it.
• Is the "1st Greek Infantry" the 1st Infantry Regiment (Greece)? I would use its more formal name, and link, if so.
• During George's birth, her mother: his mother, surely?
• George was helped delivered by : not quite grammatical in English: suggest "A German midwife, sent by his grandmother, Victoria, assisted with George's delivery.}} It might be worth adding something like "Victoria, the Princess Royal" to be clear that this is a different (more German) Victoria.
• George was baptised on 18 August 1980: check the date. Also, give OS/NS, as you have in the lead.
• Decapitalise "godparents".
• including Queen Victoria, his great-grandmother: we've said that she was his great-grandmother earlier in the paragraph, so I'd cut it here.
• born between 1980 and 1913: again, check dates.
• to visit his British relatives. They often stayed: Suggest spelling out "They" as "the Greeks" or similar: as written, it sounds as though the British relatives often stayed in these places.
• George was described: by whom? Per the MoS, we should always give the author of a statement of opinion in the text.
• George received a strong military education: what does strong mean in this context? Suggest another adjective.
• He was trained in military school in Athens at the Hellenic Military Academy: I would shorten to at t he Hellenic Military Academy in Athens: it's pretty obvious from the name that it's a military school.
• 27 May 1909: give the OS/NS date as you have in the lead.
• 15 August 1909: ditto.
• however, it is argued that many of the officers involved in coup blamed the high-ranking princes: in the coup. Argued by whom?
• by George, his grandson, or another neutral candidate: how many people are involved here? Suggest "another neutral candidate, such as George, his grandson".
• No need for pictured in a picture caption.
• Suggest a little more clarity on the potential monarchs: e.g. Proposed candidates included the Austrian duke Francis of Teck or a member of the German royal house of Hohenzollern
• George, his siblings and his parents evacuate Greece and move to Germany for numerous months in exile: evacuated. We later say that this lasted three years: that's a bit more than "numerous months" -- why not give that precise figure here instead? Done

More to follow. Two general points cropping up a lot: firstly, make sure that all dates are given with both OS and NS where appropriate; secondly, make sure that the main narrative is written in the past tense, not the present. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I will get to these soon. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: These changes are now complete. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Hi, sorry to disturb you, I am just wondering if there will be any more changes to make for this GAN? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay: here's a few more.

• the First Foot Guards Regiment, a regiment of the Prussian army: better simply as the First Foot Guards Regiment of the Prussian army (no need to say it's a regiment twice). It might be worth a brief comment as to how prestigious that regiment was, and its strong (German) royal connections.
• When violence was reduced in Greece and political stability was restored: the passive voice is odd here: roughly, how did this happen?
• George and his brother, Alexander, served as an officer with his father's staff: as officers, and you generally serve on someone's staff.
• George served on the frontlines of numerous battles ... George also participated in the capture of Thessaloniki: wasn't this also a battle? If so, we need something like "Among them" rather than "also". Do we know what any of the other battles were? I'm also a little dubious about "on the frontlines": a senior officer's staff would generally be quite a long way from those. What exactly was George doing there?
• George's grandfather and the concurrent king, George I, : reigning rather than concurrent (I think you mean current, but that's not quite right here either).
• Constantine's father, whose popularity had grown : George's father, surely?
• his future wife, Elisabeth of Romania: I would mention who her parents were: she wasn't just any Romanian.
• When Greece and its allies became successful in the war: does this mean won the war? When did this happen?
• His assassination: give FF's name again, as it's a new paragraph, or simply "The assassination".
• the breakout of: the idiom you're going for here is outbreak.
• Opposition soon accused Constantine of supporting the Triple Alliance and relations between him and Venizelos, who believed that Greece should side with the Triple Entente: we haven't actually said who the Triple Alliance/Triple Entente were.
• Central Greece became under occupation by the Western Allies: better as was occupied by the Western Allies (who are these?)
• Due to worry of an Allied invasion at Piraeus: the Allies actually did occupy Athens. We've also moved between "Entente" and "Allies": I think we need to either stick with "Entente" or be clear as to why we've switched (presumably because Russia is out and the United States are in?)
• Being married to a French princess, George also did not wish to upset the French government: why would this upset the French? We just said that they wanted Greece to have a king (part of me is also a bit quizzical on "French princess": would anyone outside her family have accepted that title?).
• There are a lot of day-month dates in WWI that need to be clarified for calendar.

@UndercoverClassicist: I'm sorry, I am not too sure what you mean by this. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Greece used the Julian Calendar until 1923. When George participated in ... the capture of Thessaloniki on 8 November 1912, was that November 8 as most readers would understand it (that is, the article anachronistically but reasonably uses the Gregorian date), or November 21 (that is, the article uses the Julian date, as would have been used by the people at the time, contemporary sources, etc). It's the former, but we need to use the OldStyleDate template to clarify that. Ditto any other time a date including a day is used before March 1923. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Historians argue that he was fearful of dealing with his opponents and the fact that his reign was illegitimate according to succession laws.: which ones? They should be named in the text.
• It marked the final time that George had contact with his brother, Alexander.: what marked the first time they had contact? Didn't they serve together in WWI and live together as children?
• moved across the Ionian Sea : I would cut this, since they then had to move across the Tyrrhenian sea and over some of the Alps: it's a bit poetic and not quite accurate. Simply "moved to Switzerland".
• all members of the royal families: why the plural?
• Constantine soon developed an illness. He almost died in 1918 upon his contraction of the Spanish flu.: are these the same illness?
• was not helped when Alexander decided to marry commoner and aristocrat Aspasia Manos, rather than a foreign royal, which dismayed Venizelos.: "commoner" and "aristocrat" are antonyms.
• According to Van der Kiste, the referendum was most likely rigged: by Rallis?
• Many portraits of Venizelos are torn down in state celebrations and replaced with photos of the royal family: were
• the large crowd that had turnout to see their returns: turned out, return. Done

@UndercoverClassicist: The above points have now been finished. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Another batch (I haven't gone through the above to check/reply: can do that in a second run after the whole article has had a first pass. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

* Greece did not receive any support in the war against Mustafa Kemal's Turkey: we haven't actually said that this war broke out, or what it was. I'm also not totally clear what Mustafa Kemal is doing here: we wouldn't say "Germany's war against George V's Britain".

• he visited Greeks and wounded Greek soldiers in hospital: suggest wounded Greek soldiers and civilians in hospital: at the moment, I'm not clear on the distinction between the two categories here.
• Greece was pushed back to Ankara and suffered heavy defeats at the Battle of Sakarya in August and September 1921.: this is quite confusing, in part because we don't really have a proper overview of the military picture here.
• the father of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,: as we have for the future-but-not-yet Carol II, we should say "the future..." her to avoid being anachronistic.
• Mateos Sainz de Medrano: accent on the a of Sainz.
• which fell on 9 September [Old Style: 27 August] 1922 after the city was ransacked and burned. : this is backwards; the burning was just over two weeks after the Turkish army took the city.
• An estimated number of between 10,000 and 125,000 Greeks and Armenians were killed, which influenced a greater degree of republicanism in Athens: this needs some explaining. That's also a big range: any way to narrow it down?

@UndercoverClassicist: The source I think gives the same estimate that is given within the Burning of Smyrna article itself. How would you propose we could fix this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Most good, recent sources that I can find seem to err on the high side (see here, here, and here), going for "up to 100,000", "tens of thousands", or similar. The "tens of thousands and up to 100,000" figure is given here (p. 21) if you want a specific citation. Certainly, I can't find the 125,000 figure being seriously used anywhere, but 10,000 seems pretty low. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: Okay, so what do you suggest I change it to? Should I say "around 100,000" instead? And what sources do I use for this? - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would personally go with "tens of thousands". To me, the HQRS consensus is that a) 10,000 or fewer is too low and b) >100,000 is too high. Any formulation that gets that across is fine. As for sources, I've given you four in the comment above -- take your pick! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• since the 11 September coup d'état: hold on: what was this one all about? Also, 11 September by which calendar?
• the residency of Mon Repos in Corfu: on Corfu. Suggest also royal residence

@UndercoverClassicist: I have made this change. I understand that it is because Corfu is an island, but is it not still grammatical to say "in"? Personally, it seems a bit odd to say "on Corfu" out loud. But I'm not too fussed either way! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right: as it's an island, it's on. There are a few special cases, usually when the island is also a country or city -- "People drive on the left in Cyprus" -- but those don't apply here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• by republican Prime Minister Gonatas: per MOS:PEOPLETITLES, better as "the republican prime minister, Gonatas"
• Furthermore, George's long years spent living abroad had led him to a mentality that was not seen as Greek: what does this mean, exactly? Done

@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for your help! The above points have now been completed as well. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Tried by the humiliations of exile, financial difficulties and the absence of children, George and Elisabeth's marriage deteriorated. After having first assuaged her weariness in too rich food and gambling, Elisabeth then carried out extra-marital affairs with various married men. She took advantage of a visit to her sick sister, Maria, in Belgrade to flirt with her own brother-in-law, Alexander I of Yugoslavia.: the tone here is drifting into non-NPoV: "assuaged her weariness in too rich food and gambling", or the idea of "taking advantage of a visit to flirt with her own brother-in-law". We need to keep things to the facts and avoid anything that could be read as moralising.
• Some scholars have blamed her affairs on George's abandonment of their relationship.: what does this actually mean? There's a definite imbalance here in the blame the article apportions to George and to Elisabeth: is the massively greater focus on her WP:DUE based on secondary sources?
• Mitso Panteleos: who is this?
• Under Freeman Freeman-Thomas: explain who he was and the significance of "under" here.
• Joyce Wallach (1902–1974): per MOS:BIRTHDATE, bracketed dates like this are discouraged; if her date of birth or death is relevant, it should be introduced in prose as and when it becomes so.
• Wallach filed for divorce and moved back to London with George, which marked the beginning of a series of affairs that would last until George's death in 1947.: Wallach's affairs, or George's? I also note that we've been much kinder to George here than we were to Elisabeth earlier, which is not WP:NPOV.
• Though not branded as a fascist regime, Metaxas's dictatorship heavily imitated that of Benito Mussolini in Italy, whom Adolf Hitler had also been inspired by in Germany: probably worth saying that it is generally labelled as "quasi-fascist" in scholarship.
• tours of the provinces: what are "the provinces" in a Greek context? "The country"?

Hello, sorry I am taking a while, I have been busy. I will complete these within the next few days. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes now complete. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joyce Wallach

In the section "Second exile" (third paragraph) it is written that the king and Ms. Walch met in India in 1934. According to historian Marlene Eilers Koenig (also a source here) he met her two years prior in London. Maybe this should be clarified? Glamourqueen (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)