Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noemvriana/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Noemvriana

edit

Noemvriana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator(s): A.Cython(talk) 22:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an armed confrontation in Athens during World War I between the Greek royalist government and Allied (French and English) forces. Despite the events sometimes called "forgotten", Noemvriana contains a rich narrative: an almost civil war that scarred Greek society for decades, a monarch's abdication, an anathema of a prime minster, a French battleship bombarded Athens, naval embargo causing famine, and more, all of which led in the end for the Greek army to join on the side of the Allies significantly contributing to the war's end. This was my first (and only) FAC nomination back in 2011, and after more than a decade away from editing WP, I have revisited and improved the article. It has passed Guild of Copy Editors (Nov 2025) and A-Class review (May 2026) at the Military History project, reviewed by Hawkeye7 (+image review), Stikkyy (+source review) and Hog Farm. @Jimfbleak, Dank, and Nikkimaria: I also ping the reviewers of the first FAC (ancient history, I know) in case they are interested in revisiting this. Finally, I want to say that this nomination is not motivated by my participation at the WikiCup, so I will not seek points if this nomination is successful. Thank you in advance for your comments and time. A.Cython(talk) 22:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely procedural question, archive1 contains a link to archive2, which doesn't make any sense. Is it possible there was some other nomination which got deleted or something and messed up the numbering sequence? RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something that I am aware of. Please advise on how to fix this or whether I failed to follow the instructions. A.Cython(talk) 23:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't. That is automatically produced by {{featured article tools}}. This is usually removed on promotion/archival (example), but for whatever reason that didn't happen on archive1. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Done
  • File:Noemvriana_birds-eye_view.jpg: source link is dead
    • Done I replaced the source link with a new one.
  • File:Greek_GHQ_at_Hadji-Beylik.jpg: what specific book is this sourced from?
    • I do not know from which book the uploader used (Cplakidas has been inactive for more than a year). I removed it until someone with better skills can sort this out.
  • File:Map_of_the_Balkan_Peninsula_(5008561).jpg: per the tagging, the image description should include details on steps taken to try to identify the author
    • Done: added author based on publisher info
  • File:Triandria.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Paul_Bénazet_1913.jpg, File:Louis_Dartige_du_Fournet_1915_AC.jpg, File:Anathemavenizelos.jpg, File:AnatemaDeVenizelos25121916--constantineigree00hibbuoft.png
    • Done: added
      • All of these except File:Anathemavenizelos.jpg need date and place of first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please let me know if the changes made were sufficient (removed Paul_Bénazet_1913.jpg because I could not find any info when and where it was published). I added the date and place of first publication for the others based on the source information found.

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the image review, please let me know if I adequately addressed your concerns or I missed/misunderstood something. FYI images is my weakest skill... A.Cython(talk) 05:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Could you please let me know if I have addressed adequately the issues that you raised? If there are still pending issues then I will remove them. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

edit

I'm reviewing from the perspective of someone with no knowledge of these events. Steelkamp (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Please let me know you have additional comments. A.Cython(talk) 04:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "former Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos" -> "former prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos" as per MOS:JOBTITLES because former is a modifier.
    • [AC] Done
  • "with the king advocating for Greek neutrality, which would favor the Central Powers. The Allies, however, demanded the demobilization of the Greek army to ensure Greece's neutrality." I'm a little confused, because it says neutrality would favour the Central Powers, but then the Allies also wanted to ensure Greece's neutrality.
    • [AC] Allies sought neutrality because after the uncondiational surrender of Fort Roupel. The Allies were convinced that the roylalist Greek government was not neutral and it was aiding the Central Powers. So when the Allies made demands, the Greek government protested that this would violate the neutrality of Greece. So neutrality was subjective to each side. I added a clarification.
  • Is there something that Hellenic army can link to?
    • [AC] Added
  • Likewise, is there a link for war-materials? And is that meant to have a hyphen there? (I honestly don't know)
    • [AC] Removed hyphen and added wikilink

Background

  • "Greece gained most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands. Its territory and population were increased from 25,014 to 41,993 sq mi and from approximately 2.7 to 4.8 million, respectively." Maybe should mention from which country(ies) this territory was gained from. Was it the Ottoman Empire?
    • [AC] Added, yes it was the Ottoman Empire through the Balkan Wars
      • That's good, but "Greece gained the territories of Ottoman Empire: most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands" needs some rewording for correct grammar.
      • "Greece gained most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands." Is that also gained from the Ottoman Empire?
        • [AC] I need some coffee, I changed it.

Causes

  • "Allied General Sarrail" and "German General Erich von Falkenhayn" should be "Allied general Sarrail" and "German general Erich von Falkenhayn" as per MOS:JOBTITLES because they have modifiers.
    • [AC] Changed
  • "mob destroyed Venizelist newspapers: Nea Ellas, Patris, Ethnos, and Estia." Should that colon be there? I think it can be removed.
    • [AC] Removed
  • "the Chief of the General Staff, Viktor Dousmanis" -> "the chief of the General Staff, Viktor Dousmanis"
  • The provisional government was not officially recognized by Venizelos but Venizelos moved to Thessaloniki to assume command of the National Defence in October? It also seems like the Allies came around to supporting the provisional government, based on the quote from the British diplomat.
    • [AC] Yes, initially there was hesitation by the Allies in the idea of having two Greek governments to work with. Also the British were uncomfortable in intervening into another monarchy, compared to the French who had a republic. Venizelos was also against it once it occurred. However, failure in making progress through diplomacy, Venizelos's initiative and pressure from the French, eventually the Allies agreed to support the provisional government.
    • G. Leon pp. 389, 409–410 Finally, Venizelos wanted to secure Britain’s unqualified support before undertaking the serious task of establishing a provisional government, a question which had not been clarified at the end of August. These seem to have been the factors which made Venizelos critical of the premature action of the Defense Committee. ... Venizelos’ decision to lead the revolution and establish a Provisional Government pledged to fight agaist the Central Powers, immediately affected the attitude of the Allied authorities in Greece with regard to the negotiations with the King’s government.
    • I added a sentence to improve the narrative flow.
  • "hatred enemy" should be "hated enemy".

Constantine–Bénazet agreement

  • "the king suddenly agreed to some of the demands required by the Allies" -> "the king suddenly agreed to some of the demands made by the Allies" Seems like a more typical way to word this.
    • [AC] Done
  • "French Deputy Paul Bénazet". From Googling, it seems that deputy in this context means a member of parliament. I don't think that's obvious to all readers, so this should be reworded.
    • [AC] Done
  • "and began using Greek ships operated by French crews" -> "and began using Greek ships with French crews"
    • [AC] Done
  • "This action at Katerini met with some disapproval among the Allied circles and his own associates in Athens. Answering these criticisms, Venizelos wrote:" -> "This action at Katerini met with some disapproval among the Allied circles and Venizelos's own associates in Athens. Answering these criticisms, he wrote:"
    • [AC] Done
      • Good, but i've now realised that "This action at Katerini met with some disapproval" should be changed to "This action at Katerini was met with some disapproval".
        • [AC] Done

Last diplomatic efforts before the events

  • No comments

Battle of Athens

  • "and proceeded, with the help of the Reservists, to extensive arrests and reprisals against them." -> "and made, with the help of the Reservists, extensive arrests and reprisals against them."
    • [AC] Done
  • Mourelos is mentioned by surname before his full name is given.
    • [AC] Done
  • "imprisonments to 922" -> "imprisonments to be 922".
    • [AC] Done
  • "Karolidis characterizes the imprisonment". Should that be past tense? "Karolidis characterized the imprisonment".
    • [AC] Done
  • Seligman's full name should be given in prose.
    • [AC] Added

Aftermath

  • There's an inconsistency as to whether Noemvriana is italicised or not. In this section and the other parts of the article.
    • [AC] Done, I made everything in italic to be consistent, though not sure if it was the right choice. If it should not be in italic then I will remove it.
      • I think that's the right choice as per MOS:NONENGITALIC, although I'm by no means an expert on that part of the MOS.
        • I am not entirely sure because "Noemvriana" is a transliteration of "Νοεμβριανά", meaning that it is written with Latin symbols, not Greek. Nevertheless, I changed it in the main body except for the first sentence and at the infobox, so that this consistent with the article's title. Though a more experience editor could weigh in here. Let me know if this is sufficient.
  • "In June, they decided to invoke their obligation as "protecting powers" and demanded the king's resignation". TBH i'm unsure what "protecting powers" means. Can this be elaborated?
    • [AC] Yes. I added a explanatory note.
    • I also mention the following quote: Leon p. 316 ...the Allies did not fail to remind Athens, among other things, that it was due to the “‘generosity” of the Protecting Powers that the Ionian Islands were ceded to Greece under the condition stipulated in the first article of the Treaty of 1864 which guaranteed the Greek people a constitutional regime. The Protecting Powers, said the Allies, would rather not take advantage of their right according to the Treaty of 1864 to examine the constitutionality of the Greek Government (20 January). The forebodings implied in the Allied reply were clear.
  • "His son Alexander" -> "His second son Alexander". Given the rest of the sentence mentions the eldest son, I think this is good context to add.
    • [AC] Done
  • "considered pro-Germans" -> "considered pro-German".
    • [AC] Done

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Thank you for your thorough review as your comments have greatly helped in improving the article. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments. A.Cython(talk) 21:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just two more comments above. Steelkamp (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, hopefully I addressed them. A.Cython(talk) 20:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Great job, and an interesting read about a piece of history I had no idea about beforehand. Steelkamp (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, all this is educational for me in understanding what it takes to reach FA. A.Cython(talk) 02:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from VWF

edit
  • I immediately noticed something off in the chronology of "The Macedonian Front" which might need repair; The paragraph says that a major offensive began on 14 September 1918 and then says, "After the Battle of Skra-di-Legen, the Bulgarian Army gave up its defensive positions". Skra-di-Legen occurred earlier in 1918, so this sequence is backwards. I think the material should distinguish the Greek role at Skra from its role in the later Vardar offensive, or did I miss something? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for spotting this. The Macedonian Front took several years with several skirmishes between them, testing the defenses. One reason that took longer was that the Allies were not completely convinced of the Greek troops, in terms of training and experience. The battle at Skra was the first time where the Allies felt comfortable for a major offensive.
    I changed the text and added a source that provides additional info.
    Papaioannou p.20 Undoubtedly, the Anglo-French viewed the spring offensives of 1918 as a final rehearsal before the execution of the great Allied offensive on the Macedonian Front. The Allies were not yet fully convinced of the extent to which they could rely on the Greek forces. Therefore, it was deemed necessary for the Greek troops to be tested in real operations, experiencing the enemy's presence firsthand in order to gain “experience by being close to him” ... The complexities of the Skra heights terrain were undoubtedly known to the French Commander-in-Chief. After all, only a year had passed since the Allies' failed attempt to capture it (Vlachos, 2018). Therefore, the assignment of such a demanding operation would provide a prime opportunity for the Anglo-French to assess both the Greeks' fighting ability and willingness to fight, as well as the Bulgarian resistance (Falls, 1935). These observations were deemed critical for the Allies' ultimate decision regarding the potential launch of a major offensive in Macedonia later that year.
  • So, the infobox dates the event from 1 to 3 December but the lead says that riots began "the next day" after the Allied evacuation and "lasted three days", you know, that wording can imply an endpoint later than 3 December. Does the infobox covers only the armed clash? Or both the clash and the ensuing reprisals? Then align the lead as well as the battle section and casualty figures. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the end-of-war chronology, that last "The Macedonian front" paragraph compresses the liberation of Serbia, the movement into Hungary, the collapse of Austria-Hungary, into a very quick sequence. Don't you think it needs a date-by-date check? The present wording, especially at "By October 1918, the Allied armies had recaptured all of Serbia", seems too broad to leave unexamined. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added two sources, the page range is slightly larger in one of them, but it covers the broad aspects. I also rewrote the text. I feel that an expansion here would hinder the reader as we are away from the main events of the article. Nevertheless, a curious reader can expand through the relevant wikilinks and the two sources provided.
Prose and neutrality

Let me first appreciate the prose, honestly I like it. But here are a few statements I have reservations about:

  • "The sudden approach of German-Bulgarian forces to the fort led to delays as the fort's Greek forces were not informed in advance, and they were ready to defend their position" I think that this is unclear, that is, were the garrison unprepared? or ready to defend? the sequence should be stated directly.
    • [AC] Rewrote it
  • "Bulgarian soldiers immediately began to forcibly round up the Greek population into large cities … and then capture these cities with the concentrated Greek population"... hum, this is grammatically difficult and obscures the historical claim if you ask me. I think you should separate occupation, displacement, deportation into distinct statements.
    • [AC] I broke it into two sentences
  • "The Allied commanders failed to assess the situation, disregarding Greek national pride and determination …" this one reads as authorial judgment; it could be framed as the assessment of a historian or replaced with neutral description of their intelligence failure and assumptions.
    • [AC] Rephrased
  • "Supposedly, only the royal army escorts saved them from being murdered …", "Supposedly" is not encyclopedic attribution if you ask me. Write either "George F. Abbott claimed that …" or just remove it.
    • [AC] changed per your suggestion
  • "The French and British violations of Greece's territorial integrity …", "Violations" is a legal and political characterisation. Attribute it to the royalist view or use neutral wording such as "Allied actions regarded by many royalists as infringements of Greek neutrality" or something like that.
    • [AC] The Allies transferred and landed the Serbian troops at Corfu (Greek territory), which they occupied even though no such permission was granted. The word violation appears in literature WP:RS so its use is justified. Nevertheless I changed it.
    • Koliopoulos and Veremis 2009 p. 82 Franco-British violations of Greece’s territorial integrity throughout 1916 contributed to the sense of offended honor of the Greeks and therefore increased Constantine’s popularity. (added emphasis)
    • Leon 1974 p.316 When the Allies finally informed Greece of the forthcoming occupation of the island for the concentration there of the Serbian army, they appealed to Skouloudis “in the name of humanity.” They promised that the occupation would be provisional and would in no way affect Greece’s sovereignty over the island. The Allied note was presented to Skouloudis on 10 January, just a few hours before the first French contingents landed. Two days later Skouloudis refused in one of his regular protests to give Greece’s consent to the concentration of the Serbian forces in Corfu, ...

I must say I twale you for this article's prose.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your kind words, I am not a historian but I try.
Just other random things
  • Kathimerini source is dated 18 November 2006 as date of publication, but its reference is manually set as Kathimerini|2009, might need to double-check.
    • [AC] Fixed
  • For sfnp, you used "Venizelos Foundation" but the source actually credits authors (which you used for the full reference), why not use the last name of the authors in the sfnp?
    • [AC] Changed
  • Markezinis, Spyros (1968) does not have any identifier
    • Added
  • You might want to add publication place to Edward; Cabrera, Marta García (eds.).
    • [AC] Added

[that's all from me]--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review and constructive comments. I hope I have adequately addressed all of your suggestions and concerns.A.Cython(talk) 23:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM, I am happy to support on prose and readability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Dumelow

edit

A.Cython asked if I would mind taking a look at this article and I am happy to do so - Dumelow (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Greece gained most of Macedonia, Epirus, Crete, and other Aegean islands, following its conflict the Ottoman Empire during the Balkan Wars."
Missing "with"
[AC] Done
  • "As a result, its territory and population increased from 25,014 to 41,993 sq mi and from approximately 2.7 to 4.8 million, respectively"
Add a metric conversion
[AC] Done
[AC] Done
  • "Admiring Prussian militarism and anticipating a quick German victory," consider linking German militarism
[AC] Done
[AC] Done
  • "The first indication of this took place in April 1916, when Skouloudis refused an Allied request for Serbian troops stationed in Corfu to use the Greek railways from Corinth to Thessaloniki for their transfer to the Macedonian front"
I think the article could use some more explanation on what was happening on the Macedonian front in this early period, all that has been said is that entrenchments were made around Thessaloniki. Otherwise it is unclear why they wanted the Serbs to move there.
[AC] Added a couple of sentences that briefly provides some context regarding the Allies' intentions at the Macedonian front. Please let me know if this was sufficient.
  • "On 26 May, the Greek government was formally informed of the German-Bulgarian offensive, involving 25,000 Bulgarian soldiers led by German cavalry invading Greece, which was launched on the same day. "
Didn't read right to me, I think it's the "invading Greece" bit. Perhaps "On 26 May, the Greek government was formally informed of the German-Bulgarian invasion of Greece, involving 25,000 Bulgarian soldiers led by German cavalry, which began later that day" but I am not overly precious about it
[AC] Done, per your suggestion
  • "Assurances were given to the Greek government that German-Bulgarian forces would not enter the towns of Serres, Drama and Kavalla, provided the occupation of Fort Roupel"
Is not a complete sentence. Is "was unopposed" or similar missing from the end?
[AC] Rephrased, let me know if this is better
  • "In the afternoon, the fort commander received orders from Athens to unconditionally surrender"
Reads better to me as "the fort's commander" but not overly bothered
[AC] Changed per your suggestion
  • "Despite an official protest by the Greek government and the assurances of Falkenhayn, Bulgarian soldiers immediately began to forcibly round up the Greek population into large cities, namely Serres, Drama, and Kavala. The Bulgarians' intention was to capture these cities with the concentrated Greek population and expel the Greek population."
Repitition of "Greek population" and perhaps could be simplified. Consider something like "Despite an official protest by the Greek government and the assurances of Falkenhayn, Bulgarian soldiers immediately began to forcibly round up the Greek population and move them into Serres, Drama, and Kavala. The Bulgarian plan was to later seize these cities and deport the Greeks, [with a view to annexing the territory]" but you can probably come up with something better. I've assumed their intention was what I have in square brackets, but perhaps not?
You've previously used "Kavalla" with two Ls.
[AC] My bad, fixed also used your excellent suggestion
  • "he and General Panagiotis Danglis should establish a provisional government in Thessaloniki to mobilize the Greek army to repel the Bulgarians."
I thought the army had already been mobilised?
[AC] It was but it was under the command of the king who did not wished to go against the Bulgarians, who were now allies of the Germans. So the provisional government's task was to create a new army under the leadership of Venizelos. I rephrased a bit.
  • "The proposal had French support. However, it met with strong opposition from Britain, forcing Venizelos to abandon the plan"
I think the short first sentence can probably be merged with the second.
[AC] merged per your suggestion
  • "The mob proceeded to the British Embassy as police stood idly by without interfering."
The British diplomat in Athens ranked as an envoy until the Second World War so the mission would have been a legation and not an embassy. This is confirmed in this Hansard record of debate on the incident "British Legation at Athens" and in this contemporary New York Times article "diplomatic officer of the British Legation"
[AC] Changed
[AC] Done
  • "Venizelists (supporters of Venizelos)"
This explanation comes at the third mention of the term in the article
[AC] moved it
  • "The newly founded separate "provisional state" included the "New Lands", lands won during the Balkan Wars,"
I think you can remove the second "lands" here
[AC] Replaced with "which were"
  • "Venizelos's perceived anti-monarchy ambitions"
I find "anti-monarchy ambitions" a bit clumsy, were his views perceived to be "republican" is is that a step too far?
[AC] Venizelos admired the British form of government (parliament + monarchy), where the monarch as head of state was not active in the run of the government. Constantine however, was anything but passive and often in direct opposition to Venizelos. Greece could not function when the monarch and the prime minister clashed with each other during one of the greatest wars. Eventually, one of them had to go. I do not mind using the term "republican", though I used a phrase "abolish the dynasty" used in the quote (let me know if this is better):
Leon p. 418 In addition to the domestic political factors, Venizelos’ moderation at this time was equally determined by external considerations. He knew that neither Britain nor Russia would approve of a radical policy toward the dynasty. To what degree Venizelos’ moderation was sincere cannot be determined. It is fairly certain, however, that even in the most trying moments he did not push for the abolition of the dynasty. It was after the events of December that he pushed for a radical solution.

Read down to "Constantine–Bénazet agreement" so far, will complete when I can - Dumelow (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your excellent comments. Please let me know if I adequately addressed your comments. I am looking forward to the next round of comments.A.Cython(talk) 20:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is an estimate of modern secondary sources.[47]"
You could fall foul of MOS:AWW here. The citation is to Veremis & Gardikas-Katsiadakis 2006, I would name them, or are they themselves collating from other sources?
[AC] changed per your suggestion.
  • "an unknown-origin rifle shot was fired"
This is phrased strangely (for me at least but could be an ENGVAR thing). "a rifle shot of unknown origin was fired" sounds better to me
[AC] rephrased per your suggestion
  • "the king requested a ceasefire, proposing a solution and reaching a compromise."
Do we know what the solution and compromise was?
[AC] the sources do not say, they imply the same as the final agreement (see below)
  • "Du Fournet, with a small contingent of troops, was unprepared to encounter organized Greek resistance as he was outnumbered and had few supplies, so he readily accepted the king's compromise. "
I think you can lose "with a small contingent of troops" here, you've already given the comparative numbers and go on to reinforce this by saying he was outnumbered.
[AC] agreed, removed per your suggestion
  • "1 December [O.S. 18 November] 1916,"
This is the only time in the main text that you convert to old style dates. I would add a link and probably a footnote explaining why.
[AC] added both an explanatory note and a wikilink
  • "The Allied squadron from Phaliron responded by bombarding sections of the city, mostly around the stadium and near the palace."
I would link as the stadium to make it clear it goes to that specific target. This is also the only time the palace is mentioned, presumably that can be linked also?
[AC] added
  • "The king compromised by surrendering just six artillery batteries camouflaged in the mountains, instead of the ten that the Allied Admiral demanded. Discussions soon resumed, and a final compromise was reached."
What was the final compromise?
[AC] added, six mountain batteries, instead of ten
  • The entire section on the role of Venizelists in the battle is cited only to 90+ year old sources. What do modern sources have to say? Check MOS:ALLEGED as well.
[AC] Modern sources that I know follow a pro-Venizelist narrative, where any anti-Venizelist views are simply not mentioned. The mention of older sources serve the purpose of presenting the degree of polarization that existed at the time; FA article are expected to be comprehensive. To provide a personal perspective about Modern Greek history: after Venizelos the clash between monarchist and anti-monarchist continued in different forms for decades coupled with a civil war, several dictatorships (Ioannis Metaxas, Greek Civil War and Greek Junta). The issue of monarchy in Greece was finally resolved with the 1974 referendum. Many historians in 1970s and 1980s were very vocal anti-monarchists dominating public discourse. Even though there are books that have started to view Greek history a bit more objectively, Venizelos has not been subject of a revision. One thing that I have hard time to find is how the paramilitary groups were dissolved, not just in theory but in practice.

Leon p. 457 (about the time that Venizelos took power after Noemvriana) Even though the Reservist Leagues had been officially disbanded, they continued uninhibited in their terrorist activities. It would not be far from the truth to say that the Reservists now constituted a state within a state.

[AC] I am open to suggestions on how to tackle your concern.
  • "The entire operation was led by two army generals; troops of the military district of Athens took orders from General K. Kallaris, and the soldiers of the active defense were commanded by General Anastasios Papoulas"
"General K. Kallaris" is presumably Konstantinos Kallaris and can be named and linked?
What does "of the active defense" mean?
[AC] My understanding is that it means paramilitary network/units. I replaced it with "the rest" I include the source:
  • Koliopoulos & Veremis (2009) p. 82 Once the foreign troops withdrew to their ships the Athenian Venizelists were left at the mercy of the “reservists,” a notorious royalist paramilitary band. The entire operation was led by two generals of the army; troops of the military district of Athens took orders from General K. Kallaris and the soldiers of the active defense were commanded by General A. Papoulias (later commander-in-chief of the Asia Minor expedition).
  • "the respectable conservative newspaper Politiki Epitheorisis"
Names of publications should be italicised
[AC] Added
  • "Some authors argue that Benakis was not only arrested and imprisoned but also disrespected and ill-treated.[61] Political observer Vincent J. Seligman describes that they were only released 45 days later, after a strong demand contained within the Entente ultimatum, which was accepted on 16 January."
It is not clear who the "they" in the second sentence refers to, presumably the imprisoned Venizelists, I would restate this.
[AC] clarified, I meant imprisoned Venizelists
  • "Due to his failure, Vice-Admiral Dartige du Fournet was relieved of his command"
Do we know who by?
[AC] According to the WP article about du Fournet, it says Lucien Lacaze... relieved him of command on 11 December 1916, it is based on a French source. So I added the info
  • "The events paved the way for Venizelos to return to Athens on 29 May 1917."
I would add a date for him becoming prime minister
[AC] added, also fixed previous date
  • "The entire Greek army was mobilized (though tensions remained inside the army between supporters of Constantine and supporters of Venizelos and began to participate in military operations against the Central Powers on the Macedonian front"
There is an unclosed bracket here
[AC] removed
  • From the lead: "The Allies were concerned because the army invited by former prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos to assist Serbia had been bivouacking in Thessaloniki since late 1915."
I would make clear the nationality of this army and what their concerns were (ie. attack by the Central Powers through Greece)
[AC] added the nationality, and rewrote to clarify the concern as well
  • "1 December – 3 or 4 December 1916 [O.S. 18 November – 20 November 1916]"
Presumably this should be "20 or 21 November"
[AC] fixed

That's all from me - Dumelow (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: I believe I have addressed all of your comments. If I missed something or I need to revisit, please let me know. Thank you again for your thorough review. A.Cython(talk) 10:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Noemvriana/archive2&oldid=1362060264"