Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greek case/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2021 [1].

Greek case

edit

Greek case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known episode in the late 1960s, in which Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands ganged up on Greece intervened on behalf of Greeks who were wrongfully detained, tortured, or victimized by other human rights abuses under the Greek junta. The damning findings of the European Commission of Human Rights exposed the junta's brutal methods and led to its exit from the Council of Europe, the only country to leave to date despite threats of a Ruxit. I would like to thank Twofingered Typist for copyediting. (t · c) buidhe 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danu Widjajanto

edit

@buidhe Amazing work! It is very rare to see a comprehensive article about the European Convention on Human Rights here, and I am pleased to see that it also relies on academic sources. I will read the whole article, and it may take some time for me to complete the review of the article, but I will put some of my thoughts here already so that you can already work on it:

  1. I would suggest to add Infobox European case to the article
    Done (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The European Commission of Human Rights (1954) and European Court of Human Rights (1959) were set up to adjudicate alleged violations of the Convention" --> I think you should add a note on the difference between the Commission and the Court with regard to the procedure, bindingness, etc, because most of Wikipedia readers are laymen and they will not know already.
    I added a brief information to background. I admit I do not completely understand this aspect.
  3. "Greece did not allow individual petitions to the Commission" --> on which legal basis? Perhaps you could mention briefly.
    I am not sure what you are suggesting? In the 1960s, individual petition was not mandatory for states, and only a very small number of individual cases were decided. That has changed, but I don't see how that is relevant.
  4. "Greece was not a party of the Court and had not ratified Protocol 4 to the Convention" --> Why should you mention Protocol 4 here? Perhaps you should elaborate it in the article.
    Removed, I am not convinced that it is important. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good, will continue the review soon. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article until the "Findings" part, here are some of my comments for the time being:

  • The ECHR has been amended several times, so there is a difference between the old version and the new version. Consequently, there is a discrepancy that could be confusing with regard to Article 24, 28 and 28(b). Somewhere we need to clarify that the numbering here refers to the old convention before it was amended by protocols 11 and 14.
    • Added note for clarification
  • “Unlike in other interstate cases before the Commission, the Scandinavian countries did not have an ethnic affinity to the victims of human rights violations.” --> perhaps you need to clarify which “other interstate cases” were there before the Greek case?
    • Added footnote
  • “14 (non-discrimination, including on the basis of political belief)” --> it’s a minor detail, but you should instead write “principle of non-discrimination in securing the rights under the Convention”, because it’s to be contrasted with the autonomous right of non-discrimination under Article 1 Protocol 12
    • Done
  • “Belgium, Luxembourg and Iceland later announced that they supported the actions of the Scandinavian and Dutch governments, with a declaration that was not cited by the Commission and most likely had no legal effect.” --> what do you mean by “was not cited by the Commission”? Perhaps you could simply write: “Belgium, Luxembourg and Iceland later declared that they supported the actions of the Scandinavian and Dutch governments, although this declaration had no legal effect.”
    • Done
  • “ The Greek government argued domestic remedies were available for these alleged violations, and therefore the application should be declared inadmissible under Article 26 of the ECHR. “ --> shouldn’t you mention somewhere here that the ECHR is based on the principle of subsidiarity? So that the reader will understand why Greece tried to rely on this argument.
    • Added to background section
  • “The allegation of torture raised the public profile of the case in Europe and changed the Greek junta's defense strategy, since Article 15 explicitly forbade derogation of Article 3.” --> I would suggest to paraphrase the second limb to something along the line of “since Article 3 enshrined an absolute right and Article 15 explicitly forbade derogation of this right.” Just to let the reader know that the prohibition of torture and CIDH can never be limited or derogated in any circumstances.
    • According to this source (p. 23) (as cited in the last section of the article) the idea that torture and CIDH could not be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever was not settled at this point, so I preferred this wording to indicate that they were not subject to derogation under Article 15.
  • “in particular, not being allowed to visit Leros or Averoff Prison” --> why were these prisons notable? Probably not all the readers will know, so you should explain a little bit.
    • Add more info there.

Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback. I'm sorry it took me so long to get back, I kept getting distracted. (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, I also needed time to finish reviewing the article.
  • "The Commission also found that Greece had infringed Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 as well as Article 3 of Protocol 1" --> in the "Findings" part, violations of Article 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 are not explained further in the "other articles" part.
  • Add a note why a visit to "Bouboulinas Street" could produce a lot of evidence of torture
    • Done
  • "made it clear that without respecting human rights, a state could not be part of the West" --> what is meant by "the West" here?
    • The source doesn't offer any further clarification, so I've removed it.
  • "The Greek case report had a significant impact on the United Nations Declaration against Torture (1975) and the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention against Torture (1984)" --> in what way? You should explain it briefly
    • The sources don't give more information on this impact.
  • "Margin of appreciation" is a technical term and at the same time is a key concept in the ECHR jurisprudence, I think you should add a footnote when it's first mentioned in order to explain what it is
    • Added gloss
  • "Commissioner Philip O'Donoghue, later a judge on the European Court of Human Rights, stated in his dissent to Ireland v. United Kingdom that, "The value of hearing evidence in a local venue cannot be overestimated... No written description, however colorful, could have been as informative as the visit to Bouboulinas Street in Athens.""; "Unlike other cases before the Commission at the time, but similar to Ireland v. United Kingdom"; "However, in Ireland v. United Kingdom the Commission found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition"; "The definitions of the Greek case were reused during Ireland v. United Kingdom" --> it seems that Ireland v. the United Kingdom is a case before the Court instead of the Commission, see here.
    • The Ireland case was heard first by the Commission and then by the Court.
      1. O'Donoghue was a member of the Commission and later a judge on the Court; at the time of the Ireland case, he was on the court. , but it according to was the Commission
      2. "Unlike other cases before the Commission at the time, but similar to Ireland v. United Kingdom" -> Reworded to "Unlike other Convention cases..." to reflect the source
      3. "However, in Ireland v. United Kingdom the Commission found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition" -> The source specifically refers to the Commission, not the Court, on this point
      4. "The definitions of the Greek case were reused during Ireland v. United Kingdom" -> Clarify that this refers to the Commission's involvement in the case, not the Court, according to the source.

Overall you have done an amazing job in writing the article, and I think it should receive an FA status Danu Widjajanto (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Looks like an interesting and important article, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, there is a bunch of duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
  • The image under "Article 3" could maybe be right aligned so it doesn't clash with the section header below it.
    • Done
  • "so the only way to hold it accountable for violations" You could say "the country" instead if "it" for clarity.
    • Done
  • Link communist?
    • Done
  • "which justified human rights violations" I'm curious as to their wording, perhaps it could be quoted, as you do with Resolution 346 just below? That would also make it more balanced, perhaps.
    • The decree mostly just lists several articles that are suspended, so I don't think it's helpful to quote. I have reworded the sentence.
  • You have photos of two Greek figures, but the captions give no clues as to their roles. You could present them as you do below with the caption "As Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Max van der Stoel".
    • Done
  • "One of them did so, the other (Pantelis Marketakis)" Why only give the name of the second? Why any name at all?
    • Removed
  • "He thought Western countries could be persuaded to overlook Greece's human rights violations" How do we know what he thought?
    • That's what the source says:

      Their hopes were stoked up skillfully by the Greek Foreign Minister Panagiotis Pipinelis, the architect of the Greek position. He was a career diplomat, politician, former Prime Minister, diehard monarchist and an authoritarian chauvinist who was well connected in the international right-wing political and intellectual elites of the time. He viewed the world in absolute realist, almost cynical, terms, and had calculated quite astutely that the Cold War and Mediterranean volatility had upgraded Greece's importance to the West to such a degree that its allies would turn a blind eye to any infractions by the dictatorship... He feared that a Greek withdrawal or expulsion would not end the pressure on the regime, but that attacks against it would redouble.

I wonder if saying "calculated" instead of "thought", like the source, would make it seem less like some sort of conjecture? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in regard to the quote above, I know you go into it further below, but was this due to NATO considerations? If so, could be mentioned even that early in the article, as you also go into the motivations of the Scandinavians countries, etc.
    • The source doesn't explicitly mention NATO.
  • "because torture was forbidden and must be stopped" It seems a bit odd with past and presence tense there, how about "had to be stopped"?
    • Reworded
  • Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 08:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The report makes ten proposals for remedying the human rights violations in Greece; the first eight deal with conditions of detention, control of police and independence of the judiciary while the last two recommend allowing a free press and free elections" Why suddenly present tense?
    • I thought it was the recommended tense for the contents of still extant published materials according to MOS:TENSE. If I'm wrong, then I can change it.
  • "or release the suspect. (The time limit on such extrajudicial detention was abolished by Royal Decree 280.)[95]" Thisis the first time I've seen parenthesis used outside a sentence, after a full stop. Is that correct? Isn't it just a distinct sentence then?
  • Based on the "ize" endings, I assume this is written in US English, but wouldn't UK English be more appropriate in an article about European matters?
    • There are no strong MOS:TIES of this particular case to UK.
  • Similarly, within one paragraph, you write both "Centre Union" and "Center Union", though it should probably be the former throughout.
    • In one case it's a direct quote.
If "Centre" is the official name, wouldn't it be best to keep that spelling consistent? FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is Ένωσις Κέντρου. I don't think it has an official English translation. (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 01:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, added one comment above, and I was wondering if anything could be said about how this case influenced future cases, if there are specific examples?
This is discussed in "Effect on ECHR jurisprudence" section. I looked for more info on specific cases, but couldn't find it. (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Source review - pass

edit
  • Are there page ranges for Pantzou, Pedaliu and Janis et al?
    • Added all but Pedaliu, which I can't find.
Me neither; OK.
  • Stelakatos-Loverdos: could the language be specified?
    • done
  • Reidy: Why is the title in sentence case?
    • Captitalized
  • A very brief spot check picks up no issues.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • These tactics soon became the target of criticism in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but Greece justified them as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15 of the ECHR. Repetition of "justified". Perhaps "These tactics soon became the target of criticism in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but Greece claimed they were necessary as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15 of the ECHR."
    • Done
  • alleging violations of most of the articles in the ECHR, which protect individual rights: I would tweak this but I'm not quite sure of the intention. Do you mean that the violations were of most of those articles in the EHCR that protect individual rights? Or that the violation was of most of the articles in the ECHR, which is a convention that protects human rights? I think it's the former, but it's not clear as worded. And looking further down the article I see that's correct.
    • Tweaked
  • The second case is described in the lead as only for Article 3 violations, but per the body other violations were included.
    • Reworded
  • Lawyers working for the foreign ministries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark mostly pushed the case forward. If the Netherlands was not active, what does "mostly" mean here? Isn't this an empty statement? Or were lawyers from non-applicant countries involved?
    • I'm trying to avoid original research. The source says,

      The men who would see this case through were in the main lawyers working in the legal departments of the Foreign Ministeries of the three governments... The Scandinavians, in particular the Swedes, were of all the member states probably the least susceptible to economic, military, and diplomatic pressures. That these pressures were not negligible is demonstrated by the Netherlands, which after bringing an application, withdrew from active participation in the case.

      Rereading I think this is OK; the qualification "working for the foreign ministries of" is the point I missed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one British official stated, the Wilson government ... If this is reliably the view of the Wilson government, I'd drop the introductory clause; if not, I wouldn't use "As", which implies it is indeed Wilson's view.
    • According to the source, these are the exact words of one British official, although they represented the view of the Wilson government. Since it's not clear in the source whether it is an official statement, I prefer to leave it as is.
      Could we make it "According to one British official", which reduces the implication that this is definitely the official position? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded to make more clear the degree of acceptance. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1960 Turkish precedent is interesting; I don't know if the details belong in this article, but why did the Turks get a pass? If the cases are not comparable enough to give the details that's fine.
    • I have looked, but actually can't find more details on this. I believe it's because Turkey held elections in 1961; despite the coup, it was not intended to be a long-term dictatorship the way Greece was.
  • Its interviews were held without either party present: one party is the Greeks, but who is the other party? If it's the ECHR, who was doing the interviewing? Similarly for without the presence of either party later in that section.
  • In the "Investigation" section there are four references to the Commission; should some of these perhaps refer to the Subcommission? It seems it was the Subcommission that held the hearings.
    • Good catch! I've fixed some, in other cases it does refers to the Commission in general.
  • On the question of Article 3, to which over 300 pages of the report is devoted, it examines 30 alleged cases of...: "it" doesn't have a referent. Perhaps "The report devotes over 300 pages to Article 3, alleging 30 cases of..."
    • Done
  • When quoting O'Donoghue, do we need to mention Ireland v. United Kingdom? It seems a red herring; I think we can just say that O'Donoghue said this later, implying a different context.
    • Done
  • the margin of appreciation on this question: I don't know what this means. I see it's referred to later as a doctrine, but there's no link or explanation.
    • The first time that margin of appreciation is mentioned, the article states "margin of appreciation (latitude of governments to implement the Convention as they see fit)". I've rewritten the sentence to hopefully be less confusing.
  • Can the two instances of "as of 2018" be updated to 2019 or 2020? If there are no usable sources for this, that's fine.
    • I managed to find a 2019 source for the point about emergencies, for the other point, I think it is self evident (also verifiable to CoE website) that no other country has left the ECHR in the last two years, so I changed it to 2020.
  • My sense of what is British English and what is American English is polluted after decades on each side of the pond, but I think "combatted" is British and "favor" is American.
    • It's supposed to be American English so I reworded the sentence with "combatted".
  • the United States ... interfered: is there a less POV word than "interfered" we could use here? Presumably a US diplomat of the day would not have called it interference.
    • Changed to "intervened".
  • However, Western European countries used the case to deflect domestic criticism of their relations with the junta and redirect calls for Greece to be ejected from NATO: I don't follow this. Do these Western European countries include the UK, West Germany, and France, listed earlier, or does this refer to the smaller countries, or both? And we haven't said enough about any of these countries' relations with the junta to be able to understand the middle clause. I think the last clause means that there were popular calls in some of these countries for Greece to be ejected from NATO, but the countries (now presumably referring to the three large countries) tried to redirect that popular sentiment into support for the ECHR case. If so it could be clearer.
    • I think that's what the source means, but unfortunately, the source is not more explicit. It does refer to the larger West European countries so I clarified that.
      Since we've said the larger countries are the ones that wanted to keep Greece in NATO I think this is enough to explain the "domestic criticism" point, but if we can't explain what "redirect" means I don't think we should include it. If the source can't reasonably be read any other way than as I suggested above I think it's OK to go ahead and clarify here, but if you think it could be interpreted in more than one way I'd cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Reworded for clarity.
  • Van der Stoel presented his report ... and recommendation of expulsion: this makes it sound as though the recommendation was separate from the report, rather than included in the report; is that right? If not I suggest making it "with its recommendation of expulsion".
    • Done
  • I see both "inhuman" and "inhumane" twoards the end of the article; just checking: are these uses are intentionally different, and not typos?
    • Fixed to use "inhuman" consistently, as it should be.

Looks very good. These are all minor points, and I expect to support once they're addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The last couple of outstanding issues have been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit
  • "against the Greek junta". Was the case brought against the Greek junta, or against the state of Greece?
    • Reworded
  • "On 21 April 1967, right-wing army officers staged a military coup and used mass arrests, purges and censorship to suppress their opposition." I am guessing that this happened in Greece?
    • Clarified
  • "Greece justified them as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15". Is it possible to avoid using "justified" twice in the same sentence.
    • Reworded
  • "a Subcommission held in camera hearings". Lower case s? If not. why?
    • I was trying to use the same format as the sources, which capitalize official Council of Europe institutions.
If we followed the sources then we would have a lot of capitals. Probably for every mention of any military rank or weapon for a start. I think that the MoS trumps RSs.
  • Infobox: is there a reason for the order in which the judges are listed?
    • Same order as the Greek case report, p. 6
  • "Although the Council of Europe had considerable investigatory abilities, it had hardly any power of sanction;[16] its highest sanction is expulsion from the organization." "had ... had ... is" Why the change of tense?
    • Fixed
  • "On 24 April, the Parliamentary Assembly debated the Greek issue. The Greek representatives were not present at this meeting because the junta dissolved parliament and canceled their credentials." An uninformed reader may assume that the parliament the junta cancelled was the Parliamentary Assembly. Assuming that it was the Greek Parliament[?] why is this relevant to the Greek representatives to the PACE having their credentials cancelled?
    • Reworded for clarification. The source states that non-Greek representatives were concerned about their Greek colleagues, not knowing what happened to them.

More to follow. Could I be pinged when Mike's comments have been addressed, so I don't repeat the same points. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link suit.
    • done
  • "the Commission rolled all four cases together". Optional: find a more encyclopedic phrase.
    • done
  • "Lawyers working for the foreign ministries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark mostly pushed the case forward." I am not sure what, in context, this means. They pushed it forward politically? Or they just did what they were paid to do? (In which case why mention it.)
    • OK, removed.
  • "Citing the precedent of the 1960 Turkish coup d'état". What was this, and why didn't it apply in the Greek's case?
    • As stated above, I couldn't find more information on this. Can remove if you don't think it's helpful.
Meh! It sounds as if it should be in, but it does leave a reader scratching their head. I would vote, narrowly, for skipping it, but it is your nom and your call. I would not object if you left it in.
Removed
  • "it declared the case admissible". What does this mean and how does it fit into the ECHR process?
    • "Admissible" means that the application is not completely unfounded and therefore they will fully hear the case. Started a stub article on this process and added a link.
I really think that a half sentence of explanation in line is warranted. Your explanation above is good ...
Added
  • "but used delaying tactics by requesting a delay, which was always granted". Seems repetitive. Maybe 'but at each step of the process requested delays, which were always granted.'?
    • done
  • "and for his performance was rewarded with an appointment as ambassador to the United States". Perhaps end this sentence with 'in 19XX'?
    • done
  • "Although its proceedings were in camera, the Commission was affected by frequent leaks and journalists reported on its proceedings." I'm not sure about "affected". Why not 'Although its proceedings were in camera, they were frequently leaked and journalists reported on its proceedings.'?
    • done
  • "military officers such as Konstantinos Engolfopoulos". Could we have his rank and/or position?
    • Added
  • "For Article 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1, there was no violation". Should that be 'For Article 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1, the Commission found there was no violation'?
    • Done
  • "The remaining fourteen cases were blocked by Greek obstruction; of these cases, two had "indications" of torture, seven were "prima facie cases", and eight had "strong indications" of torture." 2+7+8=17, not 14.
    • Correct, fixed the error.
  • "and threats to kill the victims. Besides overt, physical forms of torture" Er, but the previous two examples were already not physical torture.
    • Reworded
  • "The respondent governments argued that if EDA". 'the EDA'.
    • Done
  • "did not rise to the level of danger to justify derogation." Maybe 'did not rise to a level of danger such as to justify derogation.' or similar?
    • Done
  • "the declaration of the government that there was an emergency". Perhaps 'the declaration of the Greek government that there was an emergency'?
    • In that case, it was the United Kingdom's declaration that there was an emergency in British Cyprus.
In which case, perhaps insert 'UK'.
Done
  • "the government's margin of appreciation to declare an emergency" What is a "margin of appreciation"?
    • Margin of appreciation is glossed the first time it is mentioned, in "first application" section. Would it help to add a footnote to all uses of this technical term?
Apologies. Comes of reviewing over several days - I had forgotten that you had already covered it. IMO, no; but if you think differently, fine.
  • Section "Article 15": should the last paragraph not be in the following section?
    • This is covered in the official report as "issues arising under Article 15", because the commissioners are considering Articles 17 and 18 in conjunction with Article 15.
  • Perhaps a translation of "ex post facto" somewhere? Possibly a footnote.
    • added gloss
  • "However, the larger Western European countries used the case to deflect domestic criticism of their relations with the junta and redirect calls for Greece to be ejected from NATO." Optional: this could possibly be rephrased a little more clearly.
    • It now has been.
  • Image caption: "As Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Max van der Stoel holds a press conference after returning from Greece, 1 September 1974". Optional: 'As Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Max van der Stoel, also the Parliamentary Assembly appointed rapporteur, holds a press conference after returning from Greece, 1 September 1974'?
    • At this point he was no longer the Parliamentary Assembly rapporteur.
I which case I am not sure about the "As". But leave it, I am quibbling here.
  • I wouldn't want to push this, but it seems odd that Cedric Thornberry also being a practising human rights lawyer is not mentioned.
    • Now mentioned
  • "Note Verbale". Why the upper case initial letters?
    • uncapped
  • "Becket states that it "came from Greece itself ..." Shouldn't that be 'stated'?
    • done
  • "the report, transmitted on 18 November 1969". "transmitted" seems an odd usage here, is it a technical term?
    • I believe so, at least, it's the word used by the sources.
  • "By this time, these states were the only ones to oppose Greece's expulsion". Optional: "to oppose" → 'opposing'.
    • done
  • "dropping its support for the junta in the Council process". Possibly "in" → 'during'?
    • I meant that it was no longer supporting Greece in the Council of Europe (as opposed to eg. NATO), not that it dropped support during the process.
  • "the case was struck". "struck" is US English; possibly a bracketed explanation?
    • According to Cambridge Dictionary[3] it is used in both US and UK English as past tense of "strike". I don't know that clarification would be helpful here.
That made me laugh. I understand the grammar, as in "the junta struck them off the list of witnesses". It is its usage to mean 'to dismiss a legal case' which doesn't travel well outside the US. I suppose that most readers will work it out from context.
  • "when the responsible state cared about its reputation and was cooperative". It may be better to just say "was cooperative" and leave out possible reasons.
    • According to Bates and Becket, the issue of reputation is a crucial one, because the main effect of condemnation from Council of Europe organs would be to reduce such a reputation: "Put simply, only so much could be achieved when the national authorities concerned were not jealous of their international human rights reputation..."
In which case perhaps link the two issues, as the RS does, rather than list as separate points. Eg, something like 'when the responsible state was cooperative because it was concerned for its reputation'.
Done
  • "could be leveraged to bring the regime around". Would 'could have been' be a better tense?
    • done
  • "As of 2020, no other country has denounced the ECHR or left the Council of Europe since." A natural reading of this would be to take "since" as 'since 2020'.
    • Removed
  • "an attempt to prove its intention for democratic reform". I am not sure that is grammatical.
    • Reworded
  • "In 1998, Prime Minister George Papandreou" → 'In 1998, the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou'.
    • Reworded
  • "found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition". I think that you mean either 'found that inhuman and degrading treatment was also absolutely prohibited' or 'found that the ban on inhuman and degrading treatment was also an absolute prohibition' or, in each case, similar.
    • Done
  • "It also helped to define the idea of "administrative practice" of systematic violations." I may be wrong on this, but that doesn't really work for me without a 'the' after "the idea of".
    • Reworded
  • Sources: should Pedaliu have a page range?
    • As stated above, I couldn't find it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few responses above. I omitted to say before that this is a cracking article, very impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only outstanding issue of consequence is the capitalisation of Subcommission, but I am happy to support with this still hanging. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

edit
  • but Greece justified them as a response to alleged Communist subversion and justified under Article 15 of the ECHR. – "as justified" instead of "and justified"?
    • Reworded
  • Greece did not allow individual petitions to the Commission,[11][12][13] so the only way to hold the country accountable for violations was through an interstate case. – I'm not following; why can Greece forbid petitions, what are "individuals" here (countries?), and what is an interstate case (a case filed by at least two countries?). Maybe some more background here would be useful!
    • Reworded for more clarity and less jargon.
  • Every member... must accept – is the "..." supposed to indicate an omission from the quote? I think it should be […] then, with spaces.
    • The style I use consistently (no brackets) is recommended by MOS:ELLIPSIS.
  • Greece did not provide any reason for this derogation until 19 September, which the Commission considered very late. – What reason did they provide on 19 September?
    • Add explanation
  • more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of the article is without issues that I can spot. Great work, and support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TRM

edit

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD

edit

I won't leave a full review, but I have a question:

Coordination

edit

@FAC coordinators: Since this nomination has three supports, is it possible for me to make another nomination? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, feel free. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an outstanding oppose so we need to see if the other reveiwers (or future reviewers) agree or disagree with the oppose... @Danu Widjajanto, FunkMonk, Mike Christie, Gog the Mild, and Jens Lallensack: -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How odd, that didn't happen on my FAC? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change my support, I don't think we should be too rigid with these things (what to gloss can be a matter of taste). But that's also why I understand TRM feels wronged, which is being discussed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Looking at the two remaining terms, "legal remedy" and "direct evidence", I don't think there's a need for anything inline. I don't think MOS:LINKSTYLE is usually interpreted as requiring this level of inline explanation; most editors expect links to do this work for some specialized terms, and in cases where an article is about a specialized area (law, in this case) I think a lay reader expects that further reading might be needed to understand everything. I still support promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see prima facie is at issue too, per Gog's comments below; I think the link suffices there as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose itself is non-substantive, so I don't think it should obstruct the promotion of this article. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the oppose is not non-substantive. It's a level playing field opposition. But clearly that's not how the process works any longer. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Danu, It's certainly a substantive oppose, though I happen to disagree with it; it refers to an element of WP:FACR (MoS compliance), and in principle it could be addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a substantive oppose, grounded in the criteria. Yes, reviewers can choose to do an IAR, but it's not a frivolous oppose. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're not referring to me when you suggest "reviewers can choose to do an IAR". This is impressively lop-sided co-ordination. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no, I was not referring to you, TRM. Sorry if you thought I was. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points there from TRM. The ones outstanding seem to be:

  1. legal remedy
  2. prima facie
  3. direct evidence
  • I see no issue with "legal remedy". Both legal and remedy are non-specialist and joining them does not create a specialist phrase or concept.
  • the objection to pima facie seems a reasonable point and its unexplained use is not IMO in line with the MoS. Of the two mentions, the first - which is a quote - could perhaps be recast in Wikipedia's voice? Or a short bracketed explanation added? In the second case it would seem straight forward to replace with an English word or expression. ('obviously'?) Possibly linked to prima facie.
  • direct evidence seems marginal as to whether it is plain English, and I think that the context - "Relying on direct evidence, the report did not cite the findings of third parties" - provides all of the information a non-specialist reader needs.

So a very weak oppose from me pending prima facie being resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pima facie" now addressed, so I am reverting to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that it's a minor issue that shouldn't immediately obstruct promotion. For example, I think I've solved the prima facie problem because the term can easily be translated as at first glance. I've also added an explanation to the term 'legal remedy'. As for direct evidence, as Gog the Mild said, I think the context already explains that it is an evidence that is directly linked to the commission of the act without the need of inference. I apologise if I offended anyone with my statement. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties to review, mainly on prose, I've copyedited so obviously let me know any concerns there. Outstanding points:

  • I think we should generally attribute quotations inline so can we do that with Bates in the opening? I figure it's Bates himself but he could just as easily be quoting someone else.
    • Done
  • the Commission joined all four applications on 2 October -- Forgive me if I missed something but does this mean "joined in" or does it mean "merged"? If the latter then best be clear.
  • The Wilson government stated that it "did not believe it would be helpful in present circumstances to arraign Greece under the Human Rights Convention". -- Hidden text seems to be a direct quote from the government, whereas the visible quote could well be the author of the cited source. I'd suggest either use the direct quote by the government, paraphrase the cited source or (third best IMO) attribute the visible quote.
    • In fact, both are direct quotes from government officials: [4]
  • "the original objects of the revolution could not be subject to the control of the Commission" -- If this is the Greek junta speaking I'd probably say leave as is but if the author of the cited source then I'd suggest attributing or paraphrasing.
    • As stated in the source, this is a direct quote from the junta's legal argument submitted to the Commission.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greek_case/archive1&oldid=1011814324"