| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it does not use encyclopedic language, is written like an essay and not from a neutral point of view. What the article should contain is an objective summary of the Greek political scene of the 1970s. What it does contain, among other things, is an essay comparing the Greek political scene of the 1970s to Ancient Greek drama. I have to admit that it is very interesting and well-written but the problem is that it does not belong to Wikipedia.
Thanks,
--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment What it does contain, among other things, is an essay comparing the Greek political scene of the 1970s to Ancient Greek drama.
Could you please point to the location of that alleged essay? I do not see any essay. I see a section "Deus ex machina" with a few short paragraphs explaining how the media treated Metapolitefsi. These few lines can hardly constitute an essay. The next section under the title "Prelude to catharsis" makes no mention of any catharsis but includes factual information about the behind-the-scenes political moves that brought Karamanlis back to Greece. Ironically the "Prelude to catharsis" section was blanked by you in a wholesale fashion when you removed both sections, a whopping 17,314 bytes from the article, without so much as an explanation or even apology.
Again, the section you so blithely removed does not read like an essay as you allege. The background of how Karamanlis came back to Greece and the details of the first days after his arrival in Greece are at the heart of Metapolitefsi and your blanking effectively gutted the article. If gutting the article this way, and without acknowledging any errors on your part, is an example of your editorial judgment, suffice to say that it is a very poor one. The rest of your sweeping allegations are unsupported. I suspect it is because you cannot find any examples of unencyclopaedic writing in this well-written and extremely well-cited article. I will assume good faith and I will not speculate as to the reasons for your actions but I have to state that your approach towards this article needs considerable improvement starting with an acknowledgement that you erred in blanking the "Prelude to Catharsis" section. Dr.K. (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's been more than enough edits to fix the problems you raise here. In fact, you've merely raised concerns about a single tidbit of information. That's not a sufficient enough reason to open a peer review. Moreover, let us not forget that I swiftly solved the 'unencyclopedic' issue with this edit. The nominee of this peer review hasn't mentioned any other "unencyclopedic" occurrences in this article, and has failed to do so at the TP as well. At any rate, I welcome any general improvements to the article through a peer review. But the assessment of this nomination is hardly a justifiable reason for such a review. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with a particular section, the best approach is to re-work the section. Blanket deletion is usually not a good approach and should be avoided in all but the most extreme cases. This does not seem like such a case. There does appear to be some minor encyclopedic language, but that can easily be fixed, certainly nothing that require wholesale deletion of the whole section. Athenean (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)