Alexandros Schinas edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because… The article has undergone a major facelift the previous weeks ahd has since been stable. I feel it could be nominated as a good article but prior to that, I 'd like to know what wp peers are thinking of it.
Thanks, Cinadon36 (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Comments from KJP1 edit
An interesting topic. I see that it has recently been the subject of some heated discussion on the Talkpage, which appears to revolve mainly around whether or not he was an anarchist or a madman, and thus whether his action was political or simply crazed, with a subsidiary debate on the reliability of primary sources. I've no expertise to comment on these issues, but the article seems, to me, to handle both viewpoints in a balanced way. I'll return to this in the comments. This will take a few runs, I'm afraid. KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lead
- General - I think the lead will need beefing up a bit, to match the text. Probably two, more substantial paragraphs, rather than three short ones. The first around the assassination and its aftermath, the second about his broader life.
- "While Schinas is commonly portrayed as an anarchist with political motivations (propaganda by deed) and as a madman without political motivations, the historical record is inconclusive" - apropos the above, I wonder if replacing the "and" with an "or" might be helpful? While one could be a mentally-ill anarchist, or an anarchic madman, the historical debate seems to ascribe him to one or the other, at least in relation to his motives.
- Complicated: This was probably one of the toughest aspects to iron out, and I think this solution was good. I don't have a strong personal view on "and" vs. "or" in either direction. What I can say is that the sources I read differ on this "madman"/"anarchist" (or similar terms) issue, and in a somewhat potentially significant way:
- Disjunctive: "madman" and "anarchist" (or similar) used as opposites, e.g. (my own paraphrase) not a madman, but an anarchist (Jensen 2015 p. 121, ref #30), or not an anarchist, but a madman (Kemp p. 184 ref #31, and really a theme of Kemp's entire chapter).
- Conjunctive but different: "madman" and "anarchist" are not the same thing, but Schinas was or may have been both both, e.g. "a homeless alcoholic with Anarchist tendencies" (Kemp 181, #2), "whether Aleke Schinas was simply an unbalanced anarchist, acting alone, ... or whether he was the crafty agent of an organized anarchist band" (UPI, #30).
- Conjunctive and identical: "madman" and "anarchist" (or similar) and suggesting they are the same, or the latter is due to the former, e.g., "a Socialist...Against Governments...of feeble intellect...driven to desperation by sickness and want. The crime, therefore, was without motive." (NYTimes 1913 #32); "evil looking fellow...against governments...probably irresponsible" (Norwich Bulletin #42)
- One or the other: some sources say just "anarchist" (NIE #30) or just "madman" (Clogg 21, #31).
- Kemp, and possibly Newton, two recent sources, recognize the disagreement in earlier sources. Kemp p. 183 ref #1 uses "or": "commonly thought to be an example of Anarchist propaganda of the deed...or the work of a lone madman" (bold added). Newton doesn't have a clear sentence like that.
- I can see arguments for saying "madman and anarchist" or "madman or anarchist." Looking forward to others' thoughts on the matter. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Complicated: This was probably one of the toughest aspects to iron out, and I think this solution was good. I don't have a strong personal view on "and" vs. "or" in either direction. What I can say is that the sources I read differ on this "madman"/"anarchist" (or similar terms) issue, and in a somewhat potentially significant way:
- "Little is confirmed about Schinas's life" - "Little is known about Schinas's life"?
- Plagiarism or common construction? "Little is known about Schinas's life" are, in my view, the best possible words in the best possible order to state this meaning, but "Little is known of Schinas' life before the assassination." is at Kemp p. 179 and "Little is known of Schinas' time in custody..." is at Kemp. 183. I don't know whether that's plagiarism or not (is it too common of a construction to be plagiarism?); nor do I like "confirmed"; nor can I think of a third alternative that I like (I don't like, e.g., "Shinas's life is largely unknown"). If it's not a plagiarism issue, then I think we should go with KJP's suggestion, but I defer to more experienced editors here. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Link Ottoman Empire.
- Early life
- "Schinas was a medical student in Athens" - this is where the shadowy nature of much of his life starts to cause problems. You say he "was", but there's no cite. The lead says he may have followed none of his suggested occupations. If there's a suitable cite that says he was, this needs to go in. Otherwise, we need a bit more equivocation, e.g. "he may have been...". The second and third sentences, re. teacher and doctor, have the same problem, although the second of these has a source. Either way, the lead and the body need to harmonise. As an aside, a number of your paragraphs are quite short, 2/3 sentences. You might think about merging some of them.
- "Centre for Workingmen school in Volos" - the NYT source c just calls this the "Centre for Workmen".
- Greek to me: Kemp (most-recent, longest secondary source, but not everybody agrees it is the most accurate) says "Centre for Workingmen"; NYTimes c (a primary source?) says "Centre for Workmen", but it also says the Greek name is Ergatikon Kentron. Google Translate says Ergatikon means "workers" and kentron means "center." Originally I went with Kemp but upon consideration, I wonder if we should say Ergatikon Kentron (meaning "_____ Center") and then ask a Greek-speaking Wikipedian what the best translation would be? Levivich (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Schinas likely lived in New York City and worked at the Fifth Avenue Hotel and Plaza Hotel from the late 1900s or early 1910s until February 1913, when he moved back to Greece" - given that you indicate later that he may never have gone to the US, perhaps a bit of equivocation again, e.g. "A number of contemporary sources suggest that Schinas lived in New York City from the late 1900s or early 1910s until February 1913, when he returned to Greece. He is reported as having worked at the Fifth Avenue and Plaza Hotels"?
- Assassination of King George I
- "George I was elected king of Greece" - I'd capitalise King here, but it's a preference.
- Death
- What are the words in brackets, (it just happened)/(as a zombie) in the Schinas quote? I think it would be quite an early use of the word zombie if they are Schinas' words.
- No idea. The source is a 2018 English translation of a 1913 Greek transcription of a verbal interview of Schinas by a Greek journalist named Magrini, as reprinted in Kemp (and used by Kemp extensively, and it is the first-ever time this interview has been translated). It is unclear to me whether "(it just happened)" and "(as a zombie)", which appear just like that as parens in Kemp book, refers to: editorial notes by Kemp writing in 2018, translation notes by the translator writing in 2018, editorial notes by Magrini writing in 1913, or asides by Schinas in 1913. I agree "zombie" suggests its 2018 not 1913, but I don't know if the translator is using the English word "zombie" because Magrini or Schinas used the Greek word for zombie (whatever that is, "undead corpse" or something), or whether that's the translator or Kemp just explaining "walking as a dead man". Anyway, it's printed like that in Kemp, so I kept it in; I have no idea what one does in this situation, as it's my first time encountering parentheticals in a reprinting of a modern translation of a hundred-year-old transcription of an interview. I'm sure it happens on WP all the time :-) Levivich (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Motives - Political
- "concluding: "The crime, therefore, was without motive." - I think the MoS suggests the full stop goes outside of the quotes.
- Comment: LQ is like a foreign language to me. I did the whole thing not in LQ and another editor went through and fixed it (thank you DrKay!), so I'm not sure if that particular period was left inside the quote intentionally or inadvertently, but reading MOS:LQ: "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark...When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." and in this case, the sentence is a complete sentence in the original, quoted in its entirety. [1] (first column, third-from-bottom paragraph, last sentence). Levivich (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- "The second was Greek consul general for New York Demetrios Botassi" - "The second was the Greek consul general for New York Demetrios Botassi".
- "and expressing that the many conflicting stories concerning Schinas's identity may be due to the fact that Schinas is a common surname in Greece and there were likely multiple people named "Aleko Schinas" - "and suggesting that the many conflicting stories concerning Schinas's identity may be due to the fact that Schinas is a common surname in Greece and there were likely multiple people named "Aleko Schinas".
- Motives - Personal
- "Luck wanted that during this psychological condition to meet the King." - Absolutely fine if it's a direct quote but I can't quite unravel this sentence.
- Bad translation. Yeah, that's the original text; again with the translation of the transcription of an interview. I understand the meaning to be, "As luck would have it, during this psychological condition, I met the kind," or, "Fate wanted me to meet the king in this psychological condition." I wonder if some kind of words in brackets [] would make this clearer for the reader, as it is quite confusing as translated. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Overall, as per my initial comment, I think this fairly sets out the balance of views as to Schinas's motivations. Given that the Talkpage debate seems to have resolved, I'm assuming other editors, more informed than me, are content.
- Citing sources
- I don't think I've seen the style you use before. Take Source 30. It's Kemp, but then followed by a batch of, subsidiary?, sources. I rather like it but I've not seen it so I can't say whether it conforms to the Manual of Style.
- Done, I think? I'm the last person to ask about proper citation formatting, but the intent is for it to be basically a {sfnm} (multiple sources cited), but as a bullet list instead of a semi-colon-separated list, so as to avoid "wall of text." The first source is just the first source because it's the one that's most comprehensive (usually Kemp); the other sources are just alternate sources, not subsidiary sources, so I think they should all get a bullet to show they're "on the same plane," not interdependent. I revised the article to add a bullet for all the first items in such bundled source lists, but it creates a newline before the first list item. I can't figure out how to fix that, as {bull} creates too small of a dot, and {blist} and * result in the newline. Maybe it's fine to just leave the newline, unless someone knows a better way? Levivich (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sources
- They look balanced, a blend of the historical and the modern, and, as far as I can comment, as comprehensive as this, little-studied?, episode can expect.
All in all, a most interesting read, and I liked the prose. Hope these comments are helpful and all the best with it. KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: @KJP1: Thank you for taking the time to review! I am one of but not the only contributor to the article; I recognize some of the sentences quoted as being stuff I wrote that can be easily/freely changed, but some other quotes are things that others have written and/or are the product of talk page consensus. I'm new and this is my first time being involved with an article at PR, so I'm not sure how I can be most helpful going forward and I'm mindful about not OWNing it. The other PRs I've seen involved an author (usually apparently a sole author) just going through PR comments, making changes and writing "Done" and such. I'm happy to do that (just go through and make changes), but I'm not going to do that just yet, because I feel like I might be stepping on toes, and I'm not sure if it's better to hold back until others comment. At the same time, I do not want to ignore the review or "abandon" the article. So, I'll look to others for guidance about how I can be helpful, and in the meantime, as I still remember a lot of the sources, I will comment on KJP's comments inline. Thanks again KJP! Levivich (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Yes, it's easier - although sometimes not as fruitful - if the article has a "main" author, so I appreciate your challenge. I see that User talk:czar suggested the lead wording and they're a very experienced editor. Perhaps, as you suggest, you could make any uncontroversial changes, and comment on the others, leaving them open for other involved editors to comment as well? I'm guessing the only really 'hot' issue is the anarchist/madman debate and, as I say, I think the article expresses the uncertainty on this point, together with other theories floated at the time and since; "in the pay of a foreign power", "spurned by the palace", etc; in a fair and balanced way. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)