Talk:2023 Athens municipal election/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Eva The Lefty (talk · contribs) 20:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 03:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article, but I need a few days to review the sources first.A.Cython (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~It needs a revisit in the writing style. Keep sentences short and to the point. Read WP:MOS as there are several violations, some of which are easily fixable.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I have not spotted any OR or copyright issues, and references are good for this kind of subject.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
While remaining on topic, there is a lack of vital information for a non-Greek reader, in particular, to grasp the narrative and the particulars due to a lack of context and a broader picture. For one, it is unclear what each candidate (even the protagonists) stood for. There is always room for improvement, but I think it covers sufficient ground.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
~~There are subtle POVs that need to be addressed.~~
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Pictures seem ok and relevant, with no obvious copyright.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Let me know how much time you need to address the comments.~~ Good work. I think it is good enough, but as is the case for any article in WP, there is always room for improvement. For the future, aim to expand the narrative by explaining the protagonists (political stances, failures, etc.) and the election (how it was conducted, media attention, etc.) and moving the results for the 2019 table once you or someone else creates the corresponding page. Also, familiarize yourself with the WP:MOS as this will help you in the future. Happy editing!

Overall, it was a strong effort for an election article, which its kind is often underappreciated. This is my first time reviewing an article on elections, so I may not be very familiar with the general style. However, I feel that additional work is needed to reach GA status. The central problems/issues are the prose, lack of broad coverage, and subtle WP:POV. Here are, in no particular order, some first-look observations I had after reading the article. I may provide additional comments later on.

Explain abbreviations, define them at the beginning, and then use them in the rest of the article consistently: ND → New Democracy (ND), for PASOK, might not needed because its abbreviation is most commonly used and known for.
- It would be helpful if you explain (one time) what each political party represents saying, e.g., socialist PASOK political party & communist political party (KKE), etc., or by where they stand on the political spectrum, i.e., Center-Left, Left, etc.
- Adding somewhere the political positions would also be a plus.

Remove details from the lead MOS:INTRO, e.g., how many councilors Doukas got (6+20 is confusing), the important thing is that he won. In the intro, focus on the gist of the event. Provide the details in the main body and explain what 6+20 means.

Avoid unnecessary characterization of events.
- You write in the intro: "Unexpectedly, after defeating Syriza [...]". Why "Unexpectedly"? A reader might think you imply Doukas was not a worthy candidate and only, due to luck, could become mayor. Either way, let the facts tell the story. Keep your sentences short and to the point.
- "The victory of the ecologist list of Haris Doukas backed by PASOK, came as a massive surprise to many, with the newly reelected New Democracy suffering a blow by losing Athens, the biggest and most populous municipality in Greece." Why the "massive surprise"? Again, this seems subjective, especially the term "massive." And who are the "many"? Again, this is subjective, and the sources do not reflect it; maybe I missed it, but it is still unsuitable for WP. Also, the structure of the sentence is confusing.

Reduce the use of boldface fonts. The following do not appear to be needed.
- "The subversive alliance for Athens"-"Mutiny in the neighborhoods of Athens"-"Anticapitalist Subversion in Athens/Mutiny to the EU-KEFA-LAIO-Unbowed City and collaborating fighters" why all this was needed? It does not offer any useful information.
- "Athens High Up Kostas Bakoyannis" not needed, it is the same as the main name except that it has Bakoyannis' name as well
- "OUR Athens Eleni Papadopoulou" similar with the above

I do not quite understand why you provided detailed information about the 2019 elections in the Background section; this is covered in the info box with the display of the previous seats. I do not see how this is relevant, even as background. This material should be in the 2019 Athens municipal election article. What may be helpful is some information on the protagonists and the overall political environment, not the votes in the previous elections. For example. Any relevance to the June 2023 Greek parliamentary election? Were the voters unhappy with Bakogiannis as mayor? The electoral law is instructive in this regard, but additional information highlighting the motives would be helpful, provided with relevant references.

The article would be better without this sentence "These are the results in each Athens Community[el] per the Athens Court of First Instance." since it does not provide new information. Or at least rewrite in simpler terms so that someone unfamiliar with Athens can better grasp what you mean.

[optional] In the "Community Results" section, you may want to use the templates Cref2 and Cnote for the note. Otherwise, this seems to be enough information at the beginning of the section.

Provide a reference for the quote "this plan [The one proposed by ND] is not steering in this direction"

You write The reelection of former member of Neo-Nazi criminal group Golden Dawn and convicted criminal Ilias Kasidiaris ... most of the information about the criminality is described in the corresponding pages, so mentioning it twice without providing an explanation and references you only convince the reader that you have WP:POV. I strongly suggest rewriting it in a way that facts are not lost but at the same time maintains a neutral point of view. This brings me to the point about the "Background" section, which is an ideal place to introduce the various protagonists and their backgrounds, i.e., explain Kasidiaris' criminal record, etc.

Please read MOS:DECIMAL and keep it consistent throughout the article. Always use "." not ",".

What is the "Livanios Plan"? I assume that you mean what you described a paragraph before. A reader should never be left to guess.

Once you have provided a wiki-link there is no need to repeat. For example, Harris Doukas is wiki-linked eight times. Please read MOS:REPEATLINK.

Information on each candidate's campaign promises/policies would be relevant or even instructive.

Finally, look at what other GA articles on elections look like [1]. This should give a rule of thumb for improving the beyond-my-first-look observations and comments.

such as, but not limited to, the parties conjoined in Antarsya what are the parties conjoined in Antarsya.

In the infobox, you may want to highlight the difference between seats before and after. Using the & . See example June 2023 Greek parliamentary election.

A.Cython (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article!

I made some changes based of the comments you stated, but I feel that I need to state some things that I didn't alter.

I stated the results of the previous election because I saw it was also stated in other modern-day election Good Articles and thought that, especially because currently there is no article for the previous election, it would be great to include it.

"this plan [The one proposed by ND] is not steering in this direction" this quote is indeed stated in my reference with it being translated from the Greek source "Σε κάθε περίπτωση το πεδίο της Τοπικής Αυτοδιοίκησης είναι πεδίο ευρύτερων συναινέσεων. Και το προτεινόμενο εκλογικό σύστημα δεν συντείνει προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση".

I also haven't stated the plans/policies of many most candidates, except Haris Doukas and Eleni Papadopoulou, mostly because these are either semi-independent candidates (in the case of Doukas) or fully independent, while all others have the same policy with the parties endorsing them.

Lastly, I may have a difficulty adding the before and after signs and may not be able to do it, it would be preferable for someone else to add it.

Again, Thank you. Eva The Lefty (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took the initiative to make some changes mostly based on WP:MOS; please see what I have done. I also included some clarification requests. I assume it is okay with you; I will make some minor changes to assist you in getting the article consistent with WP policies. A.Cython (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more changes in the lead, WP:LEAD. I also made some minor changes to improve the narrative. Also, please always provide a citation right after a quote, this is crucial for GA status. A.Cython (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced a more credible and descriptive source in the part about Kasidiaris' resignation, elaborating more on the situation as a whole. Also Of course im okay with you making small edits Eva The Lefty (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also due to a trip i will only be able to make mobile edit for the next 4 days, i will still be able to make edits and respond to comments but it may be with a slight delay. Eva The Lefty (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the trip. For anything pending we can deal with it after the trip, so no stress.A.Cython (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Should there be any changes needed you can just tell me just so I know Eva The Lefty (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know once you return from the trip how to check the seat change for "Kostas Papadakis". The seat changes (difference between 2019 and 2023) in the infobox and at the table in the result section should match. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will most likely put a note abou this. Antarsya used to not yield one joint candidate, but it yielded 2 different candidates per 1 for each party. In 2019, the Socialist Worker's Party (Greece) (SEK) and the New Left Current (NAR) runned separately electing 1 candidate each. And now they runned together with Kostas Papadakis as their candidate. So the question is whether we should consider the 2 parties as predecessors of the one led by Kostas Papadakis. I will put the seat change in the table as the dominant one. Eva The Lefty (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please place a note about this. A reader would not be familiar.A.Cython (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having done that, is there anything else that I would need to do? Eva The Lefty (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting close to finalizing it. I need to re-read a couple more times.A.Cython (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article. My changes were mostly cosmetic. See above for grades and final comments. A.Cython (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]