Talk:Siege of Szigetvár

Where can I put a lot of information that is useful for this article?

I placed in this talk section a treasure trove of information about Nikola Zrinski and the Siege of Szigetvar. The data was from old books that I translated to English. Miki Filigranski deleted it (like he deletes almost everything I post) calling it a "Wall of text".

If this is not the right place to contribute, then where is the right place to post it? It would have been nice if he had moved it to the appropriate place but he merely deleted it. I know that there is a requirement for "good faith" but it does not feel like I am the recipient of good faith from Miki Filigranski.

A valuable resource is a biography of Nikola IV Zrinski by Matija Mesic. The biography is in Croatian.

I have posted a part of the book here for easier translation.

https://koszeg1532.blogspot.com/2023/09/zivot-nikole-zrinjskoga-sigetskoga.html NikolaZrinski (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not the purpose of the talk page. Maybe Wikiquote, but the source is outdated and not needed. Please slow down on commenting or editing before reading and understanding how editing is done on Wikipedia and gain experience on articles with stub or start level. You're dealing with high quality rated article. Your edits are not constructive here. Sorry, but there's no bad faith by any editor here for reverting your edits or not accepting your advices. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

GAR needed?

Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Siege of Szigetvár

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: I am also not an expert, but I believe the issues have been sufficiently addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

buidhe added the {{GAR request}} tag in May, adding the rationale "Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic." below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this. What would your expected timeline be? I think 30-40 days will be ok here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan why did you remove [[1]] valuable information? Emperor Maximilian and 80,000 soldiers were encamped in the vicinity of Győr but did not attack the Ottomans to take the pressure off Szigetvár. Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press This information is very important for the battle because no one wanted to help, and the army was nearby.78.0.239.162 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@78.0.239.162, this statement along with the source has been added to the article. @AirshipJungleman29, do you think this article passes GAR now? I have removed all pre-1950 sources, converted all refs to sfn, finished biblio formatting and removed cases of MOS:SANDWICH. Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan, User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors shows numerous errors you might want to look into. Aside from that, what do you think buidhe? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Although it's looking better, the citations in the lead are a bad sign—some of the content in the lead/infobox is not in the article and/or lacks any citation. I'd be surprised if there weren't different casualty figures from different sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, the HarvErrors should be resolved now. @Buidhe, the casualty figures were cited in the body so I didn't cite them in the lead. I have done so now, could you review the rest of the article? Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• There are a couple of unsourced notes, if these are fixed I don't oppose keeping it, although I am far from an expert on this area of history and don't feel I can offer a full review. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Buidhe, should be addressed now. Perhaps @AirshipJungleman29 can do a full review if needed? Matarisvan (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.