Talk:Hungarian prehistory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: User:llywrch (talk · contribs) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll begin writing my comments over the next few days. -- llywrch (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Opening remarks

I'm still working on this review but I think it'd be useful to make some preliminary remarks, points you could work on while I get a better grasp on this topic, & track down the sources you use so I can check your citations.

First I believe this article is well-researched, & that you integrate the points quite well. (Until I had a peak at your user page, I would never have thought you weren't a native speaker of English.) But I found the content was not as well presented as it could be. These points specifically:

• The section "Sources" -- this is an article about "prehistory" or the period of time prior to recorded history, so "Written Sources" shouldn't be the primary source of information on this topic. At the very least, the first item in this list should not be "Written Sources", preferably "Archeology".

Thank you. I will move the sections in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Llywrch, I moved the sections in accordance with your above suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The subsection "Archeology" is surprisingly brief. I'd expect this section to list the important archeological sites, discuss their importance, etc. Instead I find only a brief statement "twelve cemeteries in the steppes have yielded finds that show similarities to assemblages unearthed in the Carpathian Basin". I don't expect all 12 cemeteries to be listed, but providing information on the 2 or 3 reference sites that define the culture of the prehistoric Hungarians would help the reader. Another item I expected to see would be the name of the archeological culture that experts link to the prehistoric Hungarians.

Thank you. I will add more information on the topic in some days. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I extended the section with information on the reasons of the scarcity of archaeological finds and with text about the "Subotcy horizon", attributed to the pre-conquest Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The subsection "Written sources"... I admit this was a surprise to find in an article on prehistory. Here I expected to read about the written works that mention the Hungarians in this period; instead, it begins with a paragraph about a possible identification between an ancient people & the Hungarians. The next two paragraphs are in keeping with a discussion of written sources. A lot of academic books have a section about sources; look at a few for an example of what this section should look like. (Or at least move that first paragraph down to where you discuss their earliest origins.)

Thank you. I am thinking what to do. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the present text of the section is in line with the cited reliable sources. The possible identification of the Iyrcae with the Hungarians should be presented here, because Herodotus is the first to mention the Hungarians' ancestors if the scholarly POV suggesting this identification is valid. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The section "Historiography" is not correctly titled. "Historiography" is more properly an account of how historians approached the history of a given topic. For example, comparing Gibbon's account of the Byzantine Empire to Finlay's, & to Ostrogorsky; not only how they discuss each event, but what portions of the historical record they emphasize, & how this perception changes over generations. This section would be better titled "Origins", since it discusses the traditions around the origins of the Hungarians.

Thank you. I think this is exactly what the section says: it narrates the development of historians' theories about the origins of the Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem may lie simply with that first paragraph about Herotodus. If you move it to a more appropriate section, that might be all that is needed. -- llywrch (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC) I just realized my comment about the paragraph refers to the wrong section. I'll think about this issue a little more, since you've done the research & undoubtedly have the material at hand to write a "Historiographical" section. -- llywrch (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I created a new subsection for the "Legend of the Wondrous Hind" and splitted the "Historiography" section into two subsections, making distinction between medieval theories and the development of modern scholarship. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• In the subsection "Migrations > Early westward migrations (before 600 AD – c. 750 or 830 AD)", there is the following statement: "Leo the Wise and Constantine Porphyrogenitus called them Turks". I found this unusual; Byzantine Greek practice was to use archaic terminology taken from Classical writers (e.g. Herotodus, Thucydides, Strabo), & "Turk" was not a word in this vocabulary. (Yes, it can be confusing, & the experts aren't always certain what a Byzantine writer may have intended by using a given archaic name. IIRC, the Turks would be called "Persians" or "Scythians".) So I'd like to see citations to the primary sources -- Porphyrogenitus' own work -- to understand exactly what was being said. In other words, I suspect the source you're quoting here is either in error or it has telescoped a series of correspondences (e.g. "Hungarians" called X, & X was the name most commonly used for Turkish people).

No, Hungarians were called Turks by the Byzantine historians in the 9th and 10th century. Please read the chapters 38-40 of Porphyrogenitus 's De administrando imperio. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a copy & verify that. -- llywrch (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• In the subsection "Migrations > Levedia (c. 750 or 830 – c. 850)", second paragraph, there is a typo in this sentence: "Porphyrogenitus s the Magyars had been named "Sabartoi asphaloi",[127] or "steadfast Savarts", while staying in Levedia."

Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. I do not see the typo. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a lone "s" after "Porphyrogenitus", & nothing to connect it to the rest of the sentence. Did you mean to type "said"? (If I had been certain what you mean to write, I would have fixed it myself.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the typo (I think). Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope this first batch of comments, something of a mixed bag, proves helpful to you. I really don't intend my comments to be the final word about anything; consider them suggestions that you are free to ignore, although some I believe are correct more strongly than others. Think of this as a discussion, where the discussion is what can possibly help you more than my original comments. -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Llywrch, thank you for your review. Please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I responded to 3 of your comments, with one clarification. -- llywrch (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Llywrch, thank you for your comments and patience. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Update

I finally obtained one of the books you frequently cite in this article, so I'll be able to start verifying your citations. -- llywrch (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Llywrch, I need some more time to add information on archaeological finds because I do not have the books that were cited in connection with archaeology. Thank you for your understanding. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Final pass

Okay, after delays due to personal commitments & needing to go over this article once again more carefully than I probably need to, I'm adding my final set of comments for @Borsoka:'s benefit.

Llywrch, thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review and your suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I feel this article should meet the standards of a Good Article, depending on B's response to the points below. B has made improvements based on my initial comments above, & only in case has Borsoka ignored them. (& I'll discuss that one below.) I'll admit that many of them are nit-picking, but the I believe the difference between a passable article & a Good (or Featured) Article is attention to the pesky details.

• In the second paragraph of the subsection "Sources -> Archeology", there is an incomplete sentence: "Kovács also says that the Hungarians' migration from the steppes and their settlement in the Carpathian Basin may have caused the development of a new material culture, rendering the identification of pre-conquest Hungarians." -- Uh, it renders the identification what? (I suspect a word like "difficult" was intended to be at the end of this sentences.)
  • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• The beginning of the subsection "Sources -> Written sources", you ignore my suggestion. The reason I made that suggestion was that starting the section with "The Ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, who died in 425 BC" is startling. The emphasis of this sentence is not on sources, but on the content of a source. Since you won't move the passage, perhaps starting the sentence a little differently might make it less startling, such as "Written sources on the prehistoric Hungarians may begin with with Herotodus, who wrote of the Iyrcae, a people of equestrian hunters who lived next to the Thyssagetae." Doing this keeps the emphasis on sources, not the possible identification of the Iyrcae.
  • Sorry, I still do not understand your above suggestion. Herodotus was a historian who wrote of a people who used to be identified with the Hungarians' ancestors. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • My point is that when you have a subsection titled "Sources -> Written sources", I expect to find a list of written sources, & a discussion of how useful each of them are to the subject. At least that's been my experience with academic & serious non-fiction works. Encountering a discussion of whether Herotodus actually mentions the ancient Hungarians in the first paragraph is surprising & throws me off. (And it is relevant to the article; I am not arguing over its inclusion.) That is why I'm looking for a way to accommodate an experienced reader's expectation (okay, my expectation) that the subsection is discussion sources, not the content of those sources.

      Do you understand my point now? -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

      • Llywrch, thank you for your answers. Sincerely, I do not understand your point, but I changed the wording. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• In the subsection "Migrations -> Early westward migrations (before 600 AD – c. 750 or 830 AD" there is the sentence, "This must have happened between 500 BC and 700 AD, because there were at least four major movements of peoples across the steppes during this period." What your source -- István Fodor -- writes is "Between 500 B.C. and A.D. 700-800 quite a few waves of people washed over from Western Siberia into Bashkiria. Which one might be identified with the Hungarians?" Then Fodor mentions four possible movements: between 400 & 300 BC, between AD 350 & 400, & lastly one that started in the 550s & continued into the 600s & 700s. Thus on pp. 202f he lists three periods of migrations. I'd replace this sentence with one more detailed, something like, "Fodor identified three known major movements of people across the steppes, any of which is likely to be when the prehistoric Maygar left Western Siberia: one that happened between 400 & 300 BC, another between AD 350 & 400, & lastly one that started in the 550s & continued into the 600s & 700s."
  • Thank you. Yes, Fodor only writes of three waves, but Kristó (who is also cited in another sentence) refers to a fourth wave which was ignored by Fodor. I modified the the sentence cited from Fodor and deleted the reference to the number of waves. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

From this point, I examined closely how you used one your sources, István Fodor's In Search of a New Homeland, which is very readable book. (As might be expected, finding the sources you used was a challenge. For this reason, I stopped this comparison with this one book.)

• Footnote 59 -- There is nothing on these two pages that state explicitly "late 9th-century authors had no knowledge of the Magyars' origins". These pages do recount various theories of the Maygar's origins, but implies they were ignorant of their origins -- which is not the same thing.
  • Sorry, I do not agree with your above suggestion. Fodor writes that "For obvious reasons, the European chroniclers knew almost nothing of the Hungarians when they appeared from the East. They attributed to them the characteristics and descriptions ... which the Greek and Roman authors of long ago had recorded on the subject of the Scythians or the Huns. In this way they traced the Hungarians back to Scythia...". According to me, the text says that in the late 9th century, European chronicles had no knowledge of the Hungarians' origins. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Re-reading that passage in Fodor, I find you're correct: he does explicitly state that. (FWIW, I had thought he had, & was surprised I couldn't find the sentence you quote. Once I had the wording, I was able to find that sentence starting at the bootom of p. 36 & ending at the top of p. 37. Does it appear the same way in your copy of his book?)

      BTW, re-reading the first sentence this footnote is attached to, there is a grammatical error: the sentence should read "Both remarks evince that late 9th-century authors had no knowledge of the Magyars' origins." ("Evidence" is a noun, "evince" is the verb. This is an error even a native speaker of English might make.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

      • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Footnote 60 -- Instead of "p. 38", stating "pp. 37f" would be more accurate.
  • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Footnote 78 -- There is nothing on that page about alternative theories. Since there are 3 other citations for that sentence, I'd recommend removing that footnote.
  • Thank you. Deleted (actually, the citation was inserted to prove that the Uralic roots of the Hungarian language is widely accepted). Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Footnote 84 -- The cite should not be to p. 48, but to p. 51
  • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Footnote 136 -- This cite should not be to pp. 210-211, but to p. 229
  • Sorry, I think the citation is correct. Fodor writes: "The Hungarian tribes ... probably set out from Magna Hungaria ... some time before the middle of the 8th century, ... and set up camp in the vicinity of the river Don." Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That sentence is in Fodor. The problem is that in my copy, p. 210 is the end of one chapter, & p. 211 begin the next, which is confusing. Although both pages refer to the same migration, I suggest just citing p. 210 here.
      • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Footnote 174 -- Fodor does not offer identifications of the rivers "tl" or "dwb"; he states that the expert consensus is that the Hungarians settled between the Don & Lower Danube. Since there are 2 other citations for that sentence, I'd recommend removing that footnote.
  • However, he clearly refers to the Arab sources. Consequently, we must mention that there is a significant POV, stating that tl was identical with the Don. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, strictly speaking the source does not support the identification of those rivers, & it would be better to have a source that asserts those identifications. But I'm willing to agree that we disagree on this point. Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Footnote 236 -- Information on agriculture around winter camps was not on p. 182, but only p. 184
  • Thank you. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Accepted -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering that there are 282 footnotes to this article, IMHO finding problems with 7 is not an issue for GA, although it might be for FA. Anyone who works on referencing an article knows how easy it is to make a mistake of citing the wrong page in the right source. FWIW, I wish someone would check my footnotes for accuracy. -- llywrch (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)