Talk:Stephen I of Hungary/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Quadell in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nominator: Borsoka

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

This article is a very strong candidate. The prose is quite good, and WP:MOS is generally followed. The sourcing here is excellent. I particularly like the organization of the "Legacy" section. I have made a number of extremely minor grammatical fixes throughout, mostly involving missing commas. I have just a few remaining questions and concerns, detailed below.

  • 6a There's little information present about the images File:Koppany.jpg and File:StefanIHongarije.jpeg. Do you know anything about these paintings? They look old, but is there any chance that they were created after 1922? (If you're sure they were created before that, then they're fine.)
    • Dear Quadell, thank you for your review. The first image was surely made before 1922 (it is from a 14th-century codex). I had no information on the second picture (I changed it). Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • 1b Sometimes the article uses U.S. date formatting (e.g. "December 25, 1000"), and sometimes it uses European formatting (e.g. "25 December 1000"). You should use one format consistently. I would strongly European formatting, for two reasons. First, Stephen was a European figure; and second, U.S. date formatting introduces grammatical issues with parentetics that it would be better to avoid.
  • 1b Some parenthetical phrases are surrounded by en dashes (e.g. "Modern historians—including Pál Engel, György Györffy and Miklós Molnár—write that..."), while others are surrounded by spaced em dashes (e.g. "If the identification ... of Gyula with one Prokui – who was Stephen's uncle according to Thietmar of Merseburg – is valid..."). Either is fine, but you should use just one parenthetical dash format throughout.
  • 4 The phrase "most of his partisans were pagans, enemies of Christianity", feels like a neutrality concern. Is "enemies of Christianity" a fair description?
  • 1a In "the interpolated deed of foundation of the Pannonhalma Archabbey", is this supposed to be "the foundation"? Or is "deed of foundation" a term I'm not familiar with?
  • 1a Consider this sentence. "In Bihar County, an abbey was dedicated to its veneration and named Szentjobb ("Holy Dexter") after the relic (now Sâniob in Romania)." I don't understand the "now Sâniob" bit. Should that be changed to this? "In Bihar County (now Sâniob in Romania), an abbey was dedicated to its veneration and named Szentjobb ("Holy Dexter") after the relic."

I'll place this nomination on hold while these issues are addressed. I look forward to your replies. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. This article is thorough, detailed, and expertly written. It meets all the Good Article Criteria, and I'm happy to promote it to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply