Talk:Andrew Báthory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See "Prince of Transylvania" section. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Borsoka: Pinging you in case you've missed my most recent work on this Review. Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Since I do not read Hungarian and do not have access to the cited sources I am WP:AGF on the validity of the references in this article. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The infobox image, File:Báthory Zsigmond 1596.jpg, and File:Báthory András 1599. október 31.jpg all need to specifically have a US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   They've all been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Looking good. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Borsoka: All the parameters look fine. Please take a look at the "One last thing" section. Once that sentence is adjusted, I will be then be able to complete this Review. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   That's been done. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a WP:GA. What an interesting family - these Báthorys! Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Prince of Transylvania

The prose in this section doesn't flow as well as it should and some of the phrasing is a little odd.

• Sigismund Báthory abdicated at the Diet in Medgyes (now Mediaș in Romania) on 21 March, proposing Andrew his successor.

The verb tenses seem a little out of order.

• However, as Alfonso Carillo noted, the most influential noblemen remained opposed to him, even if they did not dare to raise an objection openly.

him should be Andrew

• Before long, the children of the Transylvanian lords who had been executed in 1594 returned to Transylvania, but they were impoverished and powerless young noblemen.

The phrasing is a little confusing here - perhaps try reading it as if you know nothing about the subject. How old were "the children"? Would a better word-choice perhaps be "the heirs of the executed Transylvanian lords...". How long is "before long" - a couple months, a year, three weeks, or what? "impoverished/powerless young noblemen" - ? word-choice seems somewhat POV-ish. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. Sorry, I have limited access to internet till next Sunday. I could only address the above promblems thereafter. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Borsoka: That's fine. I'll be doing a proofreading-readthrough this week but I think the remaining issues in the article at this point are mostly somewhat minor. As soon as you can get to the ones in the 'Prince of Transylvania' section, I should be able to finish up the Review within a day or so afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Please ping when you do get to these adjustments - I don't want to overlook any work you do to the article. I would like to finish up my Review before the end of this month. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I will ping you on Sunday or Monday.Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:, I modified the section and a co-editor fixed the problems with the pictures mentioned above. Please let me know if further modifications are needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

One last thing

@Borsoka: I was doing my last proofreading-readthrough and realized this one phrase was not as clear as it maybe could be.

• He met Charles Borromeo, the saintly archbishop of Milan, who wrote a spiritual instruction to Andrew.

So, Charles Borromeo is a Saint of the Catholic Church. The word "saintly" means "like a saint", "very good and kind", "virtuous"...it doesn't specifically mean the person is a saint, it means they are like a saint. Also, Andrew Báthory didn't just "meet" Borromeo, he met with Borromeo, he had an audience with him and Borromeo subsequently wrote out a spiritual essay especially for Báthory, so it seems to me that

maybe (if the cited-reference supports this statement) the sentence could be adjusted (along with any appropriate Wikilinkage) to something along the lines of:

Andrew and his retinue left Kraków for Italy on 10 September 1583. In Milan Archbishop Charles Borromeo (canonized as a saint by Pope Paul V) met with Andrew and wrote him a spiritual instruction.

That's the last thing I could see to improve. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink:, thank you for your suggestion. Based on the cited source, I preferred the following modification: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Your change is fine - you know the sources better than I do. I just thought it was interesting that Borromeo actually became a Roman Catholic saint. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion of the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)