Talk:Christopher Báthory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No apparent issues, I did a minor copy-edit and didn't find any ENGVAR, spelling, grammar or punctuation issues. Whoever did the GOCE edit did a good job of clearing practically all issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I have removed a set of duplicated links within the article. As always, only the first instance of a word or topic should be linked, all others after that remain unlinked, this excludes the infobox and images. Other than that, I see no issues with the structure of the article; the lede is concise and less than four paragraphs, the article has a well-defined layout with sections divided by topic, no words to watch (no puffery), the references are formatted correctly (per criterion 2b) and there are no external links and thus no issues with them.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All the sources are formatted correctly and attributions have been made appropriately where these sources have been used.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most of the sources appear to be written in a language other than English, there are a few English sources and both the Non-English and English sources are reliable secondary source publications.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There does not appear to have been any original research implemented into the article, this preliminary conclusion comes from the source that I have been able to access which does in deed confirm that which is written in the article. This section will have to wait till my question is clarified by Borsoka. Borsoka has responded to my question, while the article is quite heavily reliant on non-English sources it does make relatively extensive use of English sources as well (about 33% at 19/56 total citations), in this case I do not think that this should preclude it from GA as the other issues have most certainly been addressed. As editors come across sources in English feel free to supplement them into the article, as one would expect on even an FA-class article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector hasn't been able to detect any copyright violations, however, as all of the sources used are in a language other than English (in this case Hungarian), the copyvio detector won't be able to detect violations anyway. Because of this, I will be going through a couple sources, if I can get my hands on them, and try to confirm that copyvios are indeed unlikely. I've managed to get access to one of the sources and it appears that a copyvio is indeed unlikely. Comparing the source to the writing in the article they are entirely different. I haven't been able to access the Hungarian sources but assume good faith, both past and present reviews for this user have been completed without issue and the quality of the work is consistent. Side note; normally, while sources in other languages are acceptable, it is preferred that .en articles are not reliant on them. I'll have to check if it'll be acceptable for the entire article to be written based on non-English sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the topic well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It stays on topic relatively well, mild deviations to other subjects exist, but, only for the purpose of clarification.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article has been written free of bias, the use of weasel words and with due weight balanced between the sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition and there have been no outstanding disputes on the article's talkpage.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image 1, the one in the infobox, didn't have a PD designation in the US. It doesn't seem to be required for some reason. I have, however, included a PD-1923 designation on the image page. I have put the notice on the image myself. The second image has had its copyright released by the owner into the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are relevant to the subject matter of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is well written, it makes extensive use of reliable sources, and though, many of these sources (and thus many of the citations) are to articles not written in English. In this case, this issue does not preclude the article from GA. As editors come across this article they should feel free to supplement the non-English sources with English ones that they have come across and thus bring this article closer to both A and FA criteria. I haven't come across any copyright, OR, image, layout or prose issues either.

As always, I will be using the above table for my review and my comments can be found in the relevant boxes. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I've done a quick check of Wiki.En policy for the use of non-English sources at Non-Enlgish Sources and they are entirely acceptable, however, "an article citing mostly or entirely non-English sources may be tagged with the {{Needs English sources}} maintenance template to encourage the addition of sources in English." This presents an issue with this article, an article cannot be passed for GA if there are outstanding templates on the article, there aren't any currently, and I'm not inclined to start templating the article because I can. So, as a resolution, I would ask that if you can find any English sources, of equal reliability, that you do this to supplement the current sources. Note, this doesn't mean that you need to go through and find one for every sentence of the article, just, that if you can find some then that would allow this article to go through with GA. If you have tried to find sources in English with no success then I can in fact pass this article on the grounds that while English written sources are preferred, they aren't available (at this time). In that case, if an editor does template the page, it won't preclude it from GA. I will continue the review as per normal, and finish up checking the remaining criterion, from there I can place the article on hold for a week to give you time to find sources (if available) or if not available, to note that in the review and pass it as I have mentioned above. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I may be mistaken here, are Barta, Felezeu, Keul and Szegedi in English or Hungarian and Romanian? I note that the authors are either Hungarian or Romanian (in the caase of Felezeu I think) but if they've written their works in English, then, that's fine as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've identified that Keul is in English, but, I don't can't access the other sources, if you could just confirm for me the language they're written in, that would be great. I may not have to worry about putting the article on hold for WP:NOENG after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

{U|Mr rnddude}}, thank you for your thorough and bold review, and also for your constructive approach. Yes, I confirm that the cited works of Barta, Felezeu, Keul and Szegedi were published in English. The other four cited sources (Granasztói, Horn, Markó and Szabó) were published in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I can give an estimate of around 25%-33% of the article's claims being accessible to an English speaker, the rest being in Hungarian, this isn't perfect, but, it's far better than I initially thought. In this case, I'll try to access one or two of the Hungarian sources and confirm through machine translation (I have no chance translating Hungarian myself) that the claims in the article are as accurate as the ones that are based on sources written in English. I am aware that your native language is Hungarian, this is merely a check for Copyvios and WP:OR. Thanks for the response. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I am pleased to announce that this article has passed the GA review. I will be updating the pages and also send you the notification, you've mentioned that the bot doesn't automatically do this for you, congratz and thanks for writing a fine article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)