Talk:Géza, Grand Prince of the Hungarians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 23:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, upon my initial review of this fantastic article, I feel that it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I plan on conducting a more comprehensive and thorough GAR of this article in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Borsoka, this article is an excellent example of painstaking research and incorporating all the available information on a subject into a well written article. As I stated before following my initial review, this article meets all the above criteria for Good Article status. Below, I've left several comments and suggestions that should be addressed before we move on to passing this article to Good Article status. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with any one of these comments and suggestions. It's been a gratifying experience reviewing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Caponer, thank you for your copyedit. I appreciate your work. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Similar to the internal citation in the opening sentence of the first lead paragraph in the Solomon, King of Hungary article, there is such a citation in the opening sentence of this article. I recommend deleting the reference since alternative footnotes haven't been utilized in the other Good Articles of the Hungarian monarchs. Let me know if this works.
  • Thank you. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• The article's lead section should adequately incorporate content from each of the article's sections. You may want to add more information regarding his adoption of a centralizing policy, which gave rise to his fame as a merciless ruler, and more information on the marriage alliance between the German and Byzantine dynasties which brought about a rapprochement.
  • Thank you. I will be working on it. I need some time to complete the lead. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds good! Thank you for your timely response! I'll be checking in and once the lead has been expanded, I'll pass the article for GA status! -- Caponer (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I do not understand the above remark. His "extreme cruelty" is mentioned in the lead; I think the marriage of the future Holy Roman Emperor Otto II and Teophano is not so relevant in connection with Géza's life that it should be mentioned in the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• You may also want to make it clear in the article's lead that the process of the conversion to Christianity of the pagan Hungarians commenced under Géza. I'd also note that his own conversion was not quite complete given his continued pagan adherence.
  • Actually the conversion of the Hungarians did not commence under Géza, because his father-in-law had already supported Christian (Orthodox) missions in the eastern parts of Hungary. I added a reference to the fact that Géza was the first Hungarian monarch to support Western missionaries and to his continuation of pagan worship. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• The lead should include a sentence or two on Géza's relations: his parents, consort, and notable issue.
  • Thank you. His parents, wife and only son are mentioned in the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Is there a reason Gesta Hungarorum is not linked to Gesta Hungarorum? I wasn't sure if these are one in the same.
  • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph of the "Reign" section, you may want to change sentence to "A charter issued during his son's reign..."
  • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• In the third paragraph, Otto I needs a possessive s.
  • Thank you. Added. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, I've just finished reviewing all your edits and you have thoroughly addressed all my above comments and suggestions! I am hereby passing this article to Good Article status! Thank you for the opportunity to review yet another of your extraordinary articles! -- Caponer (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)