Talk:Hungary/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 22:18, 22 July 2017 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing identified by Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring noted.
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.	No issues noted.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine.
	7. Overall assessment.

Jclemens' Good Article Review expectations for Vital Articles.

• This is a vital article. As such, it requires an appropriate amount of scrutiny, because being wrong is just that much worse, so being right is just that much more important.
• This is a collaborative process. I offer suggestions, which editors are free to implement, ignore, reject, or propose counter-suggestions. If there's simply no meeting of the minds, there will be no GA pass from me, but please feel free to tell me to take a flying leap if I propose something stupid or counterproductive.
• I do not quick fail vital article GA reviews. In general, even if there is no clear path to meet all the GA criteria, working with conscientious editors is almost always going to improve the article and benefit our readers--just not to the extent all of us had hoped.
• This is not a quick process. Estimate a month, depending on my availability and the responsiveness of the nominator and other editors collaborating on the process.
• I am not a content expert. I generally have a reasonable background in the topic under consideration, often at the college undergraduate/survey level, or else I wouldn't have volunteered to review it. Thus, I depend on the content experts to help focus the article appropriately.
• The more the merrier. While many unimportant GA articles can be adequately reviewed by a single nominator and a single reviewer, Vital Article GA's can use more eyes, based on their increased importance. I always welcome other editors to jump in with suggestions and constructive criticisms.

First Impressions and Read-Through

• There are a lot of long wikilinks in the lead. The blue/black ratio seems a bit off.
• More importantly, the lead doesn't adequately summarize the rest of the article. It emphasizes history and current economy, while giving perhaps a sentence to arts and culture.

Textual notes

• "The vast majority of the seventeen and nineteen thousand Ottoman soldiers in service in the Ottoman fortresses" Is there a 'between' missing there?
• I wikilinked Akinjis.
• "...the Hungarians were supported by the vast majority of the Slovak, German and Rusyn nationalities ..." Russian?
  • I've wikilinked Rusyns. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• In the Political Parties section, the second paragraph spends too much time on history; move those parts back up into the historical section, please?
• Look for overlinking throughout, e.g. court need not be wikilinked anywhere.
• "... the gendarmerie-like, militarised "Készenléti Rendőrség" (Operational Police) mainly dealing with riots and often enforcing local police forces." by enforcing, do we mean 'reinforcing' or 'policing'?

(still working...) Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The drive-by nom didn't edit after nominating this, so your call: did you want to continue noting some things in hopes someone picks it up or should it just be failed? Wizardman 16:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've gotten pinged on this on my talk page recently, and with my last paper due tomorrow, I promised I'd get to it this week. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors participating

• Is there anyone (BlueMoonset, Kpalion?) still willing to take and act upon new feedback? I agree with Wizardman that our nominator is gone for nearly six months now. Who's still interested in acting on feedback? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've never expressed a willingness to take or act upon new feedback, and have no plans to do so. My interest was to get some sort of action on the longest-running GA review, which had been open for over four and a half months at the time. You might want to see whether there are any editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary who would be interested in working through any issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Given that no editor has stepped forward in two weeks, I am closing this GA review as stale, without prejudice against renomination. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)