Talk:Upper nobility

Mistakes

Országh de Guth and Komploth de Nána are the correct forms in the reference. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Split references from footnotes

Please consider using note tags and a new section to separate the inline references from personal comments/notes.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 10:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead was too long, now too short)

I've shortened the lead (as per [lead too long] tag) and put the remains under a "Upper nobility" heading. However, it now probably needs fleshing out. — Msmarmalade (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Upper nobility/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==March 2013== The article is fine regarding WP:BCLASS criteria #2 (coverage - quite comprehensive), #4 (language), #5 (supporting materials), and #6 (accessibility). Still, the article's intro is: a) too long (at nine paragraphs and 900+ words), b) is not actually a summary, as it addresses topics that are not covered in the article proper, and 3) is not referenced at all (and it should be, as it not merely a summary). I feel this is grounds for failing the article on criteria #1 (referencing) and #3 (structure). This should not be too difficult to fix in an otherwise quite commendable article: content is to be moved from the intro to the article proper and supplied with references, leaving the summarized intro of acceptable size. GregorB (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 09:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)