Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gelou/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 [1].

Gelou

edit
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a legendary Vlach ruler of Transylvania whose existence is subject to scholarly debates. Gelou is often mentioned as one of the first Romanian rulers in Romanian historiography. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thank you for your remark. I noticed the creator of the first picture. Fakirbakir, could you help in connection with the two other pictures. I do not even understand the problem. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problems fixed. The two pictures are obviously PD-Art,PD-100. Nikkimaria is right, the photo of Gelou's sculpture has to be removed.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fakirbakir, thank you for your assistance (again). Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nergaal, thank you for your suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Gesta describes" I think you need to add documents/chronicles after Gesta. Gesta itself is a title not a descriptor.
Sorry, I do not understand your remark. The Gesta itself is the chronicle which describes Gelou's Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not mentioned => that are not mentioned
I preferred "who are not mentioned". Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the difference between Gesta and Gesta Hungarorum? I am not sure if it is technically correct to strip the second word from the title
The Gesta is the abbreviated title of the Gesta Hungarorum as per WP:summary style. The article explicitly says that the only source of Gelou's life is the Gesta Hungarorum. Therefore, I think it is clear that the Gesta refers to that specific chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if one would say "Harry Potter books describes x, y, z" you cannot replace that with "Hary describes x, y, z". Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro doesn't really describe what territories did Gelou oversee (basically only says some lands in Transylvania)
Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Gelou was the ruler of Transylvania (not "some lands in Transylvania"), according to the Gesta Hungarorum and the intro says that he was "the Vlach ruler of Transylvania", according to that chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the problem is that very little is know about Gelou, therefore there isn't that much stuff to put about him in this article. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunatelly, historians dedicated many pages to Gelou and we can use their books when writing the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " refers to a dozen people" how many are there really? I wouldn't mind having a footnote listing them
I preferred to write "local rulers" (many of them are mentioned in the article). Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "imaginary figure" => fictional figure
I would prefer the present expression: it is in line with the cited sources (Engel, Macartney). The article was copy edited by native speakers of English who did not change it. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter are not imaginary literature, but fictional literature. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think we should not change an expression used by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What is known " => everything known
I would prefer the present expression: the article was copy edited by native speakers of English who did not change it. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, consider changing it. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a native English speaker so I ask Dank to comment your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to share my own preferences this time. For the future, if a writer is running up against pushback in the review processes, it's a good idea for them to enlist co-writers who have a good track record of not attracting pushback. On the current question: "What is known" seems fine. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "now known as Anonymus" => presently referred by historians as Anonymus
I would prefer the present expression as per above. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you to reconsider. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Dank to comment your proposal, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine the way it is; the unspoken "by historians" is common in history articles. "presently referred by historians" is ungrammatical (referred needs a to), and it's a good idea to avoid the word presently; see for instance AHD. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Carpathian Basin" add from around 900 to 1000
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add it after "It describes the Magyar conquest of the Carpathian Basin". Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second image should mention that pink is Gelou's kingdom; I think this image can/should be moved in the intro
Thank you, modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a more relevant picture for intro that the first page of Gesta. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Transylvania on the eve of the Hungarian conquest" => Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest
I would prefer the present expression: the article was copy edited by native speakers of English who did not change the title. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the eve is an unnecessary pompous way to say before. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Dank to comment your proposal, as per above. "Before" would not be a precise expression: it would also include Iron Age Transylvania and the Roman conquest of Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Borsoka's point that "before" might be ambiguous. Agreed with Nergaal's point that it's difficult to get the register (tone) right in history articles. I don't think getting a perfectly consistent tone is a requirement at FAC, though it's nice when it happens. - Dank (push to talk)
  • " Avar Khaganate" add "in the Pannonian Basin"?
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Avar Khaganate disintegrated" add some for of descriptor for the Khaganate. While it is linked, most readers won't know what was is or where was it located. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the section makes it clear that the Khaganate was not located in Central Asia or North America, but in the Carpathian Basin. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ciumbrud group???
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vlad Georgescu, Ioan-Aurel Pop and other historians" I think that it would be fair to say other Romanian historians. Also, you provide 3 sources for this; it this generally accepted? if not, perhaps say "Romanian historians x, y, and z" instead
Thank you. Modified (I think that the "Romanian" adjective is not important). Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Bóna and Kristó " add Hungarian historians
I preferred not to change because the article mentiones them as historians at least twice. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make is that the current character is relevant to a Romanian-Hungarian dispute regarding history, therefore, for the save of CoI it would be appropriate to make more clear when either a Romanian or a Hungarian historian defends one side. Ideally a third party historian would be the ideal person to reference, but since that is not really available, try to make it more clear that this is still a dispute along partisan lines. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Carlile Aylmer Macartney and Dennis Deletant: they are not Hungarian (or Romanian) historians. Stating that there are a "Hungarian" POV and a contrasting "Romanian" theory would be misleading. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would mention their nationalities to clarify that they are a third-party. Nergaal (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think that the reference to each historian's nationality would be boring, and I think it is not a relevant information. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early-12th-century" at least the first dash is unnecessary
I preferred not to change because a copyeditor suggested this version. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A copyeditor does NOT catch all the errors. Check WP:DASH. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Dank to comment your proposal, as per above.
It's never going to happen that everyone hyphenates exactly the same way. I see "early 12th-century" more than "early-12th-century", but "early-12th-century" isn't wrong and many Wikipedian reviewers and copyeditors prefer to use a hyphen when there's any possibility of ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 10:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpathians the Volokhs seized their territory." comma before the
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transylvania => "is the beyond the woods" translation attributed because of the Hungarian arrival?
Sorry, I do not understand you above remark. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, it was somethign beyond the scope of the article. Nergaal (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, in the source it is emphasized. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are a few instances where the text is not very clear that Gelu is used by one side (i.e. usually Romanian historians) to defend the Daco-Romanian continuity, while the other side (Hungarian historians) as a fictional work. I think at least the intro should make it a little more clear that Gelu is a character mostly relevant to the Origin of the Romanians.
The article makes it clear that Gelou is described as a Romanian ruler in Romanian historiography and an anchor is added. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind more images, but if none are really available perhaps have a map where the location of Gilau is shown
Thank you. I try to find more relevant pictures. Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gelou/archive1&oldid=1088823612"