Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive2

Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because because its neutrality should be checqued before its GAN. The previous peer review only concentrated on a minor aspect of the article.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Calvin999
  • The Kingdom of Hungary, a country in Central Europe, → This kind of sounds like it still exists
  • came into being → came into existence
  • urban lifestyle, habits and urban culture → Remove the second 'urban'
  • was affected by several cultural trends. → Sounds like it was a bad thing?
  • buildings, and literary works → Remove comma
  • the culture, but Orthodox, and even non-Christian ethnic minority communities also existed. → There's something about this sentence which doesn't sound right. It reads a bit awkward. I think it's the usage of the comma's and 'but'
  • number of tongues, → Is this encyclopaedic phrasing?
  • powerful magnates. → Wikilink magnate
  • After his death a period of interregnum interrupted royal power in the early 14th century. → What do you mean by this?
  • All the same, → Remove
  • prove that the Hungarians' way of life underwent fundamental changes in Central Europe. → Doesn't make sense.
  • middle of the 10th century. → mid 10th century.
  • December 25, 1000 → Comma after 1000 (Should American date formatting be being used? Or British?)
  • He prescribed that every ten villages were → He prescribed that every tenth village established was
  • Communers → Commoners
  • From legal perspective, → From a legal perspective,
  • freemen and serfs → Any Wikilinkage available?
  • but intermediate categories also existed. → I wouldn't use 'categories'. Perhaps 'groups' or 'classes'?
  • Last Árpáds (1242–1301) → I don't think there needs to be so many short paragraphs. I think some can be merged to make one paragraph. It's a bit of a style thing but try and make them the same size, it looks a lot more concise and professional.
  • I think the 'Aftermath' section is a bit brief and short.

Article wide, I think the basics are here for a good article. I just think it needs polishing and tidying up a bit. I think it reads a bit conversational and not encyclopaedic enough at times, a bit informal. The prose needs to be tighter than what it is now. I've given a few examples where 5 words are better than 10, for example. I think some more but brief info about what happened post 1301 is needed just so that a complete timeline is present of what happened before, during and after; it ends rather abruptly with just one sentence about the young pretender in 1301 then a few sentences for Aftermath. It doesn't need loads more, but I'd say one, perhaps two, decent sized paragraphs so that a complete overview is there for the reader. Ping me with any questions.  — Calvin999 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of them and I will change the text in the next few days. I will ping you after I finished my homework. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin999, I made several changes in the article based on your comments. I would highly appreciate if you could dedicate some time to checque them. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]