Talk:Géza II of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Géza II of Hungary is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on June 8, 2015. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Incorrect Year of Birth?[edit]

This article lists Géza II year of birth as 1030; I believe this may be a typo and more likely his year of birth was 1130? (Based on his year of death 1162, and other Internet articles about him.) I have nothing that I would consider verifiable, just an observation based on other dates in the article. I hope this is an acceptable Talk Page item, apologies if it is not. I am brand new to Wikipedia. Celique 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

This page lists three references, the second one is for "http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/G%C3%A9za_II_of_Hungary" This web page is a wikipedia mirror, so it shouldn't be used as a reference. Dracunculus (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Géza II of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Borsoka, I apologize for the delay, but I've finally completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. I find that it exceeds all the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. It has been a pleasure to review another of your well crafted articles! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
West Virginian, thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Géza II, establishes Géza's necessary context, and explains why Géza is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • The image of Géza's royal seal is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • In the second paragraph of the lede, German–Hungarian should be rendered with the em dash in the center, as it is in the "Crusaders' march across Hungary" subsection.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Early years

  • In introducing Géza follow his birth, his father Béla II of Hungary is rendered as Béla the Blind. I wonder if it is possible to also include Béla's royal title at that point, as he was not yet crowned monarch of Hungary. This would give the reader notice that Géza was born to an heir apparent to the Hungarian throne.
    • Thank you. I preferred to write that Béla the Blind was a cousin of the ruling king, because around that time King Stephen II's nephew, Saul of Hungary was the official heir to the monarch. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This may be too tangential for Géza's article, but would it hurt to also mention that Béla was blinded along with his father by his uncle Coloman? The would provide more familial context, since his father's blinding was committed within the family over a power play. This would also lay the groundwork for the later discussion of Coloman's wife Eufemia of Kiev.
    • Thank you. Expanded. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Does Arad refer to Arad, Romania? If so, it should be wiki-linked here.
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Reign
Minor king (1141–1146)

  • The image of young Géza is released not the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • In the final sentence of the first paragraph, and in the final sentence of the second paragraph, the inline citations should appear in numerical order from left to right.
    • Thank you. Both modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know what specific privileges young Géza bestows upon the citizens of Split?
    • I assume that their right to chose their magistrates was confirmed, but I do not know for sure. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would just briefly mention in the parentheses "present-day Bratislava, Slovakia." I would also do this with Lajta (Leitha, Austria).
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Crusaders' march across Hungary (1146–1147)

  • The image of Conrad III of Germany has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Active foreign policy (1147–1155)

  • I would wiki-link heterodox to Heterodoxy, as I had not heard of it before, and other readers may have not heard of this term either.
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The image of Géza meeting King Louis VII of France has been released to the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
  • I would wiki-link the first mention of Transylvania, which is in the fifth paragraph of this section.
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Last years (1155–1162)

  • The image of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here in this article.
  • The last two sentences can probably be merged into one, but if a place for Géza's death can be named they can remain two sentences.
    • Thank you. We do not know the place for Géza's death. The two sentences were merged. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Family

  • This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.
Borsoka, thank you for addressing my comments in such a timely and thorough manner. I've re-reviewed the article and find that it is ready to be passed to Good Article status. I appreciate your continued contributions to Wikipedia, and it is always a privilege to review your latest work. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)