Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coloman, King of Hungary/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2017 [1].

Coloman, King of Hungary

[edit]
Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a king of Hungary who was regarded one of the most learned monarchs of his age. Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "His proficiency in canon law was eulogized in a letter that Pope Urban II addressed to him in 1096.": You can't eulogize someone until they're dead, so why would the Pope be addressing a letter to him?
  • "contemptile": contemptible?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, thank you for your copyediting and support. I fixed the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Smrt_kralja_Petra_Svacica_u_Gori_Gvozdu_1097_god.jpg: assuming the attribution in the caption is correct, the given tag cannot be
  • File:Seal_of_Coloman.jpg is not a 2D work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for your comments. I deleted the two pictures from the article, because I am unable to fix the problems. Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

[edit]
Thank you for your support. Sorry, I do not know video games, so I could not review articles about characters from such games. For instance, I cannot decide whether the cited sources could be described as reliable sources for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look, queries below:

Coloman allowed the organized groups to pass through Hungary peacefully but mercilessly annihilated the bands who were entering his kingdom unauthorized or pillaging the countryside. - why "organised" here? Do you mean the ones who were granted permission, in which case say "groups granted permission" or "groups that had sought permission" or something similar.
In paragraph 3 of the Early years (till 1095) section, a statement that the circumstances of Coloman taking the throne are unclear or something similar would be helpful before launching into evidence.

I made these changes. I hope they are ok and do not change the meaning
Thank you for your edits, and also for your comments. I hope, I fixed the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also thank you for your support. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose for the moment: I'm recusing from coordinator duties on this one, and I think we still need a little more work to reach FA standard. Nothing too major though. I've read to the end of Early Years so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are definitely overusing "Coloman" here: there are 163 uses of the word in the article. It's an easy trap to fall into, but we need to reword so that we don't use his name too often. It's easy to sort; change a few to "he" and reword others to avoid the need for his name.
  • "who was "half-blind and humpbacked"": The quote is fine, but I don't think we need to link those terms, particularly as those links that we use don't necessarily reflect what the chroniclers would have meant.
  • "but mercilessly annihilated": I think this is a little strong for wikipedia's voice, and suggests a little POV and assumption of Coloman's motives.
  • "Coloman had to face his brother's lust for power throughout his life": Similarly a little strong, and lust suggests POV.
  • "Hungarian chronicles, which were compiled in the reigns of kings descending from his mutilated brother and nephew, depict Coloman as a bloodthirsty and unfortunate monarch.": Again, mutilated is suggesting some kind of POV, and the sentence would work fine without it. Also, I gather that the meaning here is that the chronicles favoured his brother. I think a more common way to phrase this would be "Hungarian chronicles, written after Coloman's reign and favouring his brother and nephew, depict Coloman as a bloodthirsty and unfortunate monarch."
  • Why are we saying "baptismal name" rather than just "name"?
  • "Géza's Byzantine second wife—whose baptismal name is unknown—left Hungary after her husband's death, implying that she was childless": Why does this imply that she was childless? Rather than clutter up the main body, I've seen this kind of thing explained in a note which summarises the working out in the source.
  • "According to historians Gyula Kristó and Márta Font, Coloman and Álmos were born around 1070.": Again, it would be nice to know, maybe in a note, how they know.
  • "The king's decision was unusual as Coloman was older than Álmos.": I think this could be spelled out - younger brothers were usually the ones sent to the church.
  • "According to the 14th-century Illuminated Chronicle,": I'd rework this section a little. When we introduce the source, we should say briefly what it is and why it was written; that's when we can say that it favoured his brother rather than at the end of this section. Also, we should not be questioning the reliability of the source in wikipedia's voice, but explaining current academic consensus on the article, or at the very least, say who thinks it is unreliable.
  • "which suggests that Coloman ascended the throne without bloodshed": Who says so? Again, we can't use wikipedia's voice to judge.
    • Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Would you please clarify it? Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly. When we write on here that a fact "suggests" something, it looks as if we are interpreting that fact. We cannot do that on here. However, this is easily remedied. Presumably, this is the interpretation of a historian, so we need to state which historian has made this interpretation. Sorry for any confusion. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thank you for your clarification. I modified the text. I think scholars emphasize that the circumstances of Coloman's ascenson to the throne are uncertain, because contradictory data were preserved. Some report suggests (not says) that Coloman mounted the throne without fight, other data imply (not prove) that he had to fight for the crown. Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold on until Ealdgyth's points have been addressed for the moment; this is very much her area of expertise! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The sources are of encyclopedic quality, and the text is thoroughly cited. No formatting errors that I could see. Everything looks to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • I checked all the sources, including the non-English ones, and all appear to be scholarly. The non-English sources are all held in academic libraries in the US so they obviously are academic works.
  • I did go through and make the short citations consistent in the use of a full stop in the various chapter/etc parentheticals.
  • I spot checked the article against Curta, which is the only source used in the article I have on my shelves, and there was only one spot of too close paraphrasing: the wikipedia article has "Coloman was crowned king of Croatia in Biograd na Moru in 1102." but Curta: "Colman was crowned King of Croatia in Biograd in 1102." I am inclined to think this is a case of being just too hard to change the wording without losing the meaning, but if a rephrase is possible, it wouldn't be a bad thing either.
  • I will try to review the prose and content shortly.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • I have concerns about using Runciman's work on the Crusades. It's quite old, and many new sources and approaches have come about in the almost 70 years since it was published. For example, "The next arrivals, headed by Peter the Hermit, passed through the country without incident until they reached Zimony (Zemun, Serbia),[32] where a dispute between the crusaders and the local inhabitants caused a riot.[34] The crusaders besieged and took the town, where they massacred "[a]bout four thousand Hungarians",[35] according to the contemporaneous Albert of Aix.[36] They only withdrew when Coloman's troops were approaching them.[37]". "32 and 36 are sourced to Runciman. But Christopher Tyermann in God's War says that Colman negotiated a truce with Peter and that later Colman fought with Peter's forces at Pannonhalma in early July 1096. Tyermann also goes into more detail about reasons WHY Colman may have resisted the crusader passage - something missing in this article. Tyermann also mentions that Colman allowed Godfrey access to markets, and stresses how the timing of the crusaders made access to markets extremely important and that the crusaders who attempted to live off the land "poisoned the well" for following crusaders.
    • I think Runciman's work is still a basic study. All the same, I try to find some other works to review this section of the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expanded the section based on Rubinstein's monography (published in 2011) and Tyerman's earlier work. I mentioned the importance of timing, in accordance with the sources cited. I hope the modifications made it clear that there is no contradiction between Runciman and Tyerman in connection with the events you mentioned above, because Runciman wrote of the capture of Zimony by the second crusader group travelling through Hungary, while Tyerman about the defeat of the fourth band near Pannonhalma. (Previously the text did not mention Pannonhalma.) I also changed the wording, trying to avoid the use of the adjectives organized/disorganized even if I am not convinced that Tyerman's POV can be substantiated. [Runciman's words suggest the leaders of the "organized" groups knew which is the best season to march through Central Europe and the Balkans, while the "disorganized" groups tried to pass through the region in the season when they could hardly find food (Runciman (1951), pp. 109, 142.). All the same, this is not the proper article to discuss this issue.] Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Years:
  • Facing the crusaders:
    • "They only withdrew when Coloman's troops were approaching them." may I suggest "They only withdrew when Colman's troops approached them." which is more concise and also more active and engaging prose.
    • "leadership of one Count Emicho six weeks" - any reason you say "one Count" instead of "Count Emicho"?
    • "The first properly organized crusader army.." Tyermann (and others) no longer consider all the early crusaders such as Peter the Hermit to have been an unorganized mass of looters - he argues that they were at least as well organized as most medieval armies - none of which were outstanding examples of military discipline. Tyermann puts Godfrey's seemingly better organized army down to the difference in time when the army went through Hungary - they were enough later in the year that supplies were easier to acquire than when Peter marched through.
    • "After the uneventful march of the main crusader army across Hungary, Coloman's fame quickly spread throughout Europe." Why did it spread and what form did this "fame" take?
  • Expansion:
    • "Historian Gyula Kristó writes that the fact that his brother Álmos had for years had a close relationship with Emperor Henry may also have influenced his decision." Clunky - suggest "Historian Gyula Kristó writes that Álmos' close relationship with Emperor Henry may also have influenced Coloman's decision."
    • "In 1095, her sister Constance had married Conrad, the elder son of Emperor Henry IV,..." elder or eldest son? And suggest removing the "had" - it's not needed.
      • Modified (I preferred to delete the year, because we should emphasize that Coloman married the sister-in-law of Conrad). Conrad was the elder of the two sons of Henry IV. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Coloman invaded Croatia in 1097.[63][28] Its last native king, Petar Svačić, who had for years resisted Ladislaus I of Hungary, died in the Battle of Gvozd Mountain." This is unclear - did Coloman take part in the Battle of Gvozd Mountain? Or did it happen before his invasion and Coloman invaded because of the vacuum in power? Context is missing here.
    • "Having no fleet, Coloman sent his envoys with a letter to the doge..." "his" is redundant here - if he sent envoys it's assumed they were his envoys.
    • "Coloman returned from Croatia and marched towards his brother's duchy with his troops in 1098." suggest "Coloman returned from Croatia in 1098 and marched his army towards his brother's duchy." as saying "with his troops" in the article just sounds silly - we assume he marched with his troops because if he marched alone towards his brother's duchy he probably wouldn't have survived very long.
    • "In the same year, Coloman hastened towards the Bohemian..." before or after the Russian conflict? As it's written it implies that it was after, but its not clear.
    • "King Saint Stephen" - we generally avoid using "Saint" in this context. We don't say "Saint Louis IX"
    • "The assembly of Tarcal passed new decrees..." I assume this is the assembly mentioned in the previous sentence? It's not made clear.
    • "The 13th-century Thomas the Archdeacon writes that the union of Croatia and Hungary was the consequence of conquest." - clunky. Suggest "In the 13th-century Thomas the Archdeacon wrote that the union of Croatia and Hungary was the consequence of conquest."
    • Any reason for "known as" in "However, the late 14th-century manuscript known as the Pacta conventa narrates"?
    • When was the Life of the blessed John of Trogir written? And why do we need to say where this information comes from - is it under dispute?
    • Why do we suddenly start saying "Based on the Life of St Christopher the Martyr, the historian Paul Stephenson writes that a Hungarian fleet subjugated..." is there some dispute over whether the fleet actually did this? If so, we need it fleshed out, otherwise we can just say that the fleet did it, we don't need the qualifiers.
  • Family affairs:
    • "Álmos returned to Hungary in 1106.[98] In the same year, Álmos fled to his brother-in-law, Boleslaw III of Poland." clunky. Suggest "Álmos returned to Hungary in 1106,[98] but then fled to his brother-in-law, Boleslaw III of Poland."
    • "Coloman sent his envoys..." again, it's assumed that if he sent them, they were his, so "his" is redundant.
    • "Pope Paschalis II" ???? Use the normal English form which is Paschal.
    • "In October 1106, they solemnly informed" ... who is "they"? the last collective is the council, not the envoys, which it appears to be what is meant.
    • "...their king's renunciation of his royal prerogative to appoint the prelates." "the prelates"? the prelates of where?
    • "and was forced to accept the humiliating Treaty of Devol in 1108." - first this needs a source and it especially needs a source for the opinion that the treaty was humiliating.
    • "Although Álmos was allowed to keep his own private property, the annexation of his duchy ensured the integrity of the kingdom." Why/How did it ensure the integrity?
    • "Álmos left for Passau." - was the emperor there or did he contact the emperor from there? It's unclear why Almos would go to Passau....
    • "Hungarian historian Font..." why are we suddenly needing to know what ethnicity Font is? Why does Font think the bishopric was set up by Coloman and why do the Slovak historians think it already existed?
    • "In 1112, Coloman made an incursion into Austria, possibly in retaliation for Margrave Leopold III's participation in the 1108 German campaign against Hungary, according to Ferenc Makk." very very clunky... the bit about Makk is tacked on like an afterthought - and we don't need the first name for Makk since we've already had him mentioned.
    • "However, according to the Illuminated Chronicle, the queen "was taken in the sin of adultery"[110] in 1113 or 1114.[111] Euphemia was soon sent back to her father..." are the two events related or do some historians disagree that Euphemia was adulterous?
    • "and to the holy king's shrine" - I assume Stephen is meant here? "holy king" is POV and should be rephrased.
  • Last years:
  • Legacy:
I'm sure I've missed other parts of the prose that need work. I'm going to have to oppose on the basis of prose as well as concerns about relying on Runciman. The above are just examples - I strongly suggest a good copyedit for flow and redundancy before I'll be able to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comprehensive and bold review. I will be addressing the above issues in a couple of days. Sorry, I am quite busy now. I also seek for assistance from the guild of copyeditors. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I addressed most problems listed above. I still need some time to study scholarly literature about the movement of the crusaders across Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 and Ealdgyth, please find my comments above. Thank you for your patience. I think the article still needs a comprehensive copyedit from the guild of copyeditors. Please let me know if you suggest further modifications. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the others, but I still have concerns with Runciman's use. Unfortunately, I've got the better part of my library packed up so I can't easily consult other works on the Crusades. I'll note that Ashbridge doesn't mention Colman at all. I would still prefer that other editors work over the prose, which could stand attention from other copyeditors. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I think Jay Rubenstein's cited work is an excellent monography and he mentions Coloman several times. Sorry, I will not delete references to Runciman. I have not been convinced that his work cannot be cited any more. Borsoka (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you to remove Runciman - I wished to see other, more recent, studies consulted. Unfortunately, I don't have those on my shelves at the moment - (besides Tyermann and Ashbridge) but there are plenty of other works on the Crusades that could be consulted to see if they agree with the views of Runciman. And even if we leave aside the Runciman issue - there are still prose concerns that I brought up. I remain unconvinced that just working through my examples will have improved the prose enough. Has another copyeditor gone through the article? I don't oppose quickly on prose issues, there were probably other clunky sections that need work. It's going to take more than just fixing my examples to make me support on prose, unfortunately, as I know I'm not a high level copyeditor. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt answer. I requested a copyedit on the relevant page a week ago, but copyeditors are quite busy, so I am sure that they could only review this article a couple of days later. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to give this a copy-edit this weekend if that helps. I find it best if I just dive in and raise any issues on this page; if you are happy for me to have a go, let me know. However, I can't really compare against Runciman. I think I've got a couple of recent Crusades books, but for the life of me I can't remember where I put them! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer. As to Runciman, I think you will find that most/all sentences based on Runciman's work are also verfied by a reference to other sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 and Ealdgyth, a member of the WP:Guild of copyeditors, Corinne, went through the article. Please tell me if you think further actions are needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look, but haven't been able to look in detail this weekend (real life, etc, etc). A first glance does not really settle my concerns, but I don't have time to go into detail. I think a few parts could do with reworking to make more sense and to flow better, which goes beyond a mere copy-edit. I'm also a touch concerned about sourcing still but I'll look more carefully tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
  • OK, I've had another look and my main problem is a lack of flow. It is hard to tell the story as we keep breaking off for other things. It is not irredeemable, but requires a lot of work. This edit (which I self-reverted) shows one potential way of doing it. This is a big job, and while I'm happy to do it, there would be points that I would need to check on as I don't have the sources. I'm also not too certain on the way we are citing; I'd like to know what the sources say to see how much we can massage the prose. My gut instinct is that this work is best done away from FAC, and this should be withdrawn. But I wouldn't insist. And obviously you can ignore some or all of my suggestions. But without a lot of work, I could not support, nor strike my leaning oppose. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your attempt to improve the article. Sincerely, I am not convinced that all modifications you suggested actually improved the text. For instance, you replaced the expression "Coloman's father" with his name "Géza": yes, we know that he was called Géza, but in the context his relationship to Coloman is more important, because Coloman could have only been king after Géza's death, because Géza was his father. Likewise, you deleted the noun "priest" from the expression "ordained priest", although the quite common noun helps most readers to understand the otherwise rarely used verb "to ordain". On the other hand, you added the adjective "Hungarian" when writing of Géza's mounting to the throne, although it is quite obvious in an article about a Hungarian king that his father ascended to the Hungarian throne. Neither do I understand why should we emphasize twice in a short section that the chronicles may have been biased. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other problems: "Modern scholars agree that rumours about the sudden arrival of Coloman's army frightened the crusaders off from the fortress". Aside from the prose (which needs work here, but let's make sure we are sourced first), there is a big issue here. We are saying that "modern scholars agree". No they don't. This is sourced to Runciman, who may be wonderful but is not a modern scholar, and Tyerman. Tyerman supports the facts of the withdrawal, but he does not describe a scholarly consensus. He doesn't discuss any other historical views. So we cannot use these two sources to claim "modern scholars agree". One modern scholar says this, and one source from 1951. A big no to this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think, this is a general problem with FAs. Please take a look at Áedán mac Gabráin (the first FA listed under the subtitle "Royalty and nobility biographies"). It contains the following sentence: [a text about Áedán's ancestry] "is generally read as meaning that" .... However, only two scholars are cited. Likewise, the first sentence in the main text of Ælle of Sussex (the second FA listed under the same subtitle) reads as follows: "Historians are divided on the detail of Ælle's life and existence as it was during the least-documented period in English history of the last two millennia.". However, there are only two historians cited, and one of the cited sources does not verify the sentence about Aelle.Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coloman did not allow them to leave the region, either because he had learnt of their troublesome behavior during their journey, or he had realized that their movement across Hungary could jeopardize the stability of the local economy.": Checking Tyerman (the only source I have to hand), the reference for this has the following text: "Beyond the scrutiny of the chroniclers, a steady stream of ordinary pilgrims was flowing east, adding to the pressure on food stocks and forage. These material considerations dictated Coloman's refusal in late July to allow passage into his kingdom of Emich of Flonheim and his south and west German followers: with a more favourable supply position three months later, the king allowed Godfrey of Boudillon a negotiated passage. However, beyond provisions, Coloman may also have regarded Emich as a dangerous liability, his reputation for violence and flouting of royal authority preceding him." The statement is also sourced to Rubenstein; what does Rubenstein say, for I'm not convinced the source supports the text entirely here. I don't think we quite catch the nuance. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Rubinstein in his cited work writes: [The crusaders] "arrived at Moson ... around June 20, just about the time Coloman began to hear rumors of trouble all along the pilgrimage route and involving all three of the Frankish armies that he had welcomed into his kingdom. Perhaps this is why Coloman held Gottschalk's men up a little longer around Moson. Or perhaps Coloman was just beginning to recognize what an economic crisis the pilgrims might represent." Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we need the long quotation from Albert of Aix? Can this not be summarised? To be honest, the closer I look, the less convinced I am that this is FA standard. Stopping now to allow some replies. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we not need the quotations? :) The more time I spent in WP, the more I beceme convinced that quotations from primary sources (based on reliable sources) improve the quality of articles. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Based on the state of the article, and the nominators responses, I'm afraid I've struck my "leaning oppose" and am simply opposing now. There are too many issues here on prose and sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think that given the time this has been open it'll be best to try and work through outstanding concerns away from the FAC process (perhaps pinging Ealdgyth and Sarastro1 for collaboration or informal review if they can manage it, prior to a new nom). I'll therefore be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2017 (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/Coloman,_King_of_Hungary/archive1&oldid=762457281"