Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive2

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 [1].

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a medieval kingdom in Central Europe. It received two reviews and underwent a comprehensive copyedit. Thank you for all comments during the process. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

"the introduction of new taxes and their farming out to Muslims and Jews": I don't know what "farming out" means here.
"The Mongols "burnt ..."": Don't mix quote marks and blockquotes, because usually, it's not clear what the quote marks mean. Is someone else being quoted in the middle of a quote? Who?
"four or two": two or four? And, was one number much more likely than the other?
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank:, thank you for your edits and support. I hope I fixed the problems you addressed above ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, check my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your edits. "Tax farming" is the practice when tax revenues are leased to individuals. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I understand. What difference does it make to the history of Hungary exactly how the taxes were collected? What would be wrong with "Royal revenues decreased, which led to the introduction of new taxes"? I doubt that a description of the financials is relevant ... but if it is relevant, then you'll need to explain it, rather than just relying on the term "farmed". - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I tried to provide a context for the relevance of the sentence ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

The article seems excellently sourced. A couple of points:

I'm getting repeated error messages from the link in ref. 2. Maybe it's a temporary fault, but please check it out.
The Spinei book is lacking publisher.

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I fixed the above problems ([4] [5]). Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best add a retrieval date to ref 2, since you are citing an online copy rather than the magazine itself.

Fair point. Retrieval date added ([6]).

Closing comment: For some reason, this seems to have struggled to attract reviews. As there has been no progress for over two weeks, despite this being on the urgent list, I'm not sure we can achieve consensus to promote in a realistic time frame on this FAC. I would recommend taking this to back to PR and asking some experienced FAC reviewers to take a look at it away from FAC; the previous reviews were not much help and I think you need more eyes on this. Reviewers are often more willing to engage when work has been done away from FAC, and when there has already been substantial review. I will be archiving shortly, and the article can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 October 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.