Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Stephen I of Hungary/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it to FA status. I would especially appreciate comments of its comprehensivness.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009:

  • I enjoyed reading it - great work.
  • General point. The article makes lots of reference to sources (e.g. "the chronicle of X says that Y happened to Stephen"). Sometimes it is clear that this is important, because it then notes that there are conflicting views. Often there are no other views given. For an encyclopaedic article, I'd advise making the minimum reference to sources necessary - unlike an academic history text, the typical reader doesn't need to know the source unless it's important to the narrative. Indeed, it leaves the impression that the historical statement might be dubious ("why is this article telling me the source, unless there might be something wrong if it? What doesn't it just say "Y happened to Stephen"?) I've highlighted some examples below of where I was a bit concerned by this.
  • The other points are most detail points, with the FAC discussion in mind.
  • " descended from the prominent family of the gyulas." - is the capitalisation right here? I only ask because the linked article puts it in capitals.
  • "who was supported by masses of pagan warriors" - "masses of...warriors" felt a bit informal - I'd have expected something like "large numbers of pagan warriors" or something like that.
  • " He defeated Koppány mainly with the assistance of Vecelin, Hont and Pázmány and other knights of foreign origin," - this could be read as meaning that Vecelin, Hont etc. were of foreign origin, or that it was the "other knights" who of foreign origin. I'd recommend "with the assistance of foreign knights, including Vecelin, Hont and Pazmany,".
  • " He ensured the spread of Christianity among his subjects with severe punishments." - punishments for what...?
  • "The date of his birth is uncertain..." - at the start of a section, I'd recommend avoiding a pronoun, and instead give his name.
  • "The unanimous testimony of his legends and other Hungarian sources," - "legends" is quite a specific term (it doesn't mean "legends" as in "fables", but rather a particular primary source) and needs defining when its first used.
  • " the Hungarian chieftain with jurisdiction either in Transylvania" - should this be "an Hungarian chieftain"? (unless there was a special particular lineage of chieftains who held this jurisdiction)
  • "Stephen's Lesser Legend adds that he was born in Esztergom" - feeding on from the point about legends above, the typical reader won't know what the Lesser Legend is.
  • "However, Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention of the event" - worth restructuring slightly; the first half of the sentence gives the impression that Adalbert wrote the Legend.
    • Thanks. I added the adjective "St" before Adalbert's name: I hope it clarifies that he is the subject of the legend, whose author (Bruno of Querfurt) is mentioned in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He was given his baptismal name in honour of the first martyr, Saint Stephen." - probably needs a reference.
  • "Stephen's Legend, written by Hartvik, " - as per above - is this the Greater Legend, Lesser Legend, or something else? At this point, most readers won't really know.
  • "According to Stephen's legends, Grand Prince Géza convoked an assembly of the Hungarian chieftains and warriors when Stephen "ascended to the first stage of adolescence",[16] when he was 14 or 15" - is the quote needed here? (given that you give the age specifically?)
  • "György Györffy also writes, without referring to his source, that Géza appointed his son to rule the "Nyitra ducate" around that time." - does it matter that he doesn't refer to his source? (i.e. if he's reliable, that's fine - I'm not sure if you're qualifying it because this might be dubious)
  • "György Györffy" - probably worth being consistent with how you use the surname or first name + surname.
  • My apologies for the shorthand! In the early years, György Györffy starts off as "György Györffy", then "Györffy", but returns to "György Györffy" again. In the "reign" section, he is just "Györffy", but becomes "György Györffy" in the Coronation section that follows. My advice would be to expand to name + surname the first time a person is referred to in a section, and then just their surname afterwards. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slovak historians, including Ján Steinhübel and Ján Lukačka, accept Györffy's view and propose that Stephen administered Nyitra (now Nitra, Slovakia) from around 995.[20][21]" - does this mean that other's don't accept this view? (if so, let's say so; if not, then I'm not sure that we need to specify the proponents)
  • "Stephen soon convoked an assembly to Esztergom where his supporters declared him grand prince" - I wasn't at all sure about the "convoke" verb here.
  • "Stephen's ascension to the throne was in line with the principle of primogeniture of Christian monarchies which prescribed that a father was succeeded by his son" - male primogeniture is not that a father is succeeded by his son, rather that he is succeeded by his eldest son, which certainly wasn't universal in Christian monarchies at this time.
  • "However, it contradicted the traditional idea of seniority," - different grammars have different approaches to using "However..." at the start of a sentence; my usual advice would be to avoid it, given that many oppose its use in this way.
  • "most of his partisans were pagans" - partisans in this context, given that there's a rebellion going on, could mean either "partisan fighters" or simply "supporters" - probably worth choosing a different noun.
  • "Even so, Györffy says that Oszlar ("Alan"), Besenyő ("Pecheneg"), Kér and other place names," do we need to specify the proponent of this argument? (i.e. do others disagree?)
  • "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword"" - it's unclear from the text here who this quote is from.
  • " In the battle between Veszprém and Várpalota," - I had to check back to work out that these were places, rather than people (which is what the "between" would normally suggest).
  • "Koppány himself was killed on the battlefield" - you don't need the "himself" here.
  • " implying that Stephen accepted the emperor's suzerainty" - the MOS would have this as "the Emperor", as the title is standing in for a specific individual (see WP:JOBTITLES).
  • "from the pope, but not without the emperor's consent." - "Pope" and "Emperor"
  • " states that the king offered Hungary" - "the King"
  • "The new king " - King
  • "The contemporary Annals of Hildesheim[79] adds that Stephen converted his uncle's "country to the Christian faith by force" after its conquest" - is the source essential here?
  • "The Illuminated Chronicle narrates that Stephen "led his army against Kean, Duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs whose lands are by their natural position most strongly fortified" - ditto?
  • " Forts serving as county seats also became the nuclei of Church organization." - I wasn't sure of what "also" meant here.
  • "ensured that the Western borders of Hungary" - I don't think "Western" needs a capital letter
  • "On the other hand, the alliance between Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire brought Hungary into a war with Poland " - could be "On the other hand, Hungary's alliance with the Holy Roman Empire brought her into a war with Poland" (potentially shorter and avoid repetition)
  • "According to Leodvin, the first known Bishop of Bihar (r. c. 1050 – c. 1060), Stephen allied with the Byzantines and made a military expedition in order to assist them against "barbarians" in the Balkan Peninsula." - is the source important?
  • "According to the Annales Posonienses, the Venetian Gerard was consecrated as the first bishop of the new diocese in 1030" - ditto
  • "plundered the lands west of the river Rába" - I think the MOS would have this as the "River Raba"
  • "Stephen's biographer, Hartvic" - needs a comma after Hartvic
  • " the king, whose children died one by one in infancy" - "the King"
  • " the elderly king" - King
  • "The Annals of Altaich narrated that Stephen disregarded his cousin's claim and nominated his own sister's son, the Venetian Peter Orseolo as his heir.[149] The same source adds that Vazul was captured and blinded; his three sons, Levente, Andrew and Béla, were expelled from Hungary.[149] A report, preserved in Stephen's legends, of an unsuccessful attempt upon the elderly king's life by members of his court indicate that Vazul was mutilated for his participation in the plot." - do the sources matter?
  • "Although the Illuminated Chronicle narrates that Stephen "begot many sons"" - ditto
  • The following family tree... - the formatting of the family tree didn't work on my screen. (not sure if this was a quirk of my system or not!)
  • "Stephen's "balsam-scented" remains were elevated from the coffin, which was filled with "rose-colored water", on 20 August" - unclear from the text where the quotes are from
  • "A certain youth, all his limbs weakened, suffering paralysis for twelfe years..." personal opinion, but I found the quote a little distracting from the flow of the text.
  • "He was also a "confessor king" whose cult was sanctioned, in contrast with earlier holy monarchs, without suffering martyrdom." I know what you mean here, but the "sanctioned...without suffering matyrdom" don't quite pair up. How about "sanctioned... even though he had not suffered martyrdom"?
  • "Stephen's intact right hand (Hungarian: Szent Jobb" - is the Hungarian translation really needed here? (i.e. does it just mean "right hand"?)
  • "Why is it, brothers, that his other limbs having become disjointed..." - again, personally, this didn't work for me
  • " writes that the king" - "the King"
  • "My dearest son, if you desire to honor the royal crown..." - again, as a stand-alone quote, I found it a bit disjointed
  • " representing the king" - "the King"
  • References. Personally, I thought the different styles for referencing primary and secondary sources rather distracting(at first I thought it was a mistake, until I realised the pattern). It is not breaching any MOS rules that I'm aware of, but my honest advice would be to use a common referencing system for books. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few random comments:

Thank you. I agree. However, I do not have access to the reliable sources cited in the above article. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for duplicate links, there are quite a few in the article
I checked, but I think only WLs which are mentioned in the lead and in the infoboxes are duplicated. I guess it should not be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs should all be formatted identically (most use the sfn template but some don't - for instance, citations to the Laws of King Stephen of Hungary)
Thank for your comment. I think the article uses a consequent reference method, by distinguishing primary sources and secondary/terciary sources. As I mentioned above, I understand it does not contradict to WP policies. Please also take into account that this diferentiation is not unique: scholarly works almost always make a difference between primary sources and other works. (Otherwise, the sfn-template could hardly be used when referring to the Laws of Saint Stephen and other primary sources.) Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the works in the Primary Sources actually primary sources? Because they look like secondary sources to me (given that they all have 20th century publication dates).
Scholarly works often refer to this kind of literature as "primary sources". Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem fixed. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem fixed. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sztjobb.jpg - You may or may not know the answer to this, but how likely is it that the uploader actually took this photo? I ask because it's a low-res photo that looks like it came from a Google image search, and it seems unlikely that the relic would be exposed for someone to get that close of a picture.
Photo in the article changed. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images in general:
    • it's generally best not to force image size, since you can't know what resolution is best for all users (and 190px is a generally useless size to force anyway, since 180 is the default for thumbed images)
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make sure to use the "|upright" parameter in tall photos
Sorry, I do not understand what "tall" photo means. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also watch image placement - images shouldn't sandwich text (as the two paintings currently do in the Early years section)
Thank you. I tried to fix it. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these are helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your remarks and suggestions. I will comment them in two or three days. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Stephen_I_of_Hungary/archive1&oldid=620265607"