Talk:Árpád/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear LT910001, thank you for starting the review. Borsoka (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
 * Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
 * If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
 * Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Commentary
This is a well-researched article about a notable historical figure and I thank you for contributing it to Wikipedia. This article is for the most part well-written and is very well sourced, and I don't see any major problems that would prevent promotion in the next few days. I do have some relatively minor concerns, which include: LT910001 (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear LT910001, first of all thank you for your thorough review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * has a copyright tag. ✅
 * Thanks. Deleted (I am not in the position to fix the problem). Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not feel the lead is as readable as it could be. I feel this could be improved in two ways:
 * 1, separating it into two paragraphs, the first dealing with his life, and the second dealing with his notability
 * Thanks. Lead rewritten (since most details of his life are uncertain, the new lead emphasizes this aspect, and also underlines his role both as the head of the Hungarians at the time of the Conquest and as the ancestor of the Hungarian royal family). Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The lead is disproportionately small. Perhaps you could add after the first sentence one or two sentences about why he is notable: that is, any key achievements, reasons for crowning or death, or famous battles. Again suggest for readability you separate the two paragraphs, as one is about his life, and the other is about sources. LT910001 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added one more sentence: his role is emphasized by later chronicles and he is regarded as the "founder of our country". Please also take into account that there is little certain information of his life. Based on WP:Lead, I understand that there is no need to write a lengthy lead for an article of this size. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2, including a pronounciation key using the International Phonetic Alphabet (WP:PRON) ✅
 * Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. LT910001 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unable to reconcile this sentence: "Contemporaneous Western European sources ignore Árpád, implying that he was the Hungarians' sacred ruler or kende." which reads as if the sources ignore him yet also venerate him as a sacred ruler ✅
 * Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Readability is impacted by having many citations within sentences, not at the end. ✅
 * Thanks. Fixed (?). Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox appears to have a formatting error under 'issue'. The two sites listed as "debated" are not cited. ❌
 * Thanks. (1) I think this is not an error (I refer to the similar infobox at Henry VIII of England which is a GA). (2) Both sites listed as debated are based on the well-referenced main text (under the "Death" section, which states, based on reliable sources, that the list of the monarchs who succeeded Árpád is dubious, and that the credibility of the report of the Gesta Hungarorum of Árpád's funeral may be unreliable). Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, that's fair enough. If it's not too much trouble, it would ease verifiability to cite the two examples inside the infobox, but this isn't required for GA promotion. LT910001 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All the same I added new wording (debated > uncertain). Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is very well-written, but I feel it occasionally reads as WP:original research. For example: "The Illuminated Chronicle[1] says that Árpád's father Álmos "could not enter Pannonia, for he was killed in Erdelw"[21] (Transylvania).[22] Engel,[1] Kristó[23] and Molnár wrote that", or "However, the reliability of the list of the grand princes in the Gesta Hungarorum is dubious,". I find this feeling quite hard to quantify, but I feel it is because occasionally ideas are not attributed, or there is a lot of comparative analysis of texts interspersed (eg "In contrast, Kristó wrote") with comparative adjectives and conjunctions (eg "whereas, ... for instance..."). I'd value your comment on this, and hopefully this will only require some minor changes. LT910001 (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC) ✅
 * Thanks. New wording (I would like to emphasize that all statements in this article, including the direct references to primary sources, are based on the cited reliable sources). Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll conduct a more thorough read-through when the concerns above are addressed. Cheers, LT910001 (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Early life

 * "according to a tradition preserved by all Hungarian chronicles," suggest remove or move this clause to the end of the sentence (X was the son of Y, a tradition preserved in all hungarian chronicles); by -> in ✅
 * Thanks. Fixed (?). Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gyula Kristó wrote that" suggest add title (eg "Historian GK") ✅
 * Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "In sharp contrast to the Hungarian chronicles, Constantine Porphyrogenitus states in his De Administrando Imperio that the Hungarians "had never at any time had any other prince" before Árpád.[5][6]." ✅ Suggest:
 * new paragraph starting with this sentence
 * suggest paragraph starts with "Constantine Porphrogenitus states that the Hungarians "..."", and the next paragraph starts with "This history, written in the De Adminstrando (wikilink), is in sharp contrast to the Hungarian chronicles" and continues with the critical analysis of texts.
 * Thanks. Fixed (?). Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * With last paragraph and all those names, suggest add titles (eg Historians...) so as to give some context.
 * Thanks. New wording. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Towards the Hungarian "land-taking"

 * Needs rename. Suggest 'ascension' ✅
 * Thanks. I prefer "Conquest". Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All good! LT910001 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In general I feel the readability of this section could be improved if paragraphs were structured: (1) putative story of Arpad's life, followed by, in a separate paragraph (2) critical analysis of sources. As it is the discussion of sources is impacting on my ability to discern what the actual first reference to his life was (sorry!). ✅
 * Thanks. What about the new version? Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Much easier to read. LT910001 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reign

 * "All Hungarian chronicles emphasize Árpád's pre-eminent role in the conquest of the Carpathian Basin.[1][31] The Gesta Hungarorum also highlights Árpád's pre-eminent military skills and his generosity.[32] ". Would do great in the lead!
 * Would really like to know what these mysterious chronicles are... ✅
 * Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see. LT910001 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * " "captains"," If he was a captain, no quotation marks. If he wasn't a captain, rename. Otherwise, it's a little odd. ✅
 * Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "For instance, this chronicle states that Tétény" seems to emphasize his power as well ✅
 * Yes, chronicles written minimum 300 years after the events emphasize his preeminent role. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "for all contemporaneous Western sources" -> "to all"  ✅
 * Thanks. Alternative solution (see below). Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "In contrast to the Hungarian chronicles, Árpád's name "is completely unknown" for all contemporaneous Western sources.[29] These sources, including the Annales Alamannici and the Annales Eisnidlenses, only mention Kurszán which, according to Gyula Kristó and other historians, substantiates that Kurszán must have been the gyula commanding the Hungarian forces, while Árpád succeeded his father as the sacred kende.[29][36] Proposing a contrasting theory, Curta wrote that Árpád only became kende after his predecessor Kurszán had been murdered by Bavarians in 902 or 904.[29][37]" Ack! This is confusing. Suggest dissolve this paragraph. move sentence 1 (he is unknown) to the legacy section. Move gyula to the paragraph in Early Life. Move Arpbad only became kende to discussion of his ascension. ✅
 * Thanks. Alternative solution: since these are the earliest sources of the Hungarian conquest, I start the section with the information they provide, and their report is followed by information based on chronicles written centuries after the events. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy with any solution that addresses the problem. LT910001 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Death

 * Very readable
 * Suggest flip two paragraphs; as it is logical to think first about when he died, and then about how his son succeeded him (even though that was during life) ✅
 * Thanks. Alternative solution: the first section is transferred to the previous section (under title "Reign"). For me, it would be frightening if he died before naming his successor :). Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

 * More juicy content for the lead (not all, obviously!)
 * Suggest this section goes: family (+ sentence on line extinguishment), then coverage in history, then the reference in pop culture and poor coverage in non-Hungarian histories (stolen from above). A merged section will get rid of the three short sections and be more readable. ✅
 * Thanks. (1) The very short "In popular culture" section is deleted. There is nobody who can watch the film mentioned in this section because it is so long and boring (I am serious). (2) I would preserve "Legacy" and "Family" as separate sections, because I think that their merger would be confusing (I refer to Stephen I of Hungary, which is a GA, also separating these two sections). Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Use of "Western histories". Suggest rename to "non-Hungarian", as I have always considered Hungary a Western country myself (it is part of the EU and there are references to its Westernity in the article Hungary) ✅
 * Thanks. Specified as sources written in "East Francia". Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
With changes made, I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done and I wish you well on your wiki-travels! LT910001 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)