Talk:Christopher Báthory/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, I will be using the above table for my review and my comments can be found in the relevant boxes. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've done a quick check of Wiki.En policy for the use of non-English sources at Non-Enlgish Sources and they are entirely acceptable, however, "an article citing mostly or entirely non-English sources may be tagged with the Needs English sources maintenance template to encourage the addition of sources in English." This presents an issue with this article, an article cannot be passed for GA if there are outstanding templates on the article, there aren't any currently, and I'm not inclined to start templating the article because I can. So, as a resolution, I would ask that if you can find any English sources, of equal reliability, that you do this to supplement the current sources. Note, this doesn't mean that you need to go through and find one for every sentence of the article, just, that if you can find some then that would allow this article to go through with GA. If you have tried to find sources in English with no success then I can in fact pass this article on the grounds that while English written sources are preferred, they aren't available (at this time). In that case, if an editor does template the page, it won't preclude it from GA. I will continue the review as per normal, and finish up checking the remaining criterion, from there I can place the article on hold for a week to give you time to find sources (if available) or if not available, to note that in the review and pass it as I have mentioned above. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I may be mistaken here, are Barta, Felezeu, Keul and Szegedi in English or Hungarian and Romanian? I note that the authors are either Hungarian or Romanian (in the caase of Felezeu I think) but if they've written their works in English, then, that's fine as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've identified that Keul is in English, but, I don't can't access the other sources, if you could just confirm for me the language they're written in, that would be great. I may not have to worry about putting the article on hold for WP:NOENG after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

{U|Mr rnddude}}, thank you for your thorough and bold review, and also for your constructive approach. Yes, I confirm that the cited works of Barta, Felezeu, Keul and Szegedi were published in English. The other four cited sources (Granasztói, Horn, Markó and Szabó) were published in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case I can give an estimate of around 25%-33% of the article's claims being accessible to an English speaker, the rest being in Hungarian, this isn't perfect, but, it's far better than I initially thought. In this case, I'll try to access one or two of the Hungarian sources and confirm through machine translation (I have no chance translating Hungarian myself) that the claims in the article are as accurate as the ones that are based on sources written in English. I am aware that your native language is Hungarian, this is merely a check for Copyvios and WP:OR. Thanks for the response. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am pleased to announce that this article has passed the GA review. I will be updating the pages and also send you the notification, you've mentioned that the bot doesn't automatically do this for you, congratz and thanks for writing a fine article. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)