Talk:Matthias Corvinus/GA1

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Only two sources are available online, and one of those is in Hungarian, a language that I don't know. The other, offline works are reliable works published through third-party sources, as are the two sources with online availability.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Several images had some blank parameters and so didn't explain why they can be used in the US, but I went ahead and fixed those, as that was a minor issue.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passed. Good job!
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Several images had some blank parameters and so didn't explain why they can be used in the US, but I went ahead and fixed those, as that was a minor issue.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passed. Good job!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passed. Good job!

Retroactive feedback
was concerned that I quick-passed this article because I left very little in the way of feedback. They have allowed me to supply this feedback retroactively.


 * Sourcing - My above comments about the sourcing are rather vague. I commented that most are offline, and one of the two online sources is in Hungarian. I am excepting all of those sources AGF. As they all are reliable, and the usage in the article is meticulous, I am assuming that the editor has taken the time to ensure that all of the citations are correct. I also am AGFing the issue of copy-vio, as none of the content of the article looks like it has been lifted directly from an academic work.


 * Prose - the prose looks fine to me. When I passed that article, the lead had a sentence which said that Hungary was the first nation outside Italy to "adopt" the Renaissance. I saw no problem with that usage, thinking that it was merely a stylistic device, but another editor challenged the usage of that word, arguing that it did not grammatically work. So, I went ahead and changed that word based on their feedback. It now reads "embrace", which is a word used in at least one reliable source (the source might not be used in this article, but it is verifiable, and the term reflects the cited material in this article). I feel that I should mention this incident as I am retroactively supplying feedback.


 * Scope, balance, and neutrality - I can't find any problems with balance or neutrality, and the scope of the article is both focused on the subject, but adequately provides context for the subject and its role in history.


 * Images - Images are useful and instructive, relevant to the subject. As noted above in my initial comments, there were a few images with technical issues with the permission templates, but this issue had no bearing on their copyright status.


 * Overall, a good article. I've worked with in the past on their GA nominations, and I look forward to doing so in the future.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 01:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , I'm pinging you again just to make sure that you see this additional feedback. I don't see any problems with the article, but I want you to see the review. Thanks, -- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your review. I agree that the new wording is better. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)