Talk:Stephen IV of Hungary/GA1

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 16:14, 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:
 * The sources are all offline, so I'm accepting them AGF. All are to reliable works published by a third party.
 * 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: Overall, the article is good. I have only a minor question that I feel should be resolved before the article is approved. See the section below.
 * Pass or Fail: I'm requesting a second opinion Passed.
 * 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: Overall, the article is good. I have only a minor question that I feel should be resolved before the article is approved. See the section below.
 * Pass or Fail: I'm requesting a second opinion Passed.
 * 1) Overall: Overall, the article is good. I have only a minor question that I feel should be resolved before the article is approved. See the section below.
 * Pass or Fail: I'm requesting a second opinion Passed.
 * Pass or Fail: I'm requesting a second opinion Passed.

Use of sic
In the quote from The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, the word "the" is duplicated, followed by "[sic?]". The question mark is what I'm unsure about - is it standard to use it in this case? I checked out WP:QUOTE, MOS:QUOTE, and Block quotation, and none of them addressed this. However, MOS:QUOTE says that trivial spelling and typographic issues can be corrected without comment, if doing so does not damage the textual integrity of the quote. I think that this instance would qualify, so I recommend just removing the extra "the" and the "[sic?]" comment.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , maybe you can help clarify here as to the best approach, since you added the comment?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The best solution for this would be for someone to access the source and check the quote. Failing that, I wouldn't object if the correction was declared to be trivial enough for the MOS:QUOTE rule to apply. I'm not consistent myself; sometimes I make the correction and sometimes I tag with [sic?]. The correction here should be from "the the" to "that the" to make the grammar of the sentence come right. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that might affect the textual integrity. Perhaps just remove the question mark? You or some other editor, such as, will have to make that edit, though. I can't per GA reviewing rules.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remark. I fixed the text in accordance with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks better now, but I want a second opinion on whether it's okay to correct the mistake, or keep sic without a question mark.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand. I fixed the problem in accordance with the cited source: there is no sic in the cited source and there was no "the the" text in the cited source either. Why do we need a sic? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the mistake was in the writing of the quote here on Wikipedia? Sorry, I didn't catch that. We're set, then.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 04:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)