Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kpalion (talk · contribs) 11:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing the article. Looks very well after the first reading. Specific comments coming soon! — Kpalion(talk) 11:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Please let me know on this page if any action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An interesting and well-written article with ample citations. I have no access to the sources so assuming good faith. Some issues need to be addressed, though, especially regarding neutrality, clarity and breadth of coverage. If there are any suggestions you don't agree with, please discuss. — Kpalion(talk) 12:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Please settle on one variety of English. For now, the date format is British (day, month), but the word traveling follows U.S. spelling.
 * First of all, thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review. I highly appreciate your hard work. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot differentiate the several varieties of English, but I changed the word "traveling" . Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The  (now  in Romania) pattern is quite repetitive. Perhaps it could be avoided by stating at the beginning of the "Background" section that Transylvania was a geographic region in the Kingdom of Hungary that now lies entirely in Romania. And then explain that historical Hungarian (or German) place names will be followed by their modern Romanian equivalents in parentheses. This way, you could just write  () throughout the article.
 * Thank you. Changed . Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some fragments are not clear to me:
 * Union of the Three Nations: The representatives of the noblemen, Székelys and Saxons had never held a joint assembly without the authorization of the monarch. Does it mean that this was the first time they met without royal authorization?
 * Thank you. Changed . Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Last phase: There is no evidence of the appointment of the delegates or their departure for Prague. When introducing Sigismund of Luxemburg, it might be good to add that he was also an emperor and a king of Bohemia. Otherwise, the reader may be wondering what a king of Hungary was supposed to be doing in Prague.
 * Thank you. Changed . Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Please make sure that the capitalization of official titles (such as "king", "bishop" or "voivode") conforms to MOS:JOBTITLES. For example: John had been declared an Antipope → John had been declared an antipope.
 * Thank you. Changed . Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've caught a few more. — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig OK
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article has left me with some questions unanswered. If the rebels had won the battle of Dés, then why did they agree to a new compromise that was less beneficial to them than the previous one? The "Aftermath' section is particularly skimpy. What was the final result of the revolt for the peasants? Did they get to keep at least some of the concessions or did they fall back to status quo ante?
 * Thank you. Expanded . I need some more time to work on the "Aftermath" section. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now. Thank you. One small comment here, though: perhaps it would be good to briefly introduce Stephen Báthory, especially that he can be easily confused with the Polish king. — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. His office (judge royal) added.
 * ✅ — Kpalion(talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * The "Background" section is very helpful.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Please address the issue of Vlach nomadism raised at Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt has provided criticism and sources, which should not be ignored (if you believe these sources are not reliable, please explain why). Also, if there are historians who discuss the revolt in ethnic terms, then this should also be covered by the article.
 * I am pretty sure that Transylvanian presents fringe theories as mainstream scholarly views., could you quote texts showing that the revolt is discussed in ethnic terms in reliable sources? Could you also quote texts showing that there are historians who say that the shepherds only formed a minority group among the Vlachs in 15th-century Transylvania? Thank you for your cooperation. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Transylvanian has not responsed, but the article now discusses the ethnic issue (or lack thereof). — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some section titles ("Bishop Lépes's greed", "Victory and compromise") clearly reflect the rebels' point of view. Please change them to something more neutral.
 * Thank you. Changed Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The stained glass looks quite modern. Is it certain that it is not protected by copyright (note that the photograph in this case is a derivative work).
 * ❌. The copyright status is still not clear to me. It seems that Commons:User:Țetcu Mircea Rareș is the author of the photograph, but not the author of the stained glass. Per Commons:2D copying, a photograph of a 2-dimensional work of art "does not generate any new copyright because the resulting work is defined entirely by the original work; there is no creative input. Therefore, authors who create 2D copies are not entitled to copyright for these works, and the copyright of the original work applies." So either we can ascertain that the stained glass is in public domain (although this is not obvious to me) and then the photograph is also in the public domain or it's copyrighted and the photograph should be deleted. In any case, I still can't see much relevance of this image to the article. — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I opted to delete the picture . Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Kpalion(talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * How relevant are the illustrations of Alba Iulia, which is not even mentioned in the article?
 * Thank you. I expanded the caption . Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

, thank you for the changes made so far. I will put the nomination on hold for two weeks to let you expand the Aftermath section and resolve the copyright status of the stained-glass photograph. And, possibly, to get a response from Transylvanian. If you're done sooner or wish to extend the on-hold period, please let me know. — Kpalion(talk) 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I expanded the "Aftermath" section of the article . I think the copyright status of the stained glass photograph is clear . Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

, thanks for addressing my comments. There are still two minor issues, but once they're sorted out, it's good to go. — Kpalion(talk) 16:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , again thank you for your review. I hope I fixed both issues. Please let me know if further actions are needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you,, and congratulations! This is a good article. — Kpalion(talk) 10:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your comprehensive review and support. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)