Talk:Voivode of Transylvania/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix, and then begin the criteria checklist when some or all of those points have been addressed. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
This looks like a very solid article with impressively thorough research. I'll do some checking later for the broadness criterion, but I can't imagine there's much I'll be able to add here.

I did some minor copyediting as I went, so please double-check me to be sure I haven't accidentally changed the meaning or introduced errors. I won't be offended if you revert some of it.

A few minor points:
 * Is it necessary to italicize voivode? It appears in English-language dictionaries as a word without the italicization:, . (It's even a word in Scrabble: .) "vice-voivode" and "voivodeship" are particularly confusing in making it appear to be a blend of English and non-English in a single word. My own preference would be to not italicize it, but if the article is going to make this a rule, it should also be capitalized in the title and first sentence. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The wikilink for "jurors" appears to go to the wrong term (members of a jury); "jurist" seems closer to the meaning here ("the word "jurist" can technically be applied to anyone having a thorough knowledge of law").
 * " they held their courts " -- is the "they" here the voivodes, or the voivodes and jurors together?
 * " In the following period, even the existence of "voivodal dynasties" (Ioan-Aurel Pop) can be proposed" -- the "can be proposed" feels a little odd here. Would you object to rewriting the sentence as "Ioan-Aurel Pop characterizes the following period as including "voidvodal dynasties":"?
 * "brothers of Count Peter Szentgyörgyi (1498–1510);" --different start date than his entry in the table -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * " royal authority in Transylvania was only restored by Thomas Szécsényi in the 1320s" -- should the footnote for this go to page 144 instead of 133? Just spotchecking a few sources.


 * Dear Khazar2, thank you for your review. I agree with all your above suggestion (so I hope I succeeded in implementing them). The last one is the only exception: I think page 133 is the proper reference. Please double cheque it. Thanks again. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't see p. 133 in the Google Books preview; I just saw similar content on 144 and wanted to double-check. So don't worry about that one. Thanks for your quick responses, particularly in the de-italicizing, which I know was a chore. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)