Talk:Zoltán of Hungary/GA1

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:
 * Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
 * If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
 * Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Commentary
We meet again, ! I look forward to another interesting article about an ancient Hungarian! I have a few comments off-the-bat and will then fill in my assessment:
 * Use of in-text sources would be improved by wikilinking (if possible) and stating the title of the person to provide some context. For example, "For instance, Gyula Kristó " could be written as "For instance, historian Gyula Kristó ..."
 * Thanks. Added (?). Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is confidently stated in the lead "Zoltán is the forefather of all monarchs of Hungary from the House of Árpád after around 955.", but is right next to the sentence disputing that he reigned at all. How do I reconcile these facts?
 * Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm still not entirely clear. So there are several sources documenting Zoltan as the father of Arpad, but he was not necessarily the monarch of Hungary. Is that an accurate summation? I feel this statement may need a source and/or a change for clarity. --LT910001 (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there are several sources proving that almost all Hungarian monarchs from the Árpád dynasty were his descendants, and he himself was Árpád's son. The last section under the title "Modern historians' views" may clarify these issues properly. Borsoka (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to ask whether the writer was anonymous (adjective), or had the nom-de-plume "Anonymous"
 * Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel this article could be improved by separating into two sections: Life, and Historiographical analysis (or something similar), to separate the claimed story about his life, and the later analysis.
 * Thanks. Separated (properly?). Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Would conclude by thanking you again for your edits to Wikipedia in this sphere, these articles are thoroughly interesting and I hope you continue in this light!
 * Thank you for your kind words. I hope we keep on working together in improving many more articles. Merry Christmas (or happy next days)! Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you as well! --LT910001 (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have completed the assessment table above and await your comments. As it is the festive season in many countries, please do not feel rushed, and I am happy to wait several days. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One more thing: --LT910001 (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Whether Menumorut is an actual or an invented person is debated by modern scholars." needs a citation
 * Thanks. References added. Borsoka (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
I've made a minor alteration to the lead, and I hope that's ok. You have addressed all my concerns, and I feel this article meets or exceeds all the GA criteria. Well done on creating a another thoroughly interesting article. I have made all the relevant changes. Best wishes on your wiki-travels, --LT910001 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)