Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Andrew II of Hungary

 * ... that Andrew II of Hungary first wife Gertrude of Merania was assassinated in 1213 because of her affection for German kinsmen and courtiers?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Ridgway

Improved to Good Article status by Borsoka (talk). Nominated by Calvin999 (talk) at 09:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Comments, not a review -
 * The hook seems to come from the lead, which is inconsistent with body content:
 * The lead - "Andrew's first wife, Gertrude of Merania, was murdered in 1213, because her blatant favoritism towards her German kinsmen and courtiers stirred up discontent among the native lords."
 * "Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords."
 * Andrew is out of town and, "During his absence, Hungarian lords who were aggrieved at Queen Gertrude's favoritism towards her German entourage captured and murdered her and many of her courtiers in the Pilis Hills on 28 September." Exactly what was the favoritism of Gertrude towards her entourage? It's unclear why she was murdered, or who really doled out the favoritism goodies, Gertrude or Andrew. Everything, of course, is sourced offline.
 * , sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The context of the second quote from the article is the following: "Queen Gertrude's two brothers, Ekbert, Bishop of Bamberg, and Henry II, Margrave of Istria, fled to Hungary in 1208 after they were accused of participating in the murder of Philip, King of the Germans. Andrew granted large domains to Bishop Ekbert in the Szepesség region (now Spiš, Slovakia). Gertrude's youngest brother, Berthold, had been Archbishop of Kalocsa since 1206; he was made Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1209. Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords." The sovereign (=Andrew II) was in the position to make land grants to his wife's relatives. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to stick a tick at the bottom of this page to make sure someone knows a review is still needed, and that I've only commented. A DYK hook must be stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence in which it is stated.
 * The hook says she was murdered " because of her affection for German kinsmen and courtiers", which is not the same thing as her husband doling out favors.
 * The article's lead says she was murdered because of her "blatant favoritism" towards them, which also is not the same thing as her husband doling out favors. Nor is "favoritism" the same thing as "affection".   The word "blatant" does not seem NPOV, either.
 * The article needs to be consistent in its flow on why she was killed. What you have quoted above does not state her husband's motives were because of her "affection" or her "favoritism".
 * That having been said, I otherwise hold by my concerns about how the GA review was done, based on the GA review and the criteria linked below. I leave this up to a reviewer at DYK. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator of this DYK is also the editor who did the GA review. As far as I know, not a situation covered in the DYK rules and regulations. But I have serious issue with how the GA review was done. That review doesn't even skim the surface of the GA criteria.
 * Talk:Andrew II of Hungary/GA1
 * Good article criteria
 * I think the entire article needed a more thorough copy editing before passing GA. — Maile  (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Full review still needed. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a review.
 * A1 The article has been promoted to GA status. I'm not going to challenge this as that's a job for GA reassessment. ✅
 * A2 The article is plenty long enough. ✅
 * A3 The article seems reasonably compliant with policy though I'm having to take much of the factual content on trust, not being an expert on Hungarian history or speaking the language. ✅
 * H1 The format of the hook seems ok though it would be better if it were shorter. ✅
 * H2 The hook's accuracy is disputed. Apart from what is said above, please see Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary which states "The motives of the conspirators are obscure and have been over-interpreted in the light of national historiography and romantic xenophobia." and goes on to discuss the various accounts of the matter in detail.
 * , actually, the source cited above confirms the hook if we continue the citation: "The motives of the conspirators are obscure and have been over-interpreted in the light of national historiography and romantic xenophobia. Domestic and foreign chronicles, donation charters for those who remained true to the king and queen - and then, twenty years later King Béla's (Gertrud's son) against actions after his accession to the throne against the conspirators - offer bits and pieces of evidence. They talk about a group of magnates (according to some sources including the highest officer of the realm, the count palatine, Bánk, himself, who irritated by the queen's favoring her "German" relatives (among whom Berthold of Andechs became archbishop of Kalocsa) - attacked the encampent of Gertrude while her husband was waging war abroad, cruelly murdered her and cut her in pieces. It was a typical palace revolt by the highest dignitaries of the realm who felt bypassed by the king's and the queen's favorites." Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * O1 A QPQ was done though it took me a while to figure out that Aaron=Calvin999. ✅
 * O2 There isn't an image but there ought to be as there are plenty available for this topic.
 * So, more work on the hook is needed. The fact of the assassination should still make a good hook as it's a gory story in the style of Game of Thrones and Wolf Hall.  Perhaps the explanation might be hedged or qualified by attributing a particular source such as the chronicle of Henry of Mügeln? Symbol redirect vote 4.svg
 * Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As this is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, it would be topical to make this the basis for the hook. Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. — ₳aron  14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that Andrew II was forced to agree to a Magna Carta for Hungary – the Golden Bull (pictured)?
 * ??, sorry, I do not see any reference to the Magna Carta in the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of references to this out there and I have added a suitable sentence to the article. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Actually, I do not understand what is the meaning of the above hook, especially if the sentences from the article are taken into account: "they are commonly (?) compared, but they are not the same". Could we also say that "London is Berlin for the UK" or "the University of Oxford is the University of Bologna for the UK" or "The Thames is the Seine for the UK"? :) Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The source which was added to support the hook says, "Andrew was forced in 1222 to concede the Golden Bull, Hungary's Magna Carta." Such comparisons are sensible because this is the English Wikipedia and so our readership will tend to be familiar with such English precedents. Andrew D. (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed to check the hooks, since the previous reviewer proposed one of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Usually, though it is not very important to point out, I just think that the hook should seem interesting, regardless of the subject and finally it should be easy to understand. None of these criteria have been validated in both hooks. We need to find a better one.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)




 * ALT2 ... that Andrew II of Hungary (pictured) declared that "the best measure of a royal grant is its being immeasurable"?
 * ALT3 ... that Andrew II of Hungary (pictured) expelled the Teutonic Knights by force from his kingdom in 1225?
 * ALT4 ... that Andrew II of Hungary (pictured) was still alive when his younger daughter, Elizabeth, was canonized?
 * ALT5 ... that Andrew II of Hungary (pictured) employed Jews and Muslims to administer royal revenues, which brought him into conflict with the Holy See? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check newly proposed hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With ALT5, it is good to go. Symbol confirmed.svg  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)