Template:Did you know nominations/Maria of Bosnia


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maria of Bosnia

 * ... that, if King Louis I of Hungary is to be trusted, his in-law Maria of Bosnia had children in her fifties and lived to be over 90?


 * ALT1: ... that the higher rank and wastefulness of Maria of Bosnia has traditionally been blamed for the downfall of her husband's House of Helfenstein?
 * Reviewed: Paul-Édouard Delabrièrre

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 11:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Now, that said, it's my understanding, per what Rule D12 actually says, that a single source is insufficient for a biography of a living person who might sue or be damaged by inappropriate treatment. D12 has nothing whatsoever to do with notability, but countesses count anyway and she's plenty notable—as noted—in German. The lack of English information is just a side effect of some WP:BIAS. There's no problem here. Genealogy websites, on the other hand, are not in any way, shape, or form a reliable source. Per The Almightey Drill, this should be good to go but leave me a note on my talk page if you need another set of eyes first. — Llywelyn II   09:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg New enough and long enough. AGF on offline source in a language that I do not know (just a query: Why is the title of this book initially in German and then in Bosnian?). Article is well sourced, including on the hooks, although only having one source (page numbers/quotations for each inline would help, but not essential for being on DYK). QPQ done. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The first hook is great, but the article is sourced to only one source, which could lead to a question of notability. Isn't anything more written about her? Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is much more but in German, which I don't speak. If I understand correctly, a single source is far from ideal but not an insurmountable issue. Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding, per Rule D12, that a single source may be sufficient for an obscure topic such as an extinct species, but not for a biography. Perhaps you could get some help from a German editor? Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would contend that a 15th century countess is a rather obscure topic as well. An English language genealogy website (generally considered reputable) has some info about her. Would that help? The cited source is the only comprehensive biography of the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of online searches, and I see your dilemma. However, since you have most of her biography down, I think you should access one or two of those German sources using Google Translate, to add a few more cites. The genealogy website doesn't look like a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoninah (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - have you managed to get any further with this? Prioryman (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Side note: there's rather more sources when you look for . Additional note: you can also go by WP:RD/H and beg for some help with the German.


 * Symbol question.svg What kind of source is being used here? This looks like a thesis. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost, it's a conference paper. The source (in Bosnian, with an English abstract and summary) can be found here. Fuebaey (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And did the conference paper go through peer review? WP:SCHOLARSHIP emphasises the need for peer review for a source to be reliable. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just an innocent bystander here, but according to these guidelines from the publication's website (and Google Translate) it does appear that submissions are peer reviewed. The article seems to have been initially presented at a university department roundtable but later published in this journal. Nsteffel (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been terribly busy lately, but I am not sure I have much to add anyway. If the source is deemed reliable, and DYK rules do not require more sources in this case, the situation is as simple as it can be. If it is necessary to add aditional (German-language) citations verifying basic facts such as her existance/name, country of origin, name of her husband, possibly year of death, I suppose can do that despite not speaking German. I honestly do not see the point of using redundant lower grade sources other than to formally satisfy a requirement. The article does not have the potential to reach GA status, but it is DYK material. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that if someone died over 600 years ago but is still being written about, they are clearly notable. The thesis also refers to a 16th century historian who studied her. However, I would want a clear description of the (one) currently cited source before this nom went any further (i.e. if it was published in an academic journal then what, where, when?). The ALT1 hook seems far better, less ambiguous and more interesting. Sionk (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Surtsicna you can add these sources which I found. that ought to take care of the sourcing problem. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Maria giving away an urban altar
 * 2) her death and supposed burial
 * 3) a little bit of information on her
 * 4) page 13 mentions her as the sister of stephen I am not sure how reliable this "source is btw"
 * 5) about her dowry and the nugget of information that the king may have been the matchmaker in the wedding
 * 6) Furthermore "Maria von Bosnien: bosanska vojvotkinja - njemačka grofica" gives a lot of sources which can be reused if we search for them, but that will require some commitment.
 * Thanks a lot, FreeatlastChitchat! The last source is the one used in the article, and yes, it took some commitment. It is the only used source, which led Yoninah to wonder whether that might lead to a question of notability. Sionk argued that this one biography is sufficient to establish notability. DYK rules apparently do not require more than one source in this case. The sources you suggest are mainly from the 19th century, some up to 175 years old. The one mentioning her death (from 1839) clashes with the 2014 paper, as they give different dates (not related to the Old Style and New Style dates issue). I have no idea how to incorporate an 1839 casual mention of this woman alongside a full biography from 2014; it is bound to look absurd. I have expanded the reference per Sionk's suggestion, however. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is good to go. We should use the highest quality sources, not the ones that pad out the bibliography the most. In any case, several additional sources have now been added to the article. SpinningSpark 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)