Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth of Bosnia/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:09, 3 September 2012.

Elizabeth of Bosnia

 * Nominator(s): Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've been improving it step by step for three years now and, if nothing else, I'd like to be told what else should be done to improve it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Image licensing clear; I think that whether or not Croatia has freedom of panorama (and has a suitable definition of 3D or whatever), the plain text in File:Street of Elizabeth Kotromanic in Zadar.JPG would not attract copyright. Others certainly fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Check alphabetization of Bibliography
 * Kellog or Kellogg?
 * Missing bibliographic info for Jasienica
 * Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
 * Use endashes for ranges
 * Fine or Van Antwerp Fine?
 * No citations to Klaić, Labuda et al, Mosher Stuard, Opfell, Tomašević et al
 * Parsons: ISBN? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. There were no citations to the mentioned authors because I had revamped the article using other sources, so I removed them from bibliography. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "(see family tree)": I don't have a position, I just want to point this out. Normally, we avoid "see ..." at FAC; instead, a link is added to text that sounds natural in context, perhaps: "Both were descendants of Duke Casimir I of Kuyavia, related in the fourth degree ...". But I don't know of a prohibition on ever saying "see ..." at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "with France and Hungary recognising different popes, Clement VII and Urban VI respectively": with France recognising Clement VII as pope and Hungary recognising Urban VI. (Avoid "respectively" if it's easy to do so.)
 * "misestimated": not in several dictionaries I checked; try another word.
 * "toward/towards": consistency. BritEng has a slight preference for "-wards".
 * "but was neither talented nor qualified to prepare Mary and Hedwig for their roles as monarchs": I don't understand what "[not] talented ... to prepare" means.
 * "Crown of St. Stephen": consistency on the full stop/period after "St" - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Talented" means "politically talented", so I made that clear. I agree about the family tree link, actually, and that's how I intended to pipe it. However, I was not sure if it would be considered an Easter egg link. I'll gladly change it. I've corrected everything else. I hope it's better now. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) I enjoyed the article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment (still reviewing) - interesting topic, looks comprehensive and well-sourced at first glance. Reading through the first three sections showed some issues with clarity and essay-ish phrases, which seem to continue throughout the article. Comments for first half up until Marriage: I can do a check of the remaining sections during the next weekend and copy edit some minor points. GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead - "... and was her father's most significant achievement." ==> Several problems: Elizabeth, not her father, is the article focus; it's a quite strong, judging statement (source?) and it is not repeated in main text (lead is a summary, so all its statements need to be expanded on in the main text, or atleast repeated similarly).
 * "The royal couple [went on to have] two more children, Mary and Hedwig, while Catherine died in 1378..." ==> improve flow and clarity of timeline, maybe "The royal couple had two more children, Mary (b. 1371) and Hedwig (b. 1373 or 1374), but their eldest daughter, Catherine, died in 1378."
 * "When Louis [himself] died in 1382, [the elder surviving daughter,] Mary, ascended to the throne of Hungary, ..." ==>"When Ludwig died in 1382, Mary ascended to the throne of Hungary,..." (order of succession is already established in last sentence and "himself" is redundant).
 * Content of second lead para ==> you should add a few more details: who opposed? why? who were the "enemies" finally defeating her? Not the whole story is needed, but some more general background information to establish the context.
 * Descent ==> why are 1350 (2nd para) and 1349 (3rd para) events in reverse order?
 * "In 1350, Tsar Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia attacked Bosnia in order to regain [ ] Zachlumia." ==> not wrong, but adding "his former province" would add some clarity (maybe it's even worthwhile to mention, that the province was previously lost to Stephen II? Not sure about that.)
 * Marriage - "Louis married Elizabeth in Buda on 20 June 1353, hoping to defeat Tsar Dušan with her father's help [or as his successor]." ==> "or as his successor" is non-parallel and "his" is ambiguous. Maybe "either with her father's help or as his eventual successor to the Bosnian throne." to clarify the structure a bit.
 * "... [and became a new source of trouble.]" ==> too informal and adds nothing new (the reader already knows, that he beat Louis to the throne. If there was additional trouble (?), it should be specified in detail).
 * "In 1357, Louis [summoned] the young ban ..." ==> "Summoned" implies some kind of authority - would "invited" be more fitting?
 * "The new queen of Hungary subjected herself entirely to her controlling mother-in-law [and does not seem to have had her own court, as] her retinue included the same individuals who had served the queen mother. " ==> sounds speculative (and in editorial voice), the sentence would read better without the middle part.
 * "However, things suddenly took a different course ..." ==> Avoid terms like "however" or "also", when they are not really needed. When the contrast is already clear in its context, "however" is just filler. Maybe "This provisional arrangement ended, when the queen ...".
 * "Securing marriage to one of the princesses soon became a priority [of] European royal courts." ==> "in European royal courts".
 * "It appeared probable that the crowns would pass to one of Elizabeth's underage daughters and, by 1374, it became certain." ==> probable to whom? certain to whom? how did it became certain? The situation should not be analyzed by the article on its own, so a reliable source for this assessment needs to be attributed (if ref 21 covers this analysis aswell, please duplicate the ref behind the related statements).

Thanks, GermanJoe. The first issue had already been pointed out by another user so I guess it is a genuine problem. I'm removing the contentious claim altogether. The word "summoned" correctly implies authority, as Tvrtko and Stephen were vassals of Louis. As for her relationship with her mother-in-law, the latter part of the sentence ("her retinue included...") doesn't make sense if the lack of her own court isn't mentioned. Since presiding over a court was a privilege of queens consort that marked them as first ladies of the realm, I reworded it. I hope the impression of speculation is gone now. Ref 21 does cover the analysis as well, so I've duplicated it. It does not specify who found it probable or certain, most likely because it was the general feeling at the time - it was becoming less and less likely that the couple would have a son and Louis was paving the way for the accession of his daughters. Is it alright to leave it as it is or should it be reworded? I've fixed other issues. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All of my above points Done, thank you. I am not completely happy with the last point, but on the other hand i have no good idea to improve the description without going into too much detail. Dropping that minor point, unless someone else has a great idea. GermanJoe (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments (Poland-themed article, reviewing for WP:POLAND):
 * I would like to see her Hungarian and Polish names in lead.
 * I don't believe the article links to Poland. I think this should be remedied, presumably through the more correct link to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)
 * "until 1370, when Louis succeeded his maternal uncle, Casimir III the Great, as king of Poland". Polish Wikipedia lists a concrete date, 17 November, and names a specific treaty, red-linked "układ budziński". I think we should do the same, provided of course a proper reference, and an English name for the treaty (Treaty of Buda?).
 * Will continue shortly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Links to Poland and Hungary added. The problem with the names is that it wouldn't be only Hungarian and Polish names in the lead; the Bosnian name would have to be there as well. Since Bosnian language uses both Latin and Cyrilic script, that would mean four non-English versions of her name before explaining who she actually was, which is rather silly. Adding a footnote with her names would be much more convenient. As for the Treaty of Buda, I think "when Louis succeeded his maternal uncle" would be best - if there are sources that confirm the existence of such a treaty, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A footnote would be fine. Regarding the treaty of Buda, it is from 1355, also known as privilege of Buda. I see numerous sources for "Treaty of Buda" 1355 on GBooks so you should not have much trouble verifying this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the pipe " Vladislaus the Short" used instead of the article's name at Władysław I the Elbow-high? (also, Vladislaus is used later, so ensure consistency)
 * I think king of Poland is no ilinked on first use.
 * "the Polish nobles" should probably link to Polish nobility. Further, I think this is a bit too general of a term. Which nobles? I expect the sources should name them (the leaders of the faction).
 * "Palatine Nicholas I Garay led the movement". What movement? Did it have a name? Is it notable enough to warrant a link?
 * I am uneasy as upon closer reading I see the article often relies on end of the para references (ex. first para of Widowhood and regency).
 * There are three paragraphs that have a single source at the end; I assume that means that everything in the paragraph came from the source cited ... Am I right, Surtsicna? - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [Moved from below] Yes, Dank, that is correct. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If so, remedying this should be simple. Please copy the cites in question to the relevant sentences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussing at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "her regency in Poland was discontinued". In addition to this sentence being unreferenced, I am not very clear on this meaning, please explain (what does it mean discontinued, and by whom?).
 * "Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania". Grand Duke of Lithuania should be linked.
 * "Modern historians tend to describe...". Is this how the Parsons put it? Does he talk of other historians?
 * There doesn't seem to be a fixed consensus here; I can say that, when you get an objection which is more or less per WP:WEASEL, simply giving the name of the historian or historians generally makes everyone happy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two see also links. They should be incorporated into the text, I don't see why they couldn't be.
 * A final comment I have here is that the article may be suffering from avoidance of red links. For example, I see the mention of the Polish-Hungarian personal union, but it is not linked. Sure, it has no article on en wiki yet, but it has one on pl wiki: pl:Unia polsko-węgierska. For now, this and the Treaty of Buda seem to be the only red links that I can think off, but you may want to see if anything comes to mind. Red is good. (Stubbing, of course, is even better...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. "Vladislaus" is used because the source called him Vladislaus, and also for consistency with other Polish kings (Casimir and Louis) and his Bosnian namesake. The source does not name the nobles; in fact, I've just checked several others and all refer to either "Polish nobles" or "Polish lords". I can only assumes it refers to the szlachta as a political body. The movement is described earlier in the paragraph - "change in the personnel of the government". Thank you for pointing out the sentence about the regency in Poland; it was the only sentence that survived my revamping of the article. I've removed it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I struck issues that have been addressed. Waiting for the name note, and for replies on other issues. I believe that in the Polish context Vladislaus is wrong; please use the name that the article has. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm not sure this is right. We're talking about Vladislaus of Bosnia, right? If there's a different name or spelling in Polish articles, why not list both names at first occurrence, and if there is a second occurrence, go with whatever name is most appropriate for these sources and this article? - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, I have no objection to the spelling of VoB name. I mean Władysław I the Elbow-high and Władysław Jagiełło. I guess it would be ok to use those names only on the first instance; I'll leave it to the prose experts to figure out what's best - but I do think we need to use the correct name(s) at least once. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments (second half), section "marriage" and following:
 * Marriage - "Elizabeth is known to have written a book for the education of her daughters, a copy of which was sent to France in 1374." ==> Just curious, why a copy to France? Any known detail?
 * Widowhood - "John asked Tvrtko for help, but was ultimately defeated by Elizabeth's army and forced to flee to Bosnia." ==> Did Tvrtko agree to help or not? If he agreed and allied with John, what happened with Tvrtko after the defeat?
 * "The marriage would be celebrated in 1386." ==> more straightforward: "The marriage of Hedwig and Jogeila was celebrated in 1386." Also, the linked Hedwig article notes "March 1385" as her wedding date - which one is correct? (1386 sounds more likely, the marriage took place after the Union of Krevo).
 * ' 'Death and aftermath'' - "Charles's widow Margaret insisted that Elizabeth [be murdered]." ==> "be killed" (without trial) or "be executed" (after trial). "be murdered" would imply an unlawful killing. As there was some kind of back and forth rebellion going on, it's probably best not to take a side (unless reliable, neutral sources say otherwise of course) (NPOV).
 * Sigismund's rescue actions appear confusing, atleast for me: First he "intents to reach Novigrad and rescue the queens, [but his attempt failed]", then "news of Sigismund's approach reached Novigrad", then the text adds "At the moment of her death, Sigismund was on his way to rescue his wife and mother-in-law" ==> "but his attempt failed" should be stated near the end of this narrative to provide a chronological timeline (assuming all 3 statements relate to the same attempt).
 * image caption of assault: "Garay was slaughtered by the rebels ..." - do neutral sources speak of an especially brutal assault? Otherwise the caption should use "killed" (NPOV)
 * image caption part 2 "...and his head was sent to the queen of Naples." - out of curiosity, why? (probably shows, that i didn't get the whole picture yet).
 * Legacy - "Modern historians tend to describe Elizabeth as a formidable woman, ..." - "formidable" is ok as a summary judgement, but could be specified with more details of her character (if reliable sources provide such detail).
 * Family Tree ==> a brief footnote, why Mary and Hedwig are considered "kings" would be helpful for the layman. GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. As for the book, I am not sure why; it was sent the same year Elizabeth's eldest daughter was betrothed to the younger son of the King of France, so I suppose the engagement had something to do with it. I hope the outcome of John's rebellion is more clear now. 1386 is correct; I've corrected the other article. As for the heads, Grierson says that "their severed heads [were] sent to console Margaret". Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated some points, please comment on the remaining minor ones, when you got some time. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.