Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC).

List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary

 * Nominator(s): Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hungary has 8 WHS and 11 sites on the tentatative list. The style is following the WHS lists that have been promoted so far. Since Greece and Cypruss are seeing good support so far, I am nominating a new list. Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to be a party pooper, but I've been told in the past (by the FL director) that an editor shouldn't have three FLCs open at one time, so it might be best to wait until either Cyprus or Greece has been promoted........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've had three open if the other two had a strong support (which I interpret they have at the moment). But if this is a problem, this one can be put on stand-by. --Tone 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need "As of 2021", this isn't something rapidly going out of date.
 * Budapest row has an extra column
 * "within the Hungarian nation" is really weird, "of the Hungarian people" or something reads better. You're paraphrasing too closely to the source again.
 * "erected to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary in 896" is lifted straight from the source without even paraphrase. Please write everything in your own voice.
 * "The Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century" again just copied.
 * Esztergom should have a description even if the UNESCO site doesn't
 * The external link should have (in Hungarian) after the link
 * Reywas92Talk 02:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I'm done. I'd leave "as of 2021", since nominations at least are updated rather often in some cases, and new sites are added every year (not to every country, of course). Are you using some tool to find paraphrasings too close? I know there used to be one, that would be helpful in future. Thank you for the review! --Tone 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I can just tell when the wording doesn't sound as natural like the above ("thousandth") and ctrl-F on the unesco site. There were others I found but these were the longest that needed to be changed. Noticing in your edit that Esztergom has been rolled into the newer Royal Seats nomination, I'm guessing it could just be deleted. I'm wondering if the Hungarian cultural office has its own site like / that has its own list rather than all sources being only to UNESCO. Anyway, Support, and a review at Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated if you have a chance. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Well, sometimes the old nominations are removed by the committee and sometimes they persist. There does not seem to be a strict rule. But, as long they are listed on the UNESCO site, they should be here as well... I will have a look at the list you mention. --Tone 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Works for me, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Spaced hyphens in refs 23, 24 and in the "Komárno - Komárom*" title, should all be en-dashes.
 * You link "Buda Castle" in "Buda Castle Quarter" in the title of the site and then in the description you don't link castle but link the quarter, despite mentioning the castle first. I would link the quarter in the title and the castle itself in the description.
 * Where's the Metro Line M1 mentioned in the source?
 * "Counties" no reason for that to be capitalised.
 * "landscape.The " space before The.
 * "Several 18th and 19th-century" I would have "18th- and 19th-century" here.
 * Don't link empty cells, put a centred em-dash for sites with no images in the image column.
 * "The largest ... the largest..." repetitive prose.
 * Could find a link for stud farm.
 * Fixed, thanks! As for the dashes in the empty figures, in lists such as Cyprus I am not using anything. I'd like to be consistent on that. --Tone 09:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * You link the second use of 'Buda Castle'.
 * Fixed.
 * I cannot see in the citation where it says that Buda Castle was the residence of Hungarian monarchs.
 * Removed, this is indeed not directly stated.
 * The only dates in the Budapest description are in the 19th century. I think you should give the age of the sites.
 * I added some. The architecture styles also indicate the age, indirectly.
 * Perhaps worth quoting that Budapest is "one of the world's outstanding urban landscapes"?
 * I somehow suspect that another reviewer will call this "tourist brochure talk" ;)
 * "the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary". By who?
 * Rewritten, does it makes sense now? I didn't want to write "Hungarian conquest of Hungary", that is just superflouos.
 * That is OK, but how about "Magyar conquest ofHungary"?
 * I was considering it but Hungary got its name only afterwards, after Hungarians, so that's still not perfect.


 * "the area has no permanent residents". The citation says "almost no permanent residents"
 * Fixed.
 * "Several 18th- and 19th-century villages and castles" The citation does not mention castles. It says 12 and 13C towns and villages and 18 and 19C palaces.
 * I actually copied that from the description in Austria's list. Good that you spotted it, I will fix it there as well. Not sure how this happened.
 * "Tokaj Wine Region, which was formally established in 1737 by Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor". Perhaps worth saying that wine production is documented back to 1561.
 * Sounds good, added.
 * "It contains the remains of a shallow sea from the Miocene epoch." This is wrong. The Miocene started 23 million years ago and the citation says the sea dates to 24 million years ago.
 * Good point, I added "mostly" since 23-19 MA is Miocene. Neogene starts together with Neogene, if I wanted to cover broader I'd have to write Paleogene and Neogene, which is very broad. Makes sense?
 * I am still not sure it is correct. The source says 24 million years old, not starting then and continuing into the Miocene. Why not just say 24 million years old?
 * The way I read the reference is that the sediments were piling up from 24 MA to 19 MA when they were covered following a volcanic eruption. So it is not only 24, it is the entire period.
 * The expert report at says 24 to 21 mya. The Oligocene was from 34 to 23 mya and the Miocene from 23 to 5 mya, so how about "late Oligocene and early Miocene"? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that. Great :)


 * "Hungarian architect Ödön Lechner". Is there a reason the link is here and not in the first mention in 'Site'?
 * Where there is no dedicated article (such as The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier), I try to link the geographic article in the site, but here it is a person. Not sure if this is the best reasoning.
 * "in the 17th and 18th centuries, following the 150-year Ottoman reign". This is odd on several counts. Ottoman rule is not mentioned in the citation, it only covered part of Hungary, and it ended in 1699 so some of the towers were built during Ottoman rule.
 * It mentions the Ottomans (Turks) but I agree, the whole sentence is confusing. I rewrote that part, in a more extensive manner.
 * This is an interesting article, but checking a few points shows up several errors. I think it needs a thorough source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm through. Thank you for a detailed review, as always! --Tone 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Formatting
 * Assuming ref 10 should have a date like ref 7


 * Reliability
 * No issues here. All refs are from the UNESCO website—which is standard with UNESCO lists; Dorling Kindersley is a reputable publisher


 * Verifiability
 * Need a page number for ref 21 Aza24 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could I ask for a your opinion here? This reference is copied from the stud farm article, AGF, in order to justify the wikilnk the Furioso-North Star, since the UNESCO reference only mentions the Mezohegyes halfbred. I could use the reference from that article, Reddick, Kate. Horses. New York, Ridge Press, 1976, p. 64., but that one is missing ISBN. I found a bunch of horse-related websites but I am not sure which one could be considered as reliable here. I fixed the ref 10 date. --Tone 08:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (I moved your comment below where I'm assuming you meant to respond) Tone, I search in the google book, can you tell if are either of these two pages the right one from the snippet preview(s)? Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, perfect, thanks :) --Tone 09:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note: the tables in this list did not meet WP:ACCESS requirements. Specifically: the table should have a caption (e.g. |+ caption) for screen reading software to detect, which can be inside of an sronly template if it would duplicate the section header. I've gone ahead and done it for you here (it's a relatively recent requirement, and not always enforced as it should be), but please keep it in mind for future lists

Promoting. -- Pres N  19:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


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