Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive2

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)
I've listed this article for peer review because because its neutrality should be checqued before its GAN. The previous peer review only concentrated on a minor aspect of the article.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from Calvin999
 * The Kingdom of Hungary, a country in Central Europe, → This kind of sounds like it still exists
 * came into being → came into existence
 * urban lifestyle, habits and urban culture → Remove the second 'urban'
 * was affected by several cultural trends. → Sounds like it was a bad thing?
 * buildings, and literary works → Remove comma
 * the culture, but Orthodox, and even non-Christian ethnic minority communities also existed. → There's something about this sentence which doesn't sound right. It reads a bit awkward. I think it's the usage of the comma's and 'but'
 * number of tongues, → Is this encyclopaedic phrasing?
 * powerful magnates. → Wikilink magnate
 * After his death a period of interregnum interrupted royal power in the early 14th century. → What do you mean by this?
 * All the same, → Remove
 * prove that the Hungarians' way of life underwent fundamental changes in Central Europe. → Doesn't make sense.
 * middle of the 10th century. → mid 10th century.
 * December 25, 1000 → Comma after 1000 (Should American date formatting be being used? Or British?)
 * He prescribed that every ten villages were → He prescribed that every tenth village established was
 * Communers → Commoners
 * From legal perspective, → From a legal perspective,
 * freemen and serfs → Any Wikilinkage available?
 * but intermediate categories also existed. → I wouldn't use 'categories'. Perhaps 'groups' or 'classes'?
 * Last Árpáds (1242–1301) → I don't think there needs to be so many short paragraphs. I think some can be merged to make one paragraph. It's a bit of a style thing but try and make them the same size, it looks a lot more concise and professional.
 * I think the 'Aftermath' section is a bit brief and short.

Article wide, I think the basics are here for a good article. I just think it needs polishing and tidying up a bit. I think it reads a bit conversational and not encyclopaedic enough at times, a bit informal. The prose needs to be tighter than what it is now. I've given a few examples where 5 words are better than 10, for example. I think some more but brief info about what happened post 1301 is needed just so that a complete timeline is present of what happened before, during and after; it ends rather abruptly with just one sentence about the young pretender in 1301 then a few sentences for Aftermath. It doesn't need loads more, but I'd say one, perhaps two, decent sized paragraphs so that a complete overview is there for the reader. Ping me with any questions. — Calvin999 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of them and I will change the text in the next few days. I will ping you after I finished my homework. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I made several changes in the article based on your comments. I would highly appreciate if you could dedicate some time to checque them. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)