Wikipedia:Peer review/Maurice, Count de Benyovszky/archive1

Maurice, Count de Benyovszky
I've listed this article for peer review because of the large rewrite has recently contributed. Although I entirely appreciate MurdoMondane's interest in the subject of which I know very little, I must note that compared to what the article looked like before the present revision looks in desperate need of a cleanup. Any thoughts?

Thanks, --Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Colleague - a correction to your note above: the previous version is not here (as cited):what the article looked like before; but here: what the article looked like before I rewrote it. That version was full of unverified claims, factual inaccuracies and frankly irrelevant information about his ancestors; and was the subject of many pointless talk arguments about how one spells his name. My rewrite was an attempt to cut through opinion and nationalism to the facts. I will be interested to learn about this "desperate need of a cleanup", though? Your only comment so far is about the lead-section, which I have asked you to talk to me about...

MurdoMondane (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that you have improved the content of the article. It's just the way the content is presented that I find rather messy.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Nev&eacute; OK, understood. Let's see what the peer-review comes back with, then. Thanks

MurdoMondane (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My main thought is that for this to improve in class (to WP:GA and so on) it needs more inline citations. As for specific issues, I don't have time to check, fact by fact, what was removed/added, but I will start a discussion on talk about proper name and in-lead nationality attribution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask where we've got to on the review? It is 2 months since it was raised, and 1 month since Piotrus agreed to look. Since then, we have had a discussion about name, nobility and nationality - although I'm not sure where that took us; and someone has cut down the size of the lead paragraph, which was originally a cause for concern. But is there more work to be done? Piotrus suggested "more inline citations", which I would be happy to supply if suitable [citation needed] markers were inserted. Or is it now time to remove the Peer-Review label from the article? Can we discuss? --- MurdoMondane (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't bombard articles with cite tags, as it is seen as not friendly, but rule of thumb is that each fact should be cited. Each paragraph should end with an inline cite if it is based on one source, if numerous sources were compiled for a paragraph, each sentence should have its own individual citation. Once this is done, you can apply for WP:GAN review where you'll receive more feedback. Applying to GAN with insufficient cites may result in a simple review asking for more inline citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have inserted another 20 or so citations, which I hope will meet with satisfaction? Can you perhaps have a look and advise? You suggest applying for WP:GAN review - is this a necessary part of a peer-review, or is it simply a suggestion? If the former, when can we close the peer-review?

I note with a mixture of amusement and despair that the Slovak and Hungarian camps are still in an edit-war over the nationality question in the very first sentence of the article - and we haven't even introduced the Polish connection! I do not think we will ever resolve that one. Which is why I originally suggested removing the nationality...MurdoMondane (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --Nev&eacute;–selbert 03:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)