Talk:Géza II of Hungary/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Borsoka, I apologize for the delay, but I've finally completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article. I find that it exceeds all the criteria outlined for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. It has been a pleasure to review another of your well crafted articles! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

West Virginian, thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Géza II, establishes Géza's necessary context, and explains why Géza is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the ship is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
• The image of Géza's royal seal is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• In the second paragraph of the lede, German–Hungarian should be rendered with the em dash in the center, as it is in the "Crusaders' march across Hungary" subsection.
  • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Early years

• In introducing Géza follow his birth, his father Béla II of Hungary is rendered as Béla the Blind. I wonder if it is possible to also include Béla's royal title at that point, as he was not yet crowned monarch of Hungary. This would give the reader notice that Géza was born to an heir apparent to the Hungarian throne.
  • Thank you. I preferred to write that Béla the Blind was a cousin of the ruling king, because around that time King Stephen II's nephew, Saul of Hungary was the official heir to the monarch. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• This may be too tangential for Géza's article, but would it hurt to also mention that Béla was blinded along with his father by his uncle Coloman? The would provide more familial context, since his father's blinding was committed within the family over a power play. This would also lay the groundwork for the later discussion of Coloman's wife Eufemia of Kiev.
  • Thank you. Expanded. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Does Arad refer to Arad, Romania? If so, it should be wiki-linked here.
  • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Reign
Minor king (1141–1146)

• The image of young Géza is released not the Public Domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• In the final sentence of the first paragraph, and in the final sentence of the second paragraph, the inline citations should appear in numerical order from left to right.
  • Thank you. Both modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Do we know what specific privileges young Géza bestows upon the citizens of Split?
  • I assume that their right to chose their magistrates was confirmed, but I do not know for sure. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• I would just briefly mention in the parentheses "present-day Bratislava, Slovakia." I would also do this with Lajta (Leitha, Austria).
  • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Crusaders' march across Hungary (1146–1147)

• The image of Conrad III of Germany has been released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Active foreign policy (1147–1155)

• I would wiki-link heterodox to Heterodoxy, as I had not heard of it before, and other readers may have not heard of this term either.
  • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• The image of Géza meeting King Louis VII of France has been released to the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here.
• I would wiki-link the first mention of Transylvania, which is in the fifth paragraph of this section.
  • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Last years (1155–1162)

• The image of Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here in this article.
• The last two sentences can probably be merged into one, but if a place for Géza's death can be named they can remain two sentences.
  • Thank you. We do not know the place for Géza's death. The two sentences were merged. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Family

• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Borsoka, thank you for addressing my comments in such a timely and thorough manner. I've re-reviewed the article and find that it is ready to be passed to Good Article status. I appreciate your continued contributions to Wikipedia, and it is always a privilege to review your latest work. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)