Talk:Louis I of Hungary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be giving this one a review over the next few days. Miyagawa (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review. I think this is an amazing article and I believe it really deserves this nomination. Also, Hungarian history is awesome. --Simboyd (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article is fully cited.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Taking good faith on all citations as they're offline (as well as some which are foreign language sources too).	Pass
(c) (original research)	As previous.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No issues here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No stability related issues.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No problem with any of the images.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No problems with the captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• General
  • Sorry about the delay with this review - I've completed a few basic checks and found that there are quite a few duplicated wikilinks within the document. The easiest way to find these is to use User:Ucucha/duplinks.
  • You also need to double check the citations in the article to correct the order in which they appear (as some of them don't appear numerically).

• Childhood and youth
  • "often delivered him on his shoulders" - can you clarify this? Are you referring to him getting rides on a knights shoulders? It is just that the him on his part lends confusion as to which one you're referring to.

To be honest, I took no part in writing this article and I'm not sure what is meant by that. It probably refers to the fact that the knight carried Luis on his shoulders.

• • "but he did not administer his province" perhaps "but he did not administer the province" instead?

I'll fix it.

• More to come. Miyagawa (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being so useless for all this time. I didn't really know all of this was my responsibility. Also, could you please clarify what you mean by "double-checking the citations for their order"? Are you saying they should be put in an incremental manner like this and not like this? --Simboyd (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's right. Miyagawa (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There, I think I rearranged all of them where it was necessary. --Simboyd (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)