Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen II of Hungary

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen II of Hungary edit

(

)

... that Stephen II of Hungary (pictured) invaded Dalmatia while the Venetians were on a naval expedition, only to lose the territory when they returned?

ALT1:... that Stephen II of Hungary (pictured) had no "wish to marry a lawful wife but took to himself concubines and harlots" but was convinced by his advisors to marry anyway?
ALT2:... that during the last years of Stephen II of Hungary's reign (Stephen pictured), his subjects revolted because of his toleration of crimes committed against them by the "Comans"?

Improved to Good Article status by Borsoka (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC).

Article is well written, and well sourced. It is long enough and qualities since it became a good article. The hook also is sourced and interesting. Passed. I have no preference on the hook so I will let the promoter decide.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, did you check for neutrality and close paraphrasing issues (the "within policy" criteria listed above)? We have had DYK reviews that uncovered issues with articles in these areas despite their GA reviews, so a DYK reviewer needs to check them as well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot access copies of the sources used and some of them seem to be Hungarian so I can only assume good faith on the creator's part in terms of paraphrasing. The same reason also limits me from accessing the neutrality of the sources used. As for the neutrality in terms of the way it is written I can't detect any reasons why it would be non-neutral being that this is not a disputed subject or anything. Because of these limitations, I can only assume good faith on the part of the editor for those issues. Should someone else review this instead? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No need for a new reviewer; all that was wanted was an explicit note about those criteria: AGF is appropriate in offline source situations, as long as it's clear what the extent of it is. Thanks for you response; I'm removing my ? icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)