Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hungarian nobility/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2023 [1].

Hungarian nobility edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a privileged group of people in the Kingdom of Hungary. Between c. 1000 and 1944, mainly noblemen were appointed to the highest offices in the kingdom but the Hungarian aristocrats never formed a uniform class. The wealthiest noblemen held more than one-third of all lands in the kingdom, but tens of thousands of peasant-nobles had no more than a single plot. Furthermore, there was a sharp legal distinction between "true nobles" and "conditional nobles" (such as the "nobles of the Church"). Although nobility was officially abolished in Hungary in 1947, Hungarian noble families still live in Hungary and the neighboring countries. I highly appreciate all comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Unlimitedlead edit

Saving my place here. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "especially their tax-exemption and the limitation of their military obligations": I think this phrase can go without "their".
  • Done.
  • "Louis I of Hungary introduced...": Seeing as this entire article is about Hungary, I think "of Hungary" is superfluous.
  • Done.
  • "Actually" is a strange word to use. I would delete it for better prose.
  • Done.
  • "The monarchs granted hereditary titles and the poorest nobles lost their tax-exemption from the middle of the 15th century" Two seemingly unrelated topics. Can you either split the sentence or rephrase it?
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka Have you seen these? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did (and I thanked them to you :)). I think I addressed all of them ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither of these two theories are universally accepted" If these theories are not accepted, then the preceding sentence(s) should read something like "According to some scholarly theories".
  • Done.
  • I find it strange that Constantine VII is referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus. I am aware that it is a common name, but I still find it odd.
  • Done. (Although, according to my experiences, he is mainly referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus when his works are mentioned.)
  • Can we use a death template in place of the (d. 959)?
  • Sorry, I do not know that template.
  • Carrying on with that point about Porphyrogenitus, I do not believe Porphyrogenitus can be considered a surname. As such, if you keep on referring to Constantine as such, I would suggest sticking with Constantine.
  • Alternative solution.
  • "...two centuries later literary sources mention tents still in use" You have not states previously that tents were used.
  • Rephrased.
  • In addition to saying when the Gesta Hungarorum was compiled, I would also briefly say that it was.
  • Done.
  • Personally, I find that the Origins section does not actually discuss much about the Hungarians' origins. A good majority of the section is about other information, such as lodgings and burial practices. As such, I would find another place to move that to or simply create a subsection.
  • The section is not about the origin of the Hungarians, but about the origin of the Hungarian nobility. Consequently, the section adds information about the Magyar leaders and their way of life before the establishment of the feudal kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Actually, as Martyn Rady noted..." The use of "actually" here is too POV/colloquial for my liking. Additionally, the usage of "although" could suggest a contrasting idea, which is not the case here.
  • Done.
  • "Heavy cavalry" linked.
  • "...which enabled their integration" Was this a gradual or more rapid process?
  • Done.
  • Introduce Otto Győr; his sudden mention is of no significance to a casual reader.
  • Done.
  • "Unfree peasants cultivated..." The usage of "unfree" is strange to me. Perhaps a synonym could be found; but when I think of unfree peasants, I think of serfs or indentured laborers. Is this what the article is referring to?
  • Done.
  • " Light-armored horsemen": "Light-armored" or Lightly-armored"?

More to follow. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • What is the relevance of note 3?
  • It mentions two noblemen who built stone castles. I think it is relevant.
  • "During the following decades..." I suggest replacing "During" with "In".
  • Done.
  • "Historian Erik Fügedi" --> "The historian Erik Fügedi"
  • Done.
  • The article uses "demesne", but then occasionally refers to them as "domains".
  • Now demesne is used when the royal demesne is mentioned.
  • "This first Diet (or parliament) declared the monarch to be of age" How old was he at this time? And do we know the reaons behind the decision to declare the King to be of age?
  • Done.
  • "The monarchs could not appoint and dismiss their officials at will any more" --> "The monarchs could not appoint and dismiss their officials at will anymore"
  • Done.
  • In 1328, all landowners were authorized to administer justice on their estates "in all cases except cases of theft, robbery, assault or arson": What about the latter crimes? How were such criminals dealt with?
  • Done.
  • "Ladislaus the Posthumous was crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary, but the Diet proclaimed the coronation invalid." On what grounds?
  • Done.
  • "Most noblemen adhered to Lutheranism... converted to Catholicism in Royal Hungary in the 1630s" What religion did all these people practice prior to the Reformation?
  • Their ancestors were Catholic.
  • "reconquered territories": "reconquered" or "regained"? The article did not convey to me that these lands were acquired by military force.
  • Clarified.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • "%" --> "percent"
  • Done.
  • Latin is linked towards the end of the Cooperation, absolutism and reforms section but is mentioned earlier.
  • Done.
  • Shouldn't Template:Noble kindreds in the Kingdom of Hungary go at the end of the article?
  • Done.
  • The title of Lukačka (2011) should be capitalized.
  • Done.
  • Ditto with Fügedi (1986b)
  • Done.

That's all from me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your meticulous and comprehensive review. Please let me know if any more changes are needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That will be all from me; I will support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Maps are illegible at current size, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • I resized them. Sorry, I do not understand and do not want to understand MOS:COLOUR because I cannot edit maps, pictures, etc. Do you still suggest that any of the two maps should be deleted?
  • Thank you for your suggestion. I requested help. Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HetVezer-ChroniconPictum.jpg: source link is inaccessible
  • Changed.
  • File:Hungary_13th_cent.png is tagged for factual accuracy and the source appears questionable - it seems to have copied the image from somewhere (which would make the tagging incorrect) but not clear from where
  • Deleted and a new map added.
  • The source for this new map also appears questionable. Where is it taken from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a reliable source ("taneszközök" means "material for teaching" in Hungarian) Borsoka (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Added two more sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hunedoara_castle.jpg needs a tag for the original work.
  • Changed. I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work". Could you add a link to such tags?
  • Ditto File:PM_139782_RO_Kemeny.jpg
  • I do not understand your reference to "a tag for the original work".
  • This is a photograph of a architectural work. The image has a tag reflecting the copyright of the photograph, but is missing one for the architectural work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the picture. I am unable to deal with these issues with photographs and architectural works. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This applies also to File:Castelul_Huniazilor_-_panoramio.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: where can I find the tag reflecting the copyright for the architectural work here ([3]), and here ([4]) (both from recently promoted articles)? Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only a requirement for places like Romania which do not have freedom of panorama; in places like the UK, conversely, their FOP laws mean that only the photographic copyright needs to be considered. This is why I did not request such a tag for File:Lockenhaus_-_Burg_(2).JPG in this article: it is located in Austria which has FOP for architecture. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about this picture ([5])? It is one of the "Winners of Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in Romania". Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should you wish to use that image in this candidate, it will also need tagging improvements. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I do not want to use it. That the winner of a wikipedia competition cannot be used in wikipedia indicates that something is basically wrong with the competition. I added new pictures ([6], [7], [8], and [9])Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third of these will need date/place of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second case is fully addressed. The date of publication of the third picture is mentioned in the file. I added a source for the picture. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a publication mentioned in either source - can you elaborate on where these were published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The place and date of publication is mentioned on the second picture. The date of publication is mentioned in the file of the third picture (c. 1915). Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first case (Batthyányi) yes, the picture itself. In the second case (Almásy), no, I do not have source, but it is quite obvious that Almásy is younger than 30, so the picture must have been taken before 1925. I added two new pictures ([10], [11]) Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) And added a third picture ([12]) as well. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can look at the picture itself and use markers such as the apparent age of the subject to make assumptions about when the picture was created. This is not the same as being able to say when it was published. Images can be published long after they were taken, or not published at all. Can you identify publication of those two images? File:Baroness_Emma_Orczy_by_Bassano.jpg will need that as well, and per the tag on it "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Inscriptions on Batthyány's picture say that it was published by Károly Ostermann (Kiadja Osterman Károly) and printed by the Brothers Pollák in Pest 1867 (Nyomt. Pollák testvérek Pesten 1867-Nyomt. is an abbreviation for Nyomtatva /"printed"/) . 2. The source link at Emma Orczy's picture says that it was taken at Bassano Ltd but does not name the photographer. The same link also informs us that the picture was given by Bassano Ltd to the National Portrait Gallery in 1974. Can we conclude that 1974 is the year of publishing? The link also indicates that the picture can be used and shared. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stibor.jpg: which tag is believed to apply to the photo?
  • Sorry, I do not understand your note, so I deleted the picture.

&File:Paul_I,_1st_Prince_Esterházy_of_Galántha.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  • I do not know. Why is it interesting? Changed. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Emperor_Franz_Joseph_I-Gyula_Benczur-1896.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • Changed.
  • File:István_Bethlen,_Tibor_Kállay,_1923.jpg: where was this published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed.
    • Thank you very much for your comprehensive image review. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a further picture ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Andrássy.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • In 1865 (added).
  • File:Wesselényi_Ferenc_nádor.jpg is missing a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, is this one good now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding issues:
  • I changed one of the maps. I hope the new map meets MOS:COLOUR whatever it means. I think the other map depicts the principal information (three parts of medieval Hungary) clearly. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Baroness_Emma_Orczy_by_Bassano.jpg is missing evidence of being published in 1920 as well as a description of the research done to try to identify the author
  • I deleted the picture although I demonstrated that the author cannot be identified: the original copyrightholder did not name him/her either.Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Almásy_László_portré.jpg is missing publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HI Nikkimaria, is there anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The COLOUR issue remains unresolved; everything else is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I deleted the map although it would have been really useful, and placed two new pictures in the article ([14]). Is this an acceptable solution for you? Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Koronázás_Budán.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Added. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1867 according to the cited source, but quite obviously before 1883 because the artist died in 1882. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I do not know where it was published but quite obviously in Austria-Hungary because it was printed in Vienna according to the inscription on the picture. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: do you think I have addressed your above comment about File:Koronázás_Budán.jpg? I also seek your opinion about a picture I added recently ([15]). Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That image needs a US tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I always forget it. I added. Do you think there are any pending issues? Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: will you have a chance to check my action mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as edited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thorough image review. Borsoka (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Given the article is 9308 words long and has a +1000 year span, this might be a long review/FAC but it appears a very worthwhile one. The article is very well written, so this review will mostly be about clarity ... via word reduction and removing the few extraneous aside have seen so far. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Your FAC blurb is far less confusing that the three lead opening sentences.
    I would put "c. 1000 and 1944" in the opening sentance. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the kings could promote "a daughter to a son" - rephrase maybe as "...under the Hungarian royal prerogative of prefection the kings could promote "a daughter to a son"
  • Most parts of medieval Hungary were integrated into the Habsburg monarchy in the 1690s. Monarchs The Habsburgs confirmed the nobles' privileges several times"

*We have Habsburg dynasty (article mentions the early modern period) and Habsburg monarchy (article mentions after the 1690s). The House of Habsburg article claims that the held "the throne of the Holy Roman Empire...continuously from 1440". I understand the difference, but maybe explain.

  • Don't like "all noblemen's equality" - equality between the [as outlined above its a very complex strata, not sure of the proper division terminology] classes of nobility. Is "maintained" (passive) right - should it be "reinforced" (active)? Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

  • Masses of Magyars?
  • Around 950, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (d. 959) recorded the Hungarians were organized - wrote that the Hungarians were...?
  • Historians who say - "claim"
  • I would avoid "claim" because it would lead to heated edit warrings. I would say "are convinced". Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceoil Louis II drowned in a stream while he was fleeing from the battlefield at Mohács (in response to your edit summary [17]). Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, though I may have minor queries for the talk page. Ceoil (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Thank you for your comprehensive review and also for your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cplakidas edit

Reserving a spot here. Constantine ✍ 06:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Did some minor tweaks.
  • Thank you for them. I made one change ([18]).
  • from the 11th century may I suggest adding an 'until the mid-20th century' here?
  • Done.
  • Most aristocrats claimed ancestry from a late 9th century Magyar leader. the first time reading this, without looking at the link, I got the impression that most aristocrats descended from the same 9th-century Magyar leader. Should be reworded.
  • Reworded.
  • local chiefs were integrated in the nobility. who are these local chiefs and why are they different from the Magyar leadership?
  • Reworded.
Origins
  • "the tongue of the Chazars" can you briefly introduce the Chazars/Khazars here?
  • Done.
  • Tents still in use are only mentioned in 12th-century literary sources I don't understand what is meant here; 'still' confuses me as to which period this refers to.
  • "Still" deleted.
  • regarded themselves as descendants of one of the legendary seven leaders of the conquering Magyars same problem as above; and if this is in a footnote, then it shouldn't be in the lede.
  • It is in the lead because dozens of aristocrats claimed Magyar chieftains as their ancestors.
  • Then I would suggest moving the footnote into the main body. If it is important enough to mention in the lede, it should not be a footnote.
  • It is important enough to mention in the lede because it is mentioned in the main text: "The Gesta Hungarorum, a chronicle written around 1200, claimed that dozens of noble kindred flourishing in the late 12th century had been descended from tribal leaders..." I doubt that a reference to the Káns, Csáks, Bár-Kaláns and Szemere in the main text would be an improvement: examples are always mentioned in a footnote throughout the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • Introduce Martyn Rady
  • Done.
  • The kings appointed their officials from among the members of about 110 aristocratic clans what period is this about?
  • Done.
  • Done.
Golden Bulls
  • {{lang|la|knezes}} is this really a Latin term?
  • Yes, a medieval Latin term.
  • I am pretty sure it is Slavic (knyaz)
  • Yes, it is of Slavic origin but the "knezes" form is not Slavic. For instance, the Latin name of the Hungarian city Győr was Arrabona in Roman times, and Jaurinum in the Middle Ages. We cannot say that Jaurinum is a Hungarian term although it clearly derrived from the Hungarian name. We must say Jaurinum is a Latin term. Furthermore, which modern or old Slavic language should I choose? We do not know whether it is of Bulgarian, Serbian, Old Church Slavonic or Common Slavic origin. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, fair enough. At least link the 'Latin' terms to the articles on the original terms.
Self-government and oligarchs
  • Monarchs took an oath at their coronation, which included a promise to respect the noblemen's liberties after the 1270s. What exactly happened after the 1270s, the coronation oath or the inclusion of the promise?
  • Rephrased.
  • delegates of the noblemen and Cumans briefly explain who the Cumans were.
  • Done.
Age of the Angevins
  • briefly introduce Matteo Villani
  • Done.
  • voivodes and boyars are definitely not Latin terms
  • They are medieval Latin terms.
  • They are both Slavic terms though; perhaps uses in Latin texts, but definitely not Latin...
  • See my remarks above at knezes. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but please link to voivode at Vlach voivodes (leaders)
  • I created a new article about the Vlach voivodes that explains the Slavic origin of the term.
  • That's amazing, thanks.
  • Done.
  • Manorialism is linked because seigneurial is a disambiguation link.
Birth of titled nobility and the Tripartitum
  • Introduce István Werbőczy
Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka and Gog the Mild: Apologies, was unexpectedly unavailable. Will continue reviewing tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 15:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early modern and modern times
  • As before, did some copyedits, feel free to adapt, revert, or discuss.
  • The Croatian and Slavonian magnates also had a seat at the Upper House I assume it means that each magnate had a seat? Perhaps then 'The Croatian and Slavonian magnates also had seats at the Upper House'?
  • Done.
  • The noblemen formed one of the three nations (or Estates of the realm) in Transylvania what were the other two?
  • Done.
  • Relief forces since the siege of Vienna is not mentioned, 'Relief' is unnecessary and possibly confusing.
  • Done.
  • 1.25 million florins is there some way to give this in modern terms (USD equivalent) or by analogy (e.g. compared to the average salary back then)
  • None of the sources cited in the article make an estimation. A relative estimation can be found in the article: 1.25 million florins is equal to one-third of the double of all taxes collected in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 'Protestants' at the first mention (restrict the Protestants' rights). Suggest using Reformed Church in Hungary as the link target as well.
  • Alternative solution (link to Protestantism) because many of the noblemen were Lutherans, not Calvinists.
  • maintained that the Hungarian nation consisted of the privileged groups...recognition of the Romanians as the fourth Nation there is a confusingly inconsistent use of the term 'nation' here. In the latter case, it bears repeating that Nation=Estate of the realm.
  • I hope I could clarify the two approaches that existed in parallel from the 18th century. Borsoka (talk)
  • The rise of nationalism is hinted at through the language issue, but some more context would be welcome, e.g., IIRC, Hungarian nationalism emerged in large part through antagonism with the German-Austrian element and the spread of German in the cities, even Buda/Pest, or that the Hungarian nationalism provoked a corresponding backlash in other nationalisms (Croatian, Romanian, Slovak, etc). I would also recommend having a separate section header for this, because it is a seminal event in the history of the Hungarian nobility (and Hungary, which after all was a multi-ethnic state at the time).
  • I hope I could introduce linguistic nationalism in a wider context. A new section is introduced ("National awakening"). Borsoka (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is more than enough. Thanks. I made some small corrections.
  • Done.
Other
  • Minor issue, but not all Hungarian-language sources are denoted as such.

That's it for a first pass. A well-written and very comprehensive article on a topic I knew little about. Will have a look through a few sources I have over the weekend, but I don't expect anything major to be missing. Constantine ✍ 20:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive review. I need some time to address some of your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cplakidas: I assume I addressed all but two issues you raised above. In regard the two, pending issues please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borsoka: I have replied above, only minor issues remaining on prose. If I may suggest an additional source, Paul Lendvai's The Hungarians is to my—admittedly limited—knowledge the most comprehensive account of Hungarian history, and the nobility and its evolution naturally takes up a lot of space there. I did a cursory re-read yesterday, and there is a lot of detail that would be worthy of inclusion here. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What details do you suggest? I would prefer not to refer to Paul Lendvai's work. He is not a historian. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: sorry for pinging you but I would like to know whether you have time to check my edits and my above comments? Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Had another look. Thanks for addressing my remarks. On Lendvai, him not being a professional historian is, I'd say, not an issue: his work is obviously well referenced to actual historians and published by Princeton, so I'd rate its academic reliability as more than sufficient for our purposes. As a non-expert, I have found it an excellent summary of Hungarian history, with appropriate attention to detail, social, economic, and cultural context, and distanced from nationalist tropes. But it is your article, and it is already quite comprehensive according to the FA criteria, so I will not make it a requirement. As such I am supporting at this point. Constantine ✍ 19:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and again for your detailed and thorough review. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

Imma review this version. Reference #267 is broken and Prodan, David (1971) isn't used. Source formatting seems consistent and all the critical information is there. There are so many books that I can't do much source reviewing - but I did check sources 1, 4, 263, 307, 316 which seem fine. 14 does qualify Constantine's use of "tribe" a bit, though. I presume that Prodan, David (1971) is a reliable source if it's used? Florin Curta's page does mention some controversy about his reliability. I am not sure that 203 is a good source for the claim, it seems a bit too analytic. Is there a better source for 342? 403 may be generalizing a bit from one family. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough source review. I am really grateful for it.
  • 1. I fixed reference #267, so Prodan is now used.
  • 2. I surrounded the term "tribes" with quotes, although most specialists accept that the Magyars were organized into tribes before their conquest of present-day Hungary.
  • 3. I assume Curta writes that Prodan was often driven by ideological or political motives (like all historians of his time in the Soviet Bloc). This is true but the sentence verified with a reference to his work contains facts without any ideological stuff. Other works do not contradict him in this respect.
  • 4. Reference #203 only verifies the quoted text, the claim itself is verified by reference #201 (Engel).
  • 5. No, I do not have a better source for #342, but I would like to keep the sentence if it is possible :).
  • 6. Sorry, I do not understand your remark about #403. Neither the source cited nor the sentence refers to only one family. Borsoka (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression re 403 is that the source heavily emphasized one particular family. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right when referring to Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic, the source only mentions the Kálnoky family, but in connection with Romania it mentions several families. I remember that Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic allowed the fomer owners of nationalized property or their descendants to claim their former property, so I try to find further source. Thank you for spotting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I modified the text ([19]). I hope the new version is acceptable for you. Again thank you for spotting the mistake. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hungarian_nobility/archive1&oldid=1157788031"