Talk:Andrew Báthory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this article for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See "Prince of Transylvania" section. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Pinging you in case you've missed my most recent work on this Review. Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Since I do not read Hungarian and do not have access to the cited sources I am WP:AGF on the validity of the references in this article. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
~~The infobox image, File:Báthory Zsigmond 1596.jpg, and File:Báthory András 1599. október 31.jpg all need to specifically have a US public domain tag.~~ Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They've all been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Looking good. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Borsoka: All the parameters look fine. ~~Please take a look at the "One last thing" section. Once that sentence is adjusted,~~ I will be then be able to complete this Review. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's been done. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, it's a WP:GA. What an interesting family - these Báthorys! Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Transylvania

The prose in this section doesn't flow as well as it should and some of the phrasing is a little odd.

Sigismund Báthory abdicated at the Diet in Medgyes (now Mediaș in Romania) on 21 March, proposing Andrew his successor.

The verb tenses seem a little out of order.

However, as Alfonso Carillo noted, the most influential noblemen remained opposed to him, even if they did not dare to raise an objection openly.

him should be Andrew

Before long, the children of the Transylvanian lords who had been executed in 1594 returned to Transylvania, but they were impoverished and powerless young noblemen.

The phrasing is a little confusing here - perhaps try reading it as if you know nothing about the subject. How old were "the children"? Would a better word-choice perhaps be "the heirs of the executed Transylvanian lords...". How long is "before long" - a couple months, a year, three weeks, or what? "impoverished/powerless young noblemen" - ? word-choice seems somewhat POV-ish. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. Sorry, I have limited access to internet till next Sunday. I could only address the above promblems thereafter. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: That's fine. I'll be doing a proofreading-readthrough this week but I think the remaining issues in the article at this point are mostly somewhat minor. As soon as you can get to the ones in the 'Prince of Transylvania' section, I should be able to finish up the Review within a day or so afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Please ping when you do get to these adjustments - I don't want to overlook any work you do to the article. I would like to finish up my Review before the end of this month. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. I will ping you on Sunday or Monday.Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink:, I modified the section and a co-editor fixed the problems with the pictures mentioned above. Please let me know if further modifications are needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing

@Borsoka: I was doing my last proofreading-readthrough and realized this one phrase was not as clear as it maybe could be.

He met Charles Borromeo, the saintly archbishop of Milan, who wrote a spiritual instruction to Andrew.

So, Charles Borromeo is a Saint of the Catholic Church. The word "saintly" means "like a saint", "very good and kind", "virtuous"...it doesn't specifically mean the person is a saint, it means they are like a saint. Also, Andrew Báthory didn't just "meet" Borromeo, he met with Borromeo, he had an audience with him and Borromeo subsequently wrote out a spiritual essay especially for Báthory, so it seems to me that

maybe (if the cited-reference supports this statement) the sentence could be adjusted (along with any appropriate Wikilinkage) to something along the lines of:

Andrew and his retinue left Kraków for Italy on 10 September 1583. In Milan Archbishop Charles Borromeo (canonized as a saint by Pope Paul V) met with Andrew and wrote him a spiritual instruction.

That's the last thing I could see to improve. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink:, thank you for your suggestion. Based on the cited source, I preferred the following modification: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Your change is fine - you know the sources better than I do. I just thought it was interesting that Borromeo actually became a Roman Catholic saint. Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the promotion of the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]