Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 11:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I will perform a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Borsoka, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and I assess that it easily exceeds Wikipedia Good Article criteria. Prior to its final passage, however, I do have a few comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. I want to take this opportunity to thank and commend you for all your extraordinary works documenting the lives of Hungarian, Romanian, and other Balkan nobility and royalty! Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginian, first of all thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review. Please find my comments below. Please let me know if any further action is needed to complete the procedure. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, this lede adequately defines Basarab, establishes context for Basarab, explains why Basarab is notable, and summarizes the most important points of Basarab's life.
Since Hungary is mentioned as the Kingdom of Hungary, would it be appropriate to mention Serbia as the Kingdom of Serbia and wiki-linked to Kingdom of Serbia (medieval)?

Modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could the statement "Basarab's descendants ruled Wallachia for centuries." be quantified?

I added that they "ruled Wallachia for at least two centuries". Unfortunatelly, none of the sources cited in the article clarify this issue, but it is clear that Wallachia was ruled by his descendants in the 16th century. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The info box template is beautifully formatted, its contents are cited within the text, and the image is released to the public domain and is therefore acceptable to use here.
The lede is otherwise well-written and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose below with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Origins

While this is not a deal breaker for Good Article status, I wonder if Basarab was both Catholic AND Orthodox. Given the timeline, he was Catholic at the time he received the correspondence from the Pope, then over twenty years later he was described as a "perfidious schismatic." With that said, I wonder if a change in religious sympathies had to do with his falling out with Catholic Hungary. This is all mere speculation, but I was curious if you had found any information that supported any of these theories. With all that said, this section is written well and meets Good Article criteria as is.

Actually, I think that the pope, or rather the pope's scribe, who wrote identical letters to 5-6 high officials of Charles I of Hungary on the same day, did not change the wording when he completed the 6th or 7th copy of the same letter which was to be sent to Basarab (who was officially also an official of Charles I). Consequently, I think that Basarab was always Orthodox and the pope's scribe was wrong when he called him "a devout Catholic prince" in his 6th or 7th copy of the same letter. But this is my own OR. :) Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is otherwise well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Reign

Thocomerius and Banat of Severin need only be wiki-linked once at each's first mention in the article's prose.

Delinked. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both images in this section have been released to the public domain and are acceptable for use here in this article.
This section is otherwise well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Family

This section is well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Legacy

The image of the Princely Church of St. Nicholas is released to the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
As was mentioned regarding the Lede section, is it possible to quantify how many centuries Basarab's descendants ruled Wallachia?

Modified. See my comment above. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is otherwise well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Borsoka, thank you for addressing my comments and suggestions in such a timely manner! Upon my review and re-review, I find that everything looks to be in order and I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done, Borsoka! As always, it's been a sincere privilege reviewing you phenomenal article. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]