Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I just read through what looks like a generally nice article on an interesting subject. I will now begin with minor corrections and then list other issues on this page. This the first time I'm doing a GA review, so if either I or the nominator decide at some point that another reviewer should have a look, we may ask one of the GAN mentors for help. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section comments

Descent and early years

First paragraph needs a reference. There should be at least one inline citation in each paragraph, even if several subsequent paragraphs ar based on a single source. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth was a granddaughter of an Arpad princess of Hungary and a grandniece of an Arpad queen of Hungary. Can we have the names of these individuals, please? Or are their names unknown? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the former is present in Elizabeth of Bosnia#Ancestry. There was wiki-link to the article about the latter, Fenenna of Kuyavia - "an Arpad queen of Hungary" linked to Fenenna of Kuyavia. I've removed that statement because I don't think it's notable enough. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information about Elizabeth's place and date of birth. If there are sources that say that nobody knows where and when she was born or that there are several hypotheses, it would be better to put this information in the article. Of course, if all sources ignore this question altogether, then we don't want to speculate. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunatly, I haven't encountered any source that mentions the place of her birth. 1339 is the year of her birth. Of 25 sources cited in the article (English, Bosnian, Polish, Slovenian, etc), none mention the place of her birth. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

...a common ancestor, a Duke of Kujavia in Poland. What was his name? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well, but what is the reason for removing the explanation of the relationship to a footnote? This information could be included in the vody of the article just as well. This is optional though. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1370, Louis became King of Poland too. Elizabeth, though Queen of Poland, was never crowned as such. She is one of only five queens of Poland who were never crowned. – needs a reference. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manuel d'éducation pour ses filles – did Elizabeth originally write the book in French? If so, do we know why she chose this particular language? The title seems a little wierd, too: "Manual for the Education of her daughters"? Could this be double-checked? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source itself refers to "Manuel d'éducation pour ses filles" as if it were the title of the book.[1] You are right, however, in saying that it seems weird and no source mention that she spoke French. Therefore, I suspect that the source actually cites a part of text which refers to the "manual for the education of her [Elizabeth's] daughters". If you take a look at these French language books, you'll notice that some say: Élisabeth de Bosnie avait écrit un manuel d'éducation pour ses filles, while others say: Certains ouvrages disparus ne nous sont connus que par un titre tel le « Manuel d'éducation pour ses filles » écrit par Elisabeth de Bosnie. Some treat "Manuel d'éducation pour ses filles" as the title of the book, some simply describe what she wrote as a manual for the education of her daughters. [2] Perhaps it would be best to remove the title? Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two images used in this section might have copyright problems. I already listed them for deletion on Commons; please see:
- Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elisabeth of Bosnia.jpg
- Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeta Kotromanić s kćerkama.jpg
I suggest that it would be better to remove these images from the article for now. If the consensus on Commons is to keep any of them, they may put back. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The images listed for deletion have been removed. Two better images have been placed into the article to replace them. One of the new images represents Elizabeth and her daughters (just like one of the old ones did). Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very good replacements, Surtsicna, but I see from the file descriptions that these are photographs of a replica of the casket, not the actual casket itself. I believe this should be mentioned in the captions even if the replica looks identical to the original. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Change in captions Not done — Kpalion^(talk) 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I haven't seen that suggestion. I've altered the caption now. I don't think there is a need to alter the caption of the other image, since it doesn't mention the replica. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hedwig's accession in Poland

Sigismund appears for the first time in this section, but it is not explained who he was; there should be at least a link to Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor and a short mention of the fact that he was an emperor and had been betrothed to Mary. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I shouldn't have missed that. Anyway, I reinserted the link and the information that he was betrothed to Mary. I don't think that we should mention him as emperor because he became emperor 46 years after Elizabeth's death and 38 years after Mary's death (meaning that Mary wasn't even an empress). Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good, but I see know that Kebeta inserted "citation needed" tags here. I suppose it would be good to address this, as any claim likely to be challenged needs a citation. Apart from this, I suggest rephrasinf these two sentences to make them less ambiguous: Although Louis had designated Mary as his successor in both Hungary and Poland, the Polish nobility – who wanted to end the personal union with Hungary – were not willing to recognize Mary and her fiancé, Sigismund of Luxembourg, as their sovereigns. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hedwig married Jogaila of Lithuania by the Act of Kreva sounds a little sloppy to me. The Act of Kreva was a political promise that the marriage would take place, but it was not an act of marriage in itself. Perhaps Hedwig married Jogaila as agreed in the Act of Kreva, or something similar? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth was also requested to legally adopt Jogaila – although sources are cited, I find this hard to believe and I cannot access these sources to verify. I could not find this information elsewhere either. It seems unprobable because such a adoption would have legally made Jogaila and Hedwig siblings, so how could they get married then? Could this be double checked, please? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The information is present in the featured article about Jogaila (Jogaila#Baptism and marriage). I can cite many more sources for this information if needed. Obviously, the purpose (and effect) of the adoption was to give some succession rights to the 24-year-old Jogaila, not to make him Jadwiga's brother. "Adoption" here means acceptance into the family with intention to grant hereditary rights to the adoptee, not a decision to raise the adoptee as one's own child (cf. Jean Bernadotte). Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y Thanks for the explanation. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary's marriage issue

Charles of Durazzo, who had gained the Crown of Naples by having his aunt Joan murdered – how is this relevant here? Perhaps it would be better to write simply, Charles of Durazzo, King of Naples? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He had gained one crown by having his relative murdered - he could have had Mary murdered as well in order to gain her crown. I thought that putting this information into the article would make the reader understand the politics of the time, so that they aren't surprised when they read that Elizabeth had Charles murdered and that Charles's widow had Elizabeth murdered. If it's a problem, I won't mind removing it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y That's fine, thanks for the explanation. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigismund invaded Hungary and had himself married to Mary by the Archbishop of Esztergom – do we know the archbishop's name? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I didn't think his name was relevant. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deposition and restoration of Mary

John Horvat, ... helped Charles become briefly King of Hungary in 1385... – it's not clear if this refers to Charles of Durazzo, Charles V of France (both mentioned in the previous section) or some other Charles. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death and aftermath

On 16 January, Elizabeth was strangled – 16 January of what year? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 16 January 1387, as mentioned in the lead section and in the infobox. Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK — Kpalion^(talk) 17:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... on the orders of John of Palisna – in previous sections he is referred to as John of Paližna. This should be made consistent one way or the other. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Y OK. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Kebeta inserted some "citation needed" tags here, so could you please add citations there(see also the section started by Kebeta below)? — Kpalion^(talk) 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on page numbers

I had a drive-by look at this article and it struck me that there are no page numbers for the books cited. Page numbers should be a GA requirement for all sources that are not webpages (in so far as they have no pages) as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles; you might ask at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for clarification. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's news to me, frankly. I haven't included page numbers in citations in the articles I wrote, some of which passed GA nominations. Wikipedia:Citing sources only says categorically that page numbers need to be provided when quoting someone. That said, if Surtsicna wants to add page numbers, that will be very well. But I'm not inclined to fail the GA nomination over this issue, unless I find a policy that says page numbers must be included. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then this thread: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Are page numbers of sources a requirement for GA? should be of interest. Wikipedia:Citing sources says: "You should identify any part of a source that you quote, paraphrase or cite; in the case of a book, specify the page number(s)." Regards. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buchraeumer asked other reviewers. I just looked at the current Elizabeth of Bosnia and the 1st book has no indication of where the relevant passage is. IMO that's a fail on WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are required as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you found it. Without page numbers this a fail. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, book citations with no page numbers is a valid reason for failing the article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished adding page numbers to references. Tracking down all the pages was harder than expanding this article. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, great job, Surtsicna! — Kpalion^(talk) 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on section: Death and aftermath

This section need clarification. In a reference already used in the article (Engel, Pal; Ayton, Andrew; Pálosfalvi, Tamás (1999). The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526 Volume 19 of International Library of Historical Studies. Penn State Press. ISBN 0271017589.) on page 199, says that Sigismund marched into Slavonia to rescue the queens, and failed. Moreover, Bloody Sabor of Križevci should be mentioned in aftermath. Kebeta (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Sigismund's attempt to save Elizabeth and Mary. However, Bloody Sabor of Križevci does not seem related to Elizabeth at all. It took place 10 years after her death, even after Mary's death, and Elizabeth is not mentioned in the article about it. None of the sources I've encountered so far makes connection between Elizabeth and the massacre. Therefore, I am not sure how it's relevant to this article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Kpalion^(talk) 17:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I see Surtsicna changed "Mary became queen regnant of Hungary" to "Mary was crowned "king" of Hungary". What does it exactly mean? I think it might be confusing to most English readers. What is the difference – if any – between a female "king" and a queen regnant? Plus, queen regnant was linked, thus providing additional information, while "king" is not. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hungary did not have any queens regnant before Mary, so they decided to treat her as a king. That's how they wanted to avoid any problems regarding the legitimacy of her reign. I'll add a note explaining that. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be moved along a bit more quickly? There hasn't been progress in a couple weeks now and GA reviews are not meant to last indefinitely. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the issues have been fixed so I am not sure what you mean by "there hasn't been progress in a couple weeks". Surtsicna (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right; if everything's done, then the review should be wrapped up, rather than it just sitting here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left another note for Kpalion, so hopefully they will remember to come back and close it. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kpalion has not responded in a week, so I am considering this review abandoned. As it has no outstanding issues from the previous review, it is now a GA. --erachima talk 08:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]