Talk:Fajsz/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Madalibi (talk · contribs) 05:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article in the next few days. Madalibi (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Madalibi, thank for your bold review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The article is short and sweet. I have a few comments and questions below, but GA status seems near.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is generally well written. Most of the following comments are requests for clarification.

• In the lead, we hear that Fajsz was Grand Prince of the Hungarians around 950. Do we know for how many years he was grand prince? Could we add a phrase like "for a few years"? And are historians certain that Taksony succeeded him in 955 after the Battle of Lechfeld? If so, could we write that Fajsz was Grand Prince from around 950 to 955? Or maybe "from around 950 to around 955, around the time of the Battle of Lechfeld"?

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• All information on him comes from the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. It would be clearer if we specified that we got the information on Fajsz from Porphyrogenitus's book De Administrando Imperio rather than from the man himself.

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• No other contemporary source or later Hungarian chronicle preserved his name, suggesting that central authority within the Hungarian tribes' confederation had significantly diminished by the time his reign began. I don't understand how the fact that his name was not preserved suggests the crumbling of central authority. Could you elaborate a little bit?

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• In the period starting with Árpád's death... Why not "After Arpad's death"?

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• This time was marked more by the various tribes acting in concert for raids than with the tribes acting under a strong central authority. This sentence is a bit convoluted. You could change to something more active like, "Various tribes could act in concert for raids, but rarely obeyed a strong central authority as they had under Arpad."

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• ...visitors at Constantinople...: visitors to Constantinople?

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gyula Kristo: the same name is spelled "Gyula Kristó" lower in the article.

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• ...the Hungarians' catastrophic defeat in the battle of Lechfeld: it would help if you could specify who the Hungarians fought at this battle.

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is a floating footnote at the beginning of the "Name and legacy" section.

• Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• His name which was preserved in two forms...: Because this is a new section, you might want to say "Fajsz's name, which was preserved in two forms..." (not forgetting the comma after "name").

• Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Who is György Györffy?

• Thanks. Info added. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Gyula Kristó rejects this hypothesis: could you explain why Kristó rejects this hypothesis?

• Thanks. Info added. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lack of records on Fajsz seems to justify the shortness of the article, but I have no expertise in this topic, so I can't tell whether all major aspects of Fajsz's life are covered. I just looked at the French version of the article, which cites a Gyula Kristo's Histoire de la Hongrie Médiévale, Tome I, Le Temps des Arpads ("History of Medieval Hungary, Tome 1, The Era of the Arpads"), and claims that Fajsz asked for the help of Buscú (?) to attack the Byzantines in order to invade Pannonia. Since Kristo is a reliable historian of Hungary, could you find either that source in French or an equivalent one in English or Hungarian to see if these claims make any sense? Even if these are only hypotheses, they should be mentioned, because they are part of what reliable sources are saying about Fajsz.

• Thanks. I have no access to this book. None of the works written in Hungarian by Kristó that I know makes mention of the relationship between Bulcsú and Fajsz. I opened a new section ("Further reading") for the above (French) book. Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

   The description for the relief of Fajsz is in Hungarian. Could you translate it into English or find someone who can?

• Sorry, I must have misunderstood something. The "Description" section of the file contains the English translation of the Hungarian text. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• You didn't misunderstand! I asked a friend to help with that image and he graciously added all the necessary information, including a license tag for Hungary that might be useful to you in the future (see FoP-Hungary). Madalibi (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and your friend for the assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Will pass after the issues raised above have been solved.

PROMOTED