Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article as soon as possible. dci | TALK 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content review and analysis

The lead is well-written; no major issues are evident there. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I would suggest refraining from stating in the lead that "[article subject] is a term that refers to...". Instead, "[article subject] is..." is advisable. Given the nature of this topic, I understand why the current wording is appropriate. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The Mattsee Abbey charter is said to have established the presence of another Turkish group in the region. How does this support claims of an Avar presence (other than cultural similarities)? dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the relevant part in order to make it clear that there were at least two different peoples of Turkic origin in the Carpathian Basin: the Avars (they are attested by the Conversion of the Bavarians and Carantanians) and the Onogurs (their presence is suggested by the Mattsee Abbey).

Identifying the importance of Cyril and Methodius might be helpful to a reader of the article, who would likely be familiar with their accomplishments, but might be unfamiliar with some of the other events and actions portrayed in the same paragraph. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above suggestion. Should their acitivity in Moravia be described in more details? I think that in the context of their article their only role is to demonstrate that Rastislav of Moravia sought independence of East Francia.

I had been thinking of the glagolitic alphabet; I am OK with this remaining as it currently is. dci | TALK 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be noted that the Moravians were not just wantonly pillaging the Carolingian frontier but opposing a "renegade" Carolingian overlord, Arnulf, while strengthening ties to Charles the Fat. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is important? Would you please suggest a source to be cited?

I didn't mean you ought to add in a new sentence; I think I can probably handle this myself (I have to run right now, and will add the change in momentarily). dci | TALK 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "eve of the Conquest" section is very well-researched and reads very smoothly. Its detail-packed nature, however, may confuse a reader. If you see any way to simplify some paragraphs, I would suggest doing so, but this in itself is not a problem in a GA review. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your above suggestion. I deleted some less important sentences and reorganized a little bit this part of the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian conquest

Is there any general consensus as to whether the Hungarians came in as foes of the Moravian king or as "guests" (as suggested by the white horse tale)? When I read the section, I came across thinking that the Hungarians seized their land by fighting the Moravians, but that there is no certainty regarding this matter. Would that be correct? dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the matter. The earliest Hungarian raids in Central Europe seem to have been made in alliance with the Moravians (in 860 and 881), but this is only a scholarly assumption based on Theotmar of Salzburg's letter. In the first phase of the Conquest, the Hungarians seem to have settled in the eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin (east of the river Danube). These territories seem to have been sparsely inhabited. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether they had been under Moravian rule before the Hungarians' arrival. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would check for spelling consistency when it comes to such words as "margrave". dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences

This is the only section that I think needs some improvement to make it to the GA standards. Below is the relevant commentary. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, source names are not parenthesized when there is a reference beside them; there is really no need to identify Fine as he is mentioned immediately afterward.
- How does the conquest of Transylvania serve as an example of leaving marches along the borders?
- How does the information regarding Hungarian outposts relate to anything else in the paragraph, or the main point of the section?
- Is there any better explanation of why the Hungarians feared the Pechenegs? Also, is the quote currently present properly copied? I am not sure that "numberous" is a word. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why were the Hungarian leaders convinced that a sedentary lifestyle must be adopted? Because of their defeats at the named battles?
- Could more background info be given in the last sentence of the last paragraph, discussing King Stephen? Also, do you mean "or" instead of "and"?
Sorry to seem nitpicky; if any of the above comments are unreasonable, please indicate so. dci | TALK 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DCI, thank you for your hard work. For a couple of days I will be busy in my real life, so I can only reflect to your suggestions in the next weekend. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on your talk page, I have no problems whatsoever with this. dci | TALK 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are no other problems with the article (stable content, no copyvios, etc), I am going to pass this for GA. Sorry for the delay; I had foolishly forgotten about this, thinking I had passed it at some point last week. dci | TALK 19:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]