Talk:Stephen IV of Hungary

Stephen IV of Hungary has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 16, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 11, 2020.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungary High‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Onel5969, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 October 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa

Some of the references mention a work entitled "Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa", but it is not listed in the "Sources" section. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading, thank you very much for the above message. I added the source. Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen IV of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 16:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
The sources are all offline, so I'm accepting them AGF. All are to reliable works published by a third party.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Several images had some blank parameters and so didn't explain why they can be used in the US, but I went ahead and fixed those, as that was a minor issue.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Overall, the article is good. I have only a minor question that I feel should be resolved before the article is approved. See the section below.
Pass or Fail: ~~I'm requesting a second opinion~~ Passed.

Use of sic

In the quote from The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, the word "the" is duplicated, followed by "[sic?]". The question mark is what I'm unsure about - is it standard to use it in this case? I checked out WP:QUOTE, MOS:QUOTE, and Block quotation, and none of them addressed this. However, MOS:QUOTE says that trivial spelling and typographic issues can be corrected without comment, if doing so does not damage the textual integrity of the quote. I think that this instance would qualify, so I recommend just removing the extra "the" and the "[sic?]" comment.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John of Reading, maybe you can help clarify here as to the best approach, since you added the comment?--¿3family6 _contribs 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: The best solution for this would be for someone to access the source and check the quote. Failing that, I wouldn't object if the correction was declared to be trivial enough for the MOS:QUOTE rule to apply. I'm not consistent myself; sometimes I make the correction and sometimes I tag with [sic?]. The correction here should be from "the the" to "that the" to make the grammar of the sentence come right. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... that might affect the textual integrity. Perhaps just remove the question mark? You or some other editor, such as Borsoka, will have to make that edit, though. I can't per GA reviewing rules.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remark. I fixed the text in accordance with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now, but I want a second opinion on whether it's okay to correct the mistake, or keep sic without a question mark.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand. I fixed the problem in accordance with the cited source: there is no sic in the cited source and there was no "the the" text in the cited source either. Why do we need a sic? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the mistake was in the writing of the quote here on Wikipedia? Sorry, I didn't catch that. We're set, then.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]