Contents

Talk:Géza I of Hungary

	Géza I 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 reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 12, 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 25, 2019.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hungary High‑importance 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. Biography: Royalty and Nobility 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. Middle Ages High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 03:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, it would be a privilege for me to review this article for Good Article status. I will complete this review within the next few days, and will share my comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! Thank you again for all your phenomenal contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caponer, thank you for your kind message and your work. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
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(references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Borsoka, I have finished a thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status! Before passing this article, I've listed several comments and suggestions below. Once these have been sufficiently addressed, the article will proceed to Good Article status! You'll notice that I've left fewer comments than in previous GA reviews of your articles, and I hope that you will not take this to mean that this review wasn't thorough--it simply means that I found the article to be in excellent shape overall! Thank you for all your incredible work on this article, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the interim. -- Caponer (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your thorough review. I fixed most of the problems you mentioned. The one exception is mentioned below. I hope I will have a chance to work with you again. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• Since this is a biography and the entire article deals with Géza's life, you may want to reorganize the article so that instead of having an all encompassing section entitled "Life," divide the article into sections: "Early years (before 1064),"『Duke in Hungary (1064–1074),』and『His reign (1074–1077).』Then "Family," etc. etc.
• Where possible, try to consolidate internal citations at the end of the sentence to improve flow and readability.

If a primary source is verbatim cited in the text, I left the citation after the closing quotation mark. I think that this solution helps readers to identify the source of the quoted text. Otherwise, I consolidated internal citations at the end of the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also regarding internal citations, try to order them in numerical order when listed in tandem.

Lead

• The lead section adequately summarizes the entire contents of the article's prose below.
• Following Pressburg, I suggest writing "(present-day Bratislava, Slovakia)." "Present-day" should be added to all current place names listed throughout the article in parentheses.

Early years (before 1064)

• Wiki-link Holy Roman Empire in the fourth paragraph.

Duke in Hungary (1064–1074)

• Wiki-link Pechenegs in the second paragraph.

His reign (1074–1077)

• In the first paragraph, should this read "refuge" instead of "refugee"?

Family

• No further suggestions.

Borsoka, I've re-reviewed the article and I've found that you have sufficiently addressed all my above questions, comments, and suggestions. I thank you again for your attention to detail and patience with me throughout this GAR process. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status--congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Borsoka. In the past month, there were news that archaeologists had found the burial site of Géza I under the the ruins of Vác Abbey, founded by Géza himself. I think there will be developments in the next times. What do you think, should we mention this new information in the article? --Norden1990 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persze. :) Shame on me, but I have not noticed it. Thank you for the above message. Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the news, however I don't know which paragraph would be the most appropriate to this info.--Norden1990 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Géza I of Hungary → Geza I of Hungary – WP:English. The most common form is Geza I, not Géza I Swetoniusz (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, because Swetoniusz did not substantiate his/her proposal (I refer to the relevant discussion on the Talk page of Géza II of Hungary). Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks. Your personal comments are highly unnecessary, especially after that what you have done in the article Jadwiga of Poland (removings sourced information without no reason). Of course, I made a research. Swetoniusz (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, you have not verified that Geza is the most common form. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before accusing me of such misconduct. Please also remember that an administrator informed you about the serious consequences of baseless personal attacks and similar acts of vandalism ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? First, you destroy my work with no reason. Second, you falsely accused me of no research. Thirdly, you falsely show the information about your edit war to the administrator, who omitted the most important fact of your behave like removing sources and sourced information (even the book from refence section, which was mention in footnotes section!) [2]. Please behave. One who should read Wikipedia:No personal attacks is espacially you. EOT Swetoniusz (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think, my edits constitute vandalism, do not hesitate to report me on the relavant page. Otherwise, stop making baseless accusations. Borsoka (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As a misreading of WP:UE. Part of the Use English policy states "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)" AusLondonder (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.『Géza』is a Hungarian native name, it has no English variant. GB results do no confirm the nominator's claim, while he also misinterpret WP:English. Just an example: majority of English news and commentars use Viktor Orbán's name without accent ("Orban"). But that does not mean that we should rename that article. I am curious what is Swetoniusz's opinion about the article names Władysław II Jagiełło, Bolesław IV the CurlyorJadwiga of Poland, which definitely are not most common forms... --Norden1990 (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We also have Géza Gárdonyi, the writer. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:UE and WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles on European royalty. We have articles on Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Saladin; not "Karl der Große", "Napoléon", and "Salah ad-Din". Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Academicoffee71:, I think the three monarchs whom you mentioned above cannot be compared with Géza I. Charlemagne, Napoleon and Saladin are well known monarchs in the Anglosaxon world because of their direct connection to British history. Could you refer to a book published in English which refers to Charlemagne as "Karl der Große"? Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. WP:UE does not mandate that we remove all accents. Géza is perfectly common in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.