Wikipedia:Peer review/Coloman, King of Hungary/archive1

Coloman, King of Hungary[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because its comprehensiveness and neutrality should be checqued before its FAC.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: there are a few red links, such as the wife sophia, and one of the councils, however otherwise I would definitely support this being given GA or perhaps even FA status. Iazyges (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remark and kind words. Yes, red links still exist in the article, but during a FAC review it is often a requirement that the article can contribute to the expansion of our encyclopedia through the creation of new articles. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments

Lead sentence: was King of Hungary from 1095 ... Something like "until his death in year" or "until year" should be added.
From 1102, I understand that there was an unification of the crowns of Croatia and Hungary. Mostly needed in the lead
"His mother seems to have been Géza's first wife Sophia, because Géza's Byzantine second wife—whose baptismal name is unknown—left Hungary after her husband's death."
- I could not understand how the part after because is the rationale for identifying Coloman's mother.
- is anything known about Sophia - his royal family/house/nationality; do add that.
- Is this a mainstream opinion or debated? Attribution is needed if the latter
What is the Illuminated Chronicle? Link it if possible. Provide the dating and a brief description e.g. a chronicle of the 11th century European kings
While the lead states unequivocally that Coloman was disabled, the main text states "the reliability of this description is doubtful". POV in lead? Should it be stated that it is the POV of late medieval chronicles to portray him as disabled?
Please provide dating for texts/chroniclers e.g "according to Albert of Aix"; to understand if contemporary or later accounts.
Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia) -> Nyitra (present-day Nitra, Slovakia) ?

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive and bold review. I think I made all modifications that you suggested above. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or there is anything left to change. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Reached Expansion in reading. Will complete the review over the next week.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: Title is a 1 bullet point section. Can you integrate it somewhere.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A section named Historiography (Henry III of England) telling about the chief sources of info about him; can be added.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your further comments. I would prefer not to include the "Early years" section into other sections, because other sections deal with his reign, family or legacy. I think none of those sections would be the proper places for the part of the article which presents his life before his coronation. I think the "Legacy" section contains all relevant information about the sources of his reign. Do you suggest it should be renamed? Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early years: Seems ok. Legacy: will check. Did not reach there.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any relation between the Dalmatia conquest and the first sentence of the para (... Coloman and Bohemond I of Antioch ...)? Propably para needs to be split. Is that sentence more related to the "Coloman also sent Hungarian reinforcements to the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos ..." part.

Why are there two family trees? both should be combined.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz, thank you for your further comments. I changed the second sentence. I think the two family trees do not exclude each other. The first family tree shows Coloman's ancestors, the second one visualizes the information of his relatives who are mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges

Iazyges, thank you for your review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Coloman and his younger brother Álmos were still under-age when their father King Géza I of Hungary died and their uncle Ladislaus I ascended the throne in 1077." Perhaps say the age of both or coloman in the lead section at the time?
- Sorry, I do not understand your remark. The first sentence of the article mentions that Coloman was born in about 1070 and his father died in 1077. Why do we need to mention that he was about seven-year old? (The valuable information is that he had not reached the age of majority). Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The king decided to prepare Coloman—who was physically disabled," By what?
- Changed.

"Early years (till 1095)" The section head should probably be changed, as it doesnt flow well, and it says his reign started in 1095 under "Reign".

- Sorry, I do not understand your remark. Two words can usually be read without difficulty. :) The next section does not say that his rule started on 1st January 1095. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Another possibility is that his name is of Turkish origin, meaning "rest".[8]" is their any reason to suspect causation, correlation is obvious but is it likely that it is the reason?

- Clarified. (?)

"However, Coloman did not want to respect his uncle's decision and fled to Poland." Somewhat of a weak sentence, because by leaving and not declaring himself king and fighting Almos, he is respecting his uncles decision, perhaps "He fled incase his brother did infact get the throne".

- Modified.

"receiving the one-time ducatus or duchy of their father and grandfather, which comprised one third of the kingdom.[15][28]" This sentence could be better said, perhaps, he agreed to give up his claim in exchange for land, which equaled almost a third of the kingdom".

- Modified.

"he emperor stated that Coloman had neglected imperial interests "because of his own necessities"" Was hungary considered to be inside the HRE at the time? to my knowledge it never was until the pre-modern era.

- Sorry I do not understand your above remark. The article does not say that Hungary was part of the HRE (because Hungary was never part of that empire).

"after he rebelled against his father and joined the pope's camp.[59][60]" Does the pope's camp mean military literal camp or he joined the holy see?

- Changed.

"with only the river Tisza separating them" Could be better rephrased as "separated only by the river Tisza".

- The sentence was changed during the copyedit. For I am not a native speaker of English, I would not change the sentence proposed by a member of the guild of copyeditors. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Coins minted under Coloman were smaller than those issued in his predecessor's reign, which prevented the cutting down of their smooth edge" Was that the express purpose?

- Changed.

More of a personal question. "Split likewise surrendered after a short siege, but two other Dalmatian " perhaps a link to split or else saying "the town of split" because the current structure is a little confusing.

- Modified.

"However, according to the Illuminated Chronicle, the queen "was taken in the sin of adultery"" is it ever mentioned who she cheated on him with? Or is it more likely it was just slander?

- No, his name was not mentioned. Coloman expelled her and refused to acknowledge her son as his, suggesting that he was convinced that she had cheated on him.

"Russia for the injury done to him"[119] during his campaign of 1099.[118] Upon his councillor's advice, he also had Álmos, who had taken refuge in the monastery of Dömös, imprisoned.[120]" Russia? is that meant to be the region of modern day russia that included the cumans that defeated him, or is it meant to be muscovy, which was the state that went on to create russia, that insulted him?

- Wl added. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of constructive criticism. Iazyges (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]