Talk:Kačić family/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Another prominent branch of the family was part of the Hungarian nobility. → I don't think this is very clear
Pacta conventa, → Shouldn't be italicised
1102 (or later) according → Comma after the closing bracket
Supetar Cartulary, → Shouldn't be italicised
mid-14th into 15th century, → mid-14th to 15th century,
for some Zadar, → For some what?
in the early times → Informal
The fourth paragraph of History doesn't seem to be in chronological order as the previous para talks about the 15th century?
principality undoubtedly was → Sounds bias
making it sometimes hard to reliably identify members of the genus. → Bit informal and doesn't quite make sense
Nikola of Hodimir and Pribislav of Malduč claimed bail in May of 1239 for the Omišani who murdered Dubrovnik nobleman Grubeša and looted his ship. They also agreed to pay compensation for personal property that had been looted. In Omiš during the same year, knez Nikola and his relatives made peace between Zachlumia and Split, agreeing to pay for damage earlier in the year when Malduš nephew Toljen ravaged Split. However, compensation for the ravages of Toljen was not paid, leading to conflict in the following year. After an unsuccessful attack on Omiš, the Split army captured Brač in the first half of 1240. The conflict continued until the peace agreement by which the brothers of Osor left the ships to Split and renounced looting. This was also the time period of the Split potestas Gargano, and Malduč sons Pribislav and Osor in Hvar and Brač.[5] → Is this entire paragraph attributed to citation 5?
in war with → in the war with
seeking compensation—Dubrovnik → Why have you used a dash?
The first two notable members need sources
According the geneaology, → There's a missing word here
Given the length and detail of the article, there lead is insufficient and needs expanding. It should be two, perhaps even three, paragraphs long.

Summary

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:

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:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Outcome

On hold for 7 days. — Calvin999 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done copy editing, a couple of points remained:

1* Another prominent branch of the family was part of the Hungarian nobility. → I don't think this is very clear

I would like to better understand your POV what is unclear, it would certainly help to understand the common reader perspective.

Well, it doesn't make sense when I read it. So I don't understand what you're trying to say in order to tell you what's wrong with it. So was the Kacic noble family apart of two branches from two countries? — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is that I don't know what is unclear to you. The situation about the family is this, their origin is in the Zadar hinterland (Nadin). In the 11th century, the family has branched on the original Nadin (which didn't became prominent as others), and new Omiš branch (most known in Croatia). In the 13th century, probably from the Omiš and not Nadin branch, emerged the Hungarian branch (from which later emerged other notable Hungarian noble families). Finally, in the 15th century from the Omiš branch emerged the Makarska branch of the family. The order of sections (first Croatian branches, and as the last the Hungarian branch) seems more logical and understandable, at least from my point of view.--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6* for some Zadar, → For some what? and 8* The fourth paragraph of History doesn't seem to be in chronological order as the previous para talks about the 15th century?

The "History" section is kind of intro-general section, but now see that could be misleading if not read carefully. It could be fixed by reorder of paragraphs. The first paragraph is kind of an intro. The second (previously fourth) "The first mention...". In the third (previously second) moved last sentence as the first sentence, which now (according to a meaningful order of paragraphs) explain their area of origin and simultaneity of Omiš branch. The fourth (previously third) is about the "original" Zadar Kačićs estates and toponyms (6* for some members was Zadar, Nin or possibly Pag the center, ie. residence). The fifth is the same about Nadin (Zadar hinterland) Kačićs family, and follows the section chronology.

You need to make it chronological because it's a bit sloppy to go back several centuries half way through. — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] was the edit on 27 June satisfactory?--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9* principality undoubtedly was → Sounds bias

There's no doubt and need for word "undoubtedly", it's a common fact. Removed word.

Good. 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

10* making it sometimes hard to reliably identify members of the genus. → Bit informal and doesn't quite make sense

It's scholar observation. The Kačićs family imposed itself as the comes or rulers of the area, and their center was in Omiš. In the historical sources the Kačić family wasn't always directly mentioned. The documents often mention Omiš, residents of Omiš (Omišani), pirate activity, in which were listed an array of noblemen, but not also their second name, so the Kačićs were only able to be identified thanks to genealogy or other aspects (like "groups" in the list, "brothers", "son of", "father of"). Perhaps the sentence is not that important to common reader as to scholars (which mostly managed to identify them, so we're kind of speaking about past tense fact), but still not that irrelevant.

I think you should use 'harder' or 'more difficult' — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will use 'more difficult'.--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11* → Is this entire paragraph attributed to citation 5?

Yes

16* Given the length and detail of the article, there lead is insufficient and needs expanding. It should be two, perhaps even three, paragraphs long.

Done.

GA review 2. C. "No original research" - there's no OR, all claims are from sources. In previous revision almost each sentence had ref-note, but the editor Folklore1, who done GOCE review and copy editing, reduced the number of ref-note repetition in the same paragraph (it is mostly the case of "Majnarić (HBL) 2005").--Crovata (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put a fail sign, I put a question mark, due to that paragraph most notably only having one citation. I'm a believer that every sentence should have a citation at the end of it, it just makes it so much easier to verify and quickly access that source in particular. — Calvin999 13:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw and know the sign, and share the same view on the matter. Not just that, it confirms the authenticity and value of the claim (especially if is considered by a scholar). That's why in the previous revision (before the GOCE review) almost all (don't remember exactly, but think every sentence did) had citation. Editor Folklore1 considered it redudant as an entire paragraph is supported by same reference. Should I return the citations? Perhaps it's redudant for GOCE review, but not for GAN review? If you stay positive I will.--Crovata (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more helpful to cite each sentence, yes. — Calvin999 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Crovata (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome

Okay, well I feel like I can pass this now. Thanks for explaining some things as well as addressing. Passing. — Calvin999 16:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.