The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 31 January 2022 [1].

Edict of Torda[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early example of religious tolerance in Europe: the edict was the first law to sanction a radical Christian denomination. It was issued in the "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom", a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, that emerged after the fall of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. In this realm, religious tolerance developed as a consequence of the long tradition of the coexistence of autonomous communities. The Transylvanian Saxons converted to Lutheranism, most Hungarian nobles preferred Calvinism, the Hungarian and Saxon burghers of the wealthy free royal city of Kolozsvár and some Székely communities were open to Antitrinitarian ideas, but other Székely groups and some powerful noble families (including the Báthory family) insisted on their Catholic faith. The young ruler John Sigismund Zápolya showed curiosity about theological issues and several religious debates were held under his auspices. He was born Catholic, but he converted first to Lutharanism, then to Calvinism, and died as an Antitrinitarian. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thank you. I seek assistance from a more experienced editor. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text is more legible; colour is still an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was published in Austria-Hungary on the occasion of the millenalian celebrations in Hungary in 1896. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Thank your for your thorough source review. Linked. Borsoka (talk)
  • Modified and most publishing houses linked. Borsoka (talk)
Reliability
  • Yes, it covers the period, especially because the Edict of Torda is the first law sanctioning the existence of a Unitarian denomanation. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thank you for the clarification, sounds good Aza24 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability

Funk[edit]

  • Thank you for starting the review. I hope I linked all terms ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • Alternative solution ([4]).
  • No article exists.
Is it the same civil war that is mentioned throughout the article, or are there more? Was a bit difficult to understand. Could be nice with an article, hint hint... FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The civil war is now mentioned only twice in the main text. The civil war lasted from 1526 to 1541. Yes, it would be nice, but I have no material... :) Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted.
  • He is linked when he is first mentioned in the main text (for further details see below)
I know, I mean the image captions are independent of the text in this way, so the first image that mentions him should have the first link? FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it! Modified.
  • John Zápolya was John Sigismund Zápolya's father. I think the latter is consistently mentioned as John Sigismund with the exception of his first mention in the lead.
Alright. it confused me that you referred to the son both as John Sigismund and John Sigismund Zápolya in at least an image caption. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understand. Modified.
  • No, the two territories are not the same. I applied an alternative solution to introduce the "eastern Hungarian Kingdom" ([5]).
  • Expanded.
  • Done.
  • Typo fixed.
  • Done.
  • He is linked in the first sentence with his full name.
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • I do not know how it could be mentioned naturally in the text. Perhaps a note? Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review, and also for your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Thank you for starting a review. I modified, but my concern is that it was not an official name, because John Sigismund regarded himself the lawful king of Hungary just as his opponent, Ferdinand of Habsburg, who ruled "Royal Hungary" (the northern and western regions of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary).
  • Deleted.
  • Deleted.
  • Modified.
  • Linked.
  • Deleted.
  • Modified. See my remarks after your first comment above.
  • Linked.
  • Sorry, I do not understand your above comment. There are several individual Diets mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I do not understand your above comment. The article does not refer to sessions, but individual Diets. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edict about the ban on Sacramentarianism is not quoted. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked.
  • Their views influenced Dávid and contributed to the development of Antitrinitarian theories.
  • I may not understand your above remarks. The article is about the edict: its background, its text and its consequences. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a reader went through this without the title and lead, I am not sure that they would realise that. I was expecting to see several things, including how the secondary sources analyse the language of the Edict, possibly sentence by sentence or clause by clause. It may be that I found the large block quote, which seems to be without context, confusing. Is that the whole Edict or an extract from it? I would have hoped for a section, or at least a paragraph, on the make up, background and deliberations of the diet which passed the Edict, rather than a single sentence. Is that really the sum total of what is known of it? And is there any commentary on Sigismund's motivations? He comes across as a compliant cipher pushed around by strong advisors. Did this apply in other policy areas?
Yes, the edict is short and we do not have much information about the debates at the Diet. The article describes the road to the Edict: how religious tolerance was first introduced in the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and how it became the standard. The article explains how texts in the Bible influenced the edict's text. Yes, John Sigismund was driven by new and new waves of the Reformation by strong personalities, but not because he was a puppet, but because he was interested in religious debates - the article describes this process in details. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, I have expanded a little where you asked, and note that there are several of my comments which you don't seem to have responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding, but I did not understand your remarks. Please see my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're past 3 weeks with only one general support. This may be archived if we don't see progress to promotion in the next several days. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks. Yes, I have to accept that religious tolerance is not a favorite topic in our community. We prefer soldiers, wars, battles. We represent humankind. :) Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Gog and other potentially interested folks? FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. After nominating the article, I noticed the relevant wikiprojects about the nomination. @Tom (LT): as the reviewer of the article could you also participate in the FAC process? @Gog the Mild: do you have time to continue the review? Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More