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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 [1].

---

Ladislaus I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a late 11th-century King of Hungary who consolidated the Christian monarchy. He is considered as "the incarnation of the late-medieval Hungarian ideal of chivalry". Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
• File:Béla_elnyeri_a_koronát.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info

Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ladislav1_denar1.jpg should explicitly account for the copyright of the original work (PD-old-100)

This is a medieval denar issued by King Ladislaus I (r. 1077-95). --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Zaruke_hrvatskog_kralja_Zvonimira_Celestin_Medović.JPG needs a US PD tag, and given the current tag the given author cannot be correct

Added the name of the original Croatian painter who died in 1920. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data conveyed by this map?

Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:King_St._Ladislaus.jpg: what is the status and source of the original work?

This is a 14th century reliquary (herma) of King Saint Ladislaus I of Hungar, owned and exhibited by Diocese of Győr. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Derzs4.jpg: given licensing and author info does not make sense

I don't understand your problem. This is a medieval mural in the Unitarian church of Dârjiu, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, which is why the modern-day uploader is not the original author. For the purposes of Wikipedia, which uses primarily US law, taking a photo of a 2D work does not generate a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Szent_László_legenda_4.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:LaszloOradea.jpg.

Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:046CupolaSPietro.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, we need to account for the status of the building as well.

Sorry, but I could not find that image in this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in the portal bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thanks. The building is St. Peter's Basilica, completed on 18 November 1626. I quote from Commons:Freedom of panorama: "Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960, the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer [...]". --Norden1990 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Tentative oppose. The current image review is almost identical to the image review at the first FAC. If you're having problems understanding reviewer comments, it's better to ask than to just resubmit a FAC with the same problems. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am having problems understanding the comments. Sorry, but an extremely simple-minded person like me cannot easily understand that a picture with copyright problems can be displayed in Commons, but the same picture cannot be used in articles. All the same, I will seek assistance. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding "extremely simple-minded"; I certainly didn't say that. This isn't a comment about you, this is a comment about FAC. We have limited volunteer labor available. FAC can't possibly work if we ask all the volunteers to be willing to do the same work over and over again. Nikki is perhaps the most experienced image reviewer we have at FAC. Personally, I'm mystified by image requirements; I can't answer your question. But she knows what she's talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons, like Wikipedia, is a work in constant progress; just as Wikipedia articles can often be improved, so too can Commons image descriptions, and just as Wikipedia articles sometimes warrant deletion, so too do Commons images. That being said, I expect most of the images in this case fall into the first camp rather than the second. If you have specific questions about what improvements are needed, I'm happy to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am sure I am unable to understand WP policies about pictures, so I already sought community assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose, in light of progress. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPS1992

MPS1992, thank you for your excelent edits and thorough review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "jumped on Ladislaus's lance from a thorny bush and went up to his chest" - this feels slightly ambiguous. Does it mean it jumped onto his lance and then jumped onto his chest?
  • Thank you for your comment. I modified the text: [2]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Solomon was defeated in the battle" - this sentence feels slightly awkward tacked onto the end of the paragraph. Perhaps it would read better if made longer with a little more detail.
  • Modified: [3]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Upon Helen's demand" - I have rephrased this to "At Helen's demand", but, do the sources support such a strong wording? In other words, could it be "at Helen's request" rather than "at Helen's demand"?
  • Modified: [4] Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In 1090, Ladislaus had a meeting with the bishop of Prague, an old friend. Do these two facts really add anything? Presumably he met various bishops and other important personages quite often; did the meeting have any significance or significant outcome? It seems out of place amidst military actions of long-lasting import.
  • Deleted: [5]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Similarly, " The same year, he wrote to Oderizius, Abbot of Monte Cassino in Italy, about his conquest of "Sclavonia"" appears to be inserted almost randomly into a paragraph that is otherwise almost entirely about the invasion of Croatia. This sentence should be moved to the following paragraph.
  • Modified: [6] ("Sclavonia" was identical with Croatia in the context). Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• " The occupation of Croatian territories resulted in a dispute, because..." - this is awkwardly worded. Perhaps it could be recast on its own or together with preceding sentences.
  • Modified: [7]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "because Bács was situated closer to the Hungarian-Byzantine border" - it would be good to make a little clearer how this is related to the needs of the English refugees and the moving of the sees.
  • Deleted: [8], wl to "New England" in the "See also" section: [9]. (Makk's theory is not closely connected to Ladislaus and is only a POV). Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• " Historian Gábor Klaniczay writes that the whole story was probably invented during the reign of King Béla III of Hungary, who was actually planning to lead a crusade to the Holy Land in the 1190s.[100] However, Ladislaus did plan to invade Bohemia" - the article seems here to decide that Klaniczay is wrong, and says so in Wikipedia's voice. What makes one source right and the other (later) one clearly wrong?
  • Modified, but I am not sure, I understand your concern: [10]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I got confused between the two campaigns here. It looks fine now. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• " Ladislaus's family and relatives who are mentioned in the article are shown in the following family tree" - I think this sentence should be removed entirely, but I presume the citation at the end of it indicates the attribution for the family tree diagram. Perhaps the attribution could be included in a caption. The note with the asterisk is probably unnecessary.
  • Modified, but I am not sure, I understand your concern: [11]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• bondsman should be wikilinked to something relevant. Neither of the items on the disambiguation page for bondsman are suitable. Perhaps it is slavery or perhaps it is something more subtle on the Russian model.
  • Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the "Russian model". Why do you think any kind of "Russian model" is relevant here? Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My thinking is that we should either explain "bondsman" or wikilink it. Best to wikilink it. But "people [who] paid for their passage to the New World" is not the right wikilink, and neither is "any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of persons accused in court". So either the correct wikilink is slave, but there is a risk that is inaccurate in this context, and that serf might be more accurate. Although Wikipedia suggests that serfdom only became dominant in Eastern Europe a few hundred years later. Perhaps something similar to serf (he was the son of a craftsman, not an agricultural labourer.) What do you think? MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. I added the wl to serfdom. Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "  a bondsman, named "Tekus, son of the craftsman Dénes", opened Ladislaus's tomb" - this is slightly confusing for the reader. It should be made more clear that this was part of the canonization ceremony, and not that Tekus took it into his head to vandalize the tomb one day.
  • Modified: [12]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "the texts about Ladislaus's life and reign in 14th-century Hungarian chronicles, were written during Coloman's rule" - Coloman lived c. 1070 – 3 February 1116 (that is, from the 11th to the 12th century) so how can a 14th-century chronicle have been written during his rule?
  • Modified: [13]. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these edits. MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think these now all look OK, thank you for making the changes. I greatly enjoyed finding out about the very English-dominated nature of the Varangian Guard in this era, which I had not known about before. One stylistic point and one minor point:

There are substantial quotes from primary sources and other antiquated sources at various points in the text. I don't know if the Manual of Style permits attributed quotes of out-of-copyright sources of this length, though they seem good to me. But, some of the later ones seem to have their text in italics, whereas the earlier ones do not. They should be consistent. (All of the work names seem to be in italics already, which is consistent and is good.)

Thank you for your comments. I changed the last two quotes (I preferred non-italics for them). Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second, and this is very minor and perhaps more nuanced, is the Illuminated Chronicle, dating from 1358 or later, really a primary source about a king who died over 250 years earlier? Perhaps it is a primary source for views taken by Hungarians in later centuries, I'm not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungarian historiography the Illuminated Chronicle is treated as a primary source, because it is the earliest copy of the so-called "Old Gesta", a chronicle which was written in the late 11th century and later modified and expanded. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled as there has been no activity for well over a month. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.