Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)/archive2

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[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 because its neutrality should be checqued before its GAN. The previous peer review only concentrated on a minor aspect of the article.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Calvin999

The Kingdom of Hungary, a country in Central Europe, → This kind of sounds like it still exists
came into being → came into existence
urban lifestyle, habits and urban culture → Remove the second 'urban'
was affected by several cultural trends. → Sounds like it was a bad thing?
buildings, and literary works → Remove comma
the culture, but Orthodox, and even non-Christian ethnic minority communities also existed. → There's something about this sentence which doesn't sound right. It reads a bit awkward. I think it's the usage of the comma's and 'but'
number of tongues, → Is this encyclopaedic phrasing?
powerful magnates. → Wikilink magnate
After his death a period of interregnum interrupted royal power in the early 14th century. → What do you mean by this?
All the same, → Remove
prove that the Hungarians' way of life underwent fundamental changes in Central Europe. → Doesn't make sense.
middle of the 10th century. → mid 10th century.
December 25, 1000 → Comma after 1000 (Should American date formatting be being used? Or British?)
He prescribed that every ten villages were → He prescribed that every tenth village established was
Communers → Commoners
From legal perspective, → From a legal perspective,
freemen and serfs → Any Wikilinkage available?
but intermediate categories also existed. → I wouldn't use 'categories'. Perhaps 'groups' or 'classes'?
Last Árpáds (1242–1301) → I don't think there needs to be so many short paragraphs. I think some can be merged to make one paragraph. It's a bit of a style thing but try and make them the same size, it looks a lot more concise and professional.
I think the 'Aftermath' section is a bit brief and short.

Article wide, I think the basics are here for a good article. I just think it needs polishing and tidying up a bit. I think it reads a bit conversational and not encyclopaedic enough at times, a bit informal. The prose needs to be tighter than what it is now. I've given a few examples where 5 words are better than 10, for example. I think some more but brief info about what happened post 1301 is needed just so that a complete timeline is present of what happened before, during and after; it ends rather abruptly with just one sentence about the young pretender in 1301 then a few sentences for Aftermath. It doesn't need loads more, but I'd say one, perhaps two, decent sized paragraphs so that a complete overview is there for the reader. Ping me with any questions. — Calvin999 22:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of them and I will change the text in the next few days. I will ping you after I finished my homework. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999, I made several changes in the article based on your comments. I would highly appreciate if you could dedicate some time to checque them. Borsoka (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]