Talk:Nándor Dáni/GA1: Difference between revisions

By /

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 
Line 60: Line 60:

| ”'(a)”’ (references) || Pass. || {{GAHybrid/item|y}}

| ”'(a)”’ (references) || Pass. || {{GAHybrid/item|y}}

|-

|-

| ”'(b)”’ (citations to reliable sources) || See discussion below. || {{GAHybrid/item|hold}}

| ”'(b)”’ (citations to reliable sources) || . || {{GAHybrid/item|}}

|-

|-

| ”'(c)”’ (original research) || See discussion below. || {{GAHybrid/item|hold}}

| ”'(c)”’ (original research) || . || {{GAHybrid/item|}}

|-

|-

| ”'(d)”’ (copyvio and plagiarism) || Pass. || {{GAHybrid/item|y}}

| ”'(d)”’ (copyvio and plagiarism) || Pass. || {{GAHybrid/item|y}}
Line 110: Line 110:

! Result !! Notes

! Result !! Notes

|-

|-

| {{GAHybrid/item|hold}} || See the discussion below.

| {{GAHybrid/item|}} || .

|}

|}
Line 121: Line 121:

::{{Ping|Arconning}} Thanks. I still can’t find where Pest is mentioned, could you quote the relevant parts? [[User:Kovcszaln6|Kovcszaln6]] ([[User talk:Kovcszaln6|talk]]) 17:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Arconning}} Thanks. I still can’t find where Pest is mentioned, could you quote the relevant parts? [[User:Kovcszaln6|Kovcszaln6]] ([[User talk:Kovcszaln6|talk]]) 17:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Kovcszaln6|Kovcszaln6]] Hmm… I must’ve gotten it wrong. Someone must’ve edited into Pest though I can’t find any information regarding that. All good now. [[User:Arconning|Arconning]] ([[User talk:Arconning|talk]]) 03:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Kovcszaln6|Kovcszaln6]] Hmm… I must’ve gotten it wrong. Someone must’ve edited into Pest though I can’t find any information regarding that. All good now. [[User:Arconning|Arconning]] ([[User talk:Arconning|talk]]) 03:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|Arconning}} Thank you, I have no further issues.

Latest revision as of 09:35, 20 December 2025

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

Nominator: Arconning (talk · contribs) 12:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I’ll be reviewing this article. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

    6. [4]

  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

    7. [5]

    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the “comprehensiveness” required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers’ suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) No issues. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No problems. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Fixed. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Fixed. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Pass. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Fine. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No issues. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Pass. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Should be fine. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Pass. Pass Pass
Result Notes
Pass Pass Passed. Thank you for your cooperation.
  • The infobox says that he was born in Pest specifically (although the body only mentions Budapest). Do we have any sources backing that up?
  • Are there sources for his middle name János?
@Kovcszaln6 Here are my responses to your comments!
1. I do believe it’s the second and third source.
2. The first source covers it. Arconning (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: Thanks. I still can’t find where Pest is mentioned, could you quote the relevant parts? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovcszaln6 Hmm… I must’ve gotten it wrong. Someone must’ve edited into Pest though I can’t find any information regarding that. All good now. Arconning (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: Thank you, I have no further issues.

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top