Talk:Álmos

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Clear consensus for a move and Álmos has the most support. A disambiguation page exists, but as there are only two entries, this article will be moved to the base title as suggested; if this article ends up not being the primary topic, discussion can reopen. Either way, the consensus here is clearly that disambiguators involving his title are not adequate given the uncertainty. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Álmos, Grand Prince of the Magyars → Álmos – According to the article, his position or title is uncertain (kende, gyula or "fejedelem"). The current article name is misleading. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support the move, as per the above reasons. However, I think the title "Álmos of Hungary" would also be misleading, because Hungary is a highly debatable concept in connection with him. What about "Álmos"? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

*Support just Álmos. A dab link to Álmos, Duke of Croatia at the top of the page will suffice. He seems to be the only other Álmos.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I think the use of the word 'Hungary' is misleading, his proper title would be perhaps "Almos of Etelkoz". I think Álmos, Grand Prince of the Hungarians would be the best solution (per WP:COMMONNAME). He was the first known Grand Prince therefore we should emphasize his rank IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I however can agree with the simple Álmos form. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I also accept Álmos. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• "Álmos" is also fine with me. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I changed the requested move from "Álmos of Hungary" to "Álmos". --Norden1990 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support "Álmos". As per above. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support "Álmos" or "Álmos of Hungary". I agree with Norden1990 --Csendesmark (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support "Álmos" per above. bd2412 T 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Álmos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this one. I hope to have comments posted in the next few hours. Thanks as always for your work, Borsoka. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, this may be the first time I've had a chance to review an article with actual Khazars in it, which I'm quite excited about. (My own username comes not from ethnic heritage but a previous obsession with Pavic's Dictionary of the Khazars.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Khazar2, thank you for your review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this looks good so far. I've posted some initial comments below.

• " sacred ruler or kende of the Hungarians, their military leader or gyula" -- this is a little confusing. Do you mean that these are the four possibilities for what he could have been? Or that ruler/kende are synonyms, as are military leader/gyula?
  • Thanks. Fixed (?). Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• can it be clarified what the origin of the infobox image is File:Almos2.jpg?
  • Thanks. Deleted (Sorry, I cannot answer the question. Furthermore, it is not the best quality picture.) Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• " Gyula Kristó[11] and Victor Spinei" -- it would help to give a word of context on these two. Could you add something like "Historians Gyula..."
  • Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• "as it is proposed by Kristó" -- do you mean that the preceding sentence is Kristo's theory? Or that he also proposed the name?
  • Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• "Early life" -- seems like a bit of a misnomer for this section, which entirely deals with events before his birth
  • Thanks. Modiefied. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• " that his election was initiated by the Khazar khagan." -- is the "his" here Arpad or Almos?
  • Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• "Gyula Kristó and many other historians" -- only Kristo appears to be cited here. Does she/he mention the other historians, too?
  • Thanks. A reference to an enncyclopedia is added. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• "our word an our command." -- should this be "and"?
  • Thanks. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• File:HetVezer-ChroniconPictum.jpg needs a tag for its US copyright status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Deleted (Sorry, I cannot answer the question. Furthermore, it is not the best quality picture.) Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	see clarity points above. Spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm checking with another user on the copyright tag of the falcon statue--more soon.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	infobox image needs a caption explaining the image's origin
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

I've removed another image from the article; since Ukraine doesn't have freedom of panorama, it's not clear that a picture of a sculpture is uncopyrighted until we have more information about the sculpture's origins, which wasn't readily available. With this image cut, the article is ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)