Founding of Moldavia has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 20, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
Founding of Moldavia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reverted material to original status of the article prior to reworking, so that material can be easily "mined" from it, as needed. User:HopsonRoad 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the Moldavian chronicles, the Vlachs of Maramureș came to the region during the reign of one "King Vladislaus of Hungary" to fight against the Mongols.
I can't find them in the article. 46.239.48.95 ( talk) 07:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I am confused by the title of this article. If, as the lead suggests, it's really about the events surrounding the "Dismounting" by Dragoș, then the word I would prefer would be "founding" not "foundation". The scope of the article really appears to be a history of the region, its peoples and its governance from 750 through the 14th Century. There is a lot of detail, but it's hard for me to follow the central theme, as a reader of an encyclopedia might expect, as opposed to a scholar on the subject. I look forward to some guidance, since I have chosen it as the one longest in queue to receive a GA review. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Per the discussion, above, this article should be renamed "Founding of Moldavia" with a redirect from its current title. I don't have the technical skill to perform this conversion. User:HopsonRoad 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Samtar are you sure you have read the article more carefully before making it a good article? There is a phrase that has no predicate: "With the disintegration of the Golden Horde after the death of Öz Beg Khan in 1341.[43][44]" 86.126.53.100 ( talk) 15:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Taken care of with ". Both" => ", both". Thanks for pointing out this copyedit problem. User:HopsonRoad 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Samtar ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Passing. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | Meets 1b criteria. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | Good, clear list of references. | Pass |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | Reliable inline citations. | Pass |
(c) (original research) | Article is free of any OS. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Article covers the main aspects of the topic. | Pass |
(b) (focused) | Passing | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No detectable bias is present in the article. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Article is stable and does not change significantly from day to day. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Images meet 6a criteria. | Pass |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Article contains eight appropriate images with informative captions. | Pass |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | I've passed this review per the improvements made. |
Please add any related discussion here.
Samtar, thank you for your thorough and bold review. I must apologize but I need more time to address all the issues above because I am quite busy in real life. Could you give me one more week (till 29 November)?
Borsoka (
talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that after the review, the name of the article should be changed to Founding of Moldavia, per discussion. User:HopsonRoad 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that another editor has commenced the GA review. In the article's current state I would suggest that it fails, primarily because of lack of conciseness. I have made some suggestions about how to trim the article and make it more concise in the sandbox. That effort was for illustrative purposes only and may represent trimming of essential facts and inclusion of superfluous facts. Good luck on this article. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Aftermath section, the article refers to Peter I Mușat, which links to Petru II of Moldavia, not Petru I of Moldavia, which Peter are we supposed to see? User:HopsonRoad 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Changed to Petru II of Moldavia. User:HopsonRoad 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
In the lead we have the following statement: The Vlachs came to Maramureș during the reign of one "King Vladislaus of Hungary" to fight against the Mongols, according to the Moldo-Russian Chronicle.
I think there is not a balance between all the views regarding this aspect. Let's keep in mind that we have two theories for the origin of the Romanians, which are very different, and we include at this moment only the immigrationist theory. According to the other theory, namely the Theory of Daco-Roman continuity, "the process of Romanization expanded to Maramureş, Moldavia and other neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders" and afterwards Romanians (Vlachs) continuously inhabited Maramureș through the Middle Ages.
For instance in a work of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University we are informed that the ancient land of Maramures was avoided by the migratory waves. The Romanian native demographic element was thus kept intact till the arrival of the Hungarians
On this map on a Romanian historical atlas made by Ştefan Pascu Maramureş appears as a Romanian political entity before 1200.
Even the Hungarian historian Tivadar Lehoczky supported the fact that Romanians lived in Maramureş when the Hungarian state was formed: "in the north-eastern part of our country, in the counties of Maramures, Ugocsa and Bereg, even at the time of our coming to this land, there lived Romanians of unknown origin" 79.117.158.51 ( talk) 10:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As per Origin_of_the_Romanians#Theory_of_Daco-Roman_continuity, it seems Maramureş, alongside other regions, is mentioned at page 29 from Pop, Ioan-Aurel (1999). Romanians and Romania: A Brief History.. It would be great to check that source, because I can't find online a free version of the book. 79.117.202.244 ( talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have inserted a new section on geographic extent and addressed the three theories of origin, relying on related articles. I hope that satisfies 79.117.202.244. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the source of the English translation of the Moldo-Russian chronicle? 86.127.14.122 ( talk) 08:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
User:HopsonRoad, please read the text carefully:
Vladislav, the Hungarian king rejoiced over the divine assistance. He highly appreciated and rewarded the Old-Romans for their courage. … [T]hey asked King Vladislav not to force them to adopt the Latin faith, but to let them keep their own Christian faith according to the Greek rite and to grant them a place to stay. King Vladislav … granted them lands in Maramureș between the Mureș and Tisa at a place called Crij. The Old-Romans gathered and settled there. They married Hungarian women and led them into their own Christian religion. … There was a smart and courageous man, Dragoș, among them.
So Vladislav granted land only to "Old-Romans", not also to "Romanians". By the way, who were the "Old-Romans"? From the phrase "the Old-Romans and the Romanians", I understand that Old-Romans were not Romanians. 86.126.63.254 ( talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The original Slavonic text and the Romanian translation are here. The English translation of the requested paragraph is something like this: He (Vladislav) highly appreciated the Old-Romans and rewarded them for their courage. [Vladislav] showed to the Old-Romans the letter of the New-Romans, ... and called to them to serve him instead of returning to the Old-Rome to perish because of the New-Romans. [The Old-Romans] asked the king to give them permission to send scouts to explore the Old-Rome... The scouts came back and said: "Our fortress, the Old-Rome, has been torn down and the women and children have been converted by the New-Romans to their latin faith.". [T]hey asked King Vladislav not to force them to adopt the Latin faith, but to let them keep their own Christian faith according to the Greek rite and to grant them a place to stay
I wonder which was the Old-Rome, that was taken over by the New-Romans. 86.126.61.103 ( talk) 13:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why the article describes the competing theories about the origin of the Romanians. Are these theories connected to the subject of the article? As far as I can remember I have never read a study dedicated to the establishment of the Principality of Moldavia which describes those theories. Could you refer to some publications? Why is Dacia Traiana mentioned in the article? The Roman province has nothing to do with Moldavia or Maramures. It is like mentioning the Spanish conquest of Florida in connection with the establishment of Massachusetts. Do reliable sources dedicated to the establishment of Moldavia mention the Roman conquest of Banat, Transylvania and Oltenia? Borsoka ( talk) 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a quite surprising identification of the Ulichians and Tivercians with the Vlachs. Who are the scholars who identified them? Is this a majority view in any country? Borsoka ( talk) 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why the oldest Romanian chronicles' reference to the arrival of Vlachs to Maramures was deleted. Do we really think that Iorga's early 20th-century views should be emphasized in 2015? Borsoka ( talk) 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
HopsonRoad, Samtar, after reading the article I concluded that it does not meet the criteria of a GA. First of all, there are long sections which are not verified. Secondly, the article presents minority (scholarly?) views as facts (I refer to my above questions about the identification of two Slavic tribes with the Vlachs). The article does not fairly present the legend of Dragos's dismounting. Sorry, I think that the article needs significant modification if we want to preserve its present status as a GA. Borsoka ( talk) 04:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What does the mention and picture of the Blakumen Runestone have anything to do with the founding of Moldavia? The runestone mentioned is a grave memorial monument in cemetery in Sweden to a Hróðfúss, who was killed by "Blakumen" while traveling abroad. Where this murder took place and the identity of this/these Blakumen are themselves a matter of speculation. How is the Blakumen Runestone relevant? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit ( talk) 00:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
For example this sentence: "Victor Spinei wrote that a runestone which was set up around 1050 contains the earliest reference to Romanians living east of the Carpathians" is contradicted by the very next sentence: "It refers to Blakumen who killed a Varangian merchant at an unspecified place." TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit ( talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Founding of Moldavia has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 20, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
Founding of Moldavia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reverted material to original status of the article prior to reworking, so that material can be easily "mined" from it, as needed. User:HopsonRoad 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the Moldavian chronicles, the Vlachs of Maramureș came to the region during the reign of one "King Vladislaus of Hungary" to fight against the Mongols.
I can't find them in the article. 46.239.48.95 ( talk) 07:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I am confused by the title of this article. If, as the lead suggests, it's really about the events surrounding the "Dismounting" by Dragoș, then the word I would prefer would be "founding" not "foundation". The scope of the article really appears to be a history of the region, its peoples and its governance from 750 through the 14th Century. There is a lot of detail, but it's hard for me to follow the central theme, as a reader of an encyclopedia might expect, as opposed to a scholar on the subject. I look forward to some guidance, since I have chosen it as the one longest in queue to receive a GA review. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Per the discussion, above, this article should be renamed "Founding of Moldavia" with a redirect from its current title. I don't have the technical skill to perform this conversion. User:HopsonRoad 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@ User:Samtar are you sure you have read the article more carefully before making it a good article? There is a phrase that has no predicate: "With the disintegration of the Golden Horde after the death of Öz Beg Khan in 1341.[43][44]" 86.126.53.100 ( talk) 15:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Taken care of with ". Both" => ", both". Thanks for pointing out this copyedit problem. User:HopsonRoad 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Samtar ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
A good article is—
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Passing. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | Meets 1b criteria. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | Good, clear list of references. | Pass |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | Reliable inline citations. | Pass |
(c) (original research) | Article is free of any OS. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Article covers the main aspects of the topic. | Pass |
(b) (focused) | Passing | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No detectable bias is present in the article. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Article is stable and does not change significantly from day to day. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Images meet 6a criteria. | Pass |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Article contains eight appropriate images with informative captions. | Pass |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | I've passed this review per the improvements made. |
Please add any related discussion here.
Samtar, thank you for your thorough and bold review. I must apologize but I need more time to address all the issues above because I am quite busy in real life. Could you give me one more week (till 29 November)?
Borsoka (
talk) 15:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that after the review, the name of the article should be changed to Founding of Moldavia, per discussion. User:HopsonRoad 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that another editor has commenced the GA review. In the article's current state I would suggest that it fails, primarily because of lack of conciseness. I have made some suggestions about how to trim the article and make it more concise in the sandbox. That effort was for illustrative purposes only and may represent trimming of essential facts and inclusion of superfluous facts. Good luck on this article. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Aftermath section, the article refers to Peter I Mușat, which links to Petru II of Moldavia, not Petru I of Moldavia, which Peter are we supposed to see? User:HopsonRoad 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Changed to Petru II of Moldavia. User:HopsonRoad 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
In the lead we have the following statement: The Vlachs came to Maramureș during the reign of one "King Vladislaus of Hungary" to fight against the Mongols, according to the Moldo-Russian Chronicle.
I think there is not a balance between all the views regarding this aspect. Let's keep in mind that we have two theories for the origin of the Romanians, which are very different, and we include at this moment only the immigrationist theory. According to the other theory, namely the Theory of Daco-Roman continuity, "the process of Romanization expanded to Maramureş, Moldavia and other neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders" and afterwards Romanians (Vlachs) continuously inhabited Maramureș through the Middle Ages.
For instance in a work of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University we are informed that the ancient land of Maramures was avoided by the migratory waves. The Romanian native demographic element was thus kept intact till the arrival of the Hungarians
On this map on a Romanian historical atlas made by Ştefan Pascu Maramureş appears as a Romanian political entity before 1200.
Even the Hungarian historian Tivadar Lehoczky supported the fact that Romanians lived in Maramureş when the Hungarian state was formed: "in the north-eastern part of our country, in the counties of Maramures, Ugocsa and Bereg, even at the time of our coming to this land, there lived Romanians of unknown origin" 79.117.158.51 ( talk) 10:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As per Origin_of_the_Romanians#Theory_of_Daco-Roman_continuity, it seems Maramureş, alongside other regions, is mentioned at page 29 from Pop, Ioan-Aurel (1999). Romanians and Romania: A Brief History.. It would be great to check that source, because I can't find online a free version of the book. 79.117.202.244 ( talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have inserted a new section on geographic extent and addressed the three theories of origin, relying on related articles. I hope that satisfies 79.117.202.244. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the source of the English translation of the Moldo-Russian chronicle? 86.127.14.122 ( talk) 08:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
User:HopsonRoad, please read the text carefully:
Vladislav, the Hungarian king rejoiced over the divine assistance. He highly appreciated and rewarded the Old-Romans for their courage. … [T]hey asked King Vladislav not to force them to adopt the Latin faith, but to let them keep their own Christian faith according to the Greek rite and to grant them a place to stay. King Vladislav … granted them lands in Maramureș between the Mureș and Tisa at a place called Crij. The Old-Romans gathered and settled there. They married Hungarian women and led them into their own Christian religion. … There was a smart and courageous man, Dragoș, among them.
So Vladislav granted land only to "Old-Romans", not also to "Romanians". By the way, who were the "Old-Romans"? From the phrase "the Old-Romans and the Romanians", I understand that Old-Romans were not Romanians. 86.126.63.254 ( talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The original Slavonic text and the Romanian translation are here. The English translation of the requested paragraph is something like this: He (Vladislav) highly appreciated the Old-Romans and rewarded them for their courage. [Vladislav] showed to the Old-Romans the letter of the New-Romans, ... and called to them to serve him instead of returning to the Old-Rome to perish because of the New-Romans. [The Old-Romans] asked the king to give them permission to send scouts to explore the Old-Rome... The scouts came back and said: "Our fortress, the Old-Rome, has been torn down and the women and children have been converted by the New-Romans to their latin faith.". [T]hey asked King Vladislav not to force them to adopt the Latin faith, but to let them keep their own Christian faith according to the Greek rite and to grant them a place to stay
I wonder which was the Old-Rome, that was taken over by the New-Romans. 86.126.61.103 ( talk) 13:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why the article describes the competing theories about the origin of the Romanians. Are these theories connected to the subject of the article? As far as I can remember I have never read a study dedicated to the establishment of the Principality of Moldavia which describes those theories. Could you refer to some publications? Why is Dacia Traiana mentioned in the article? The Roman province has nothing to do with Moldavia or Maramures. It is like mentioning the Spanish conquest of Florida in connection with the establishment of Massachusetts. Do reliable sources dedicated to the establishment of Moldavia mention the Roman conquest of Banat, Transylvania and Oltenia? Borsoka ( talk) 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a quite surprising identification of the Ulichians and Tivercians with the Vlachs. Who are the scholars who identified them? Is this a majority view in any country? Borsoka ( talk) 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand why the oldest Romanian chronicles' reference to the arrival of Vlachs to Maramures was deleted. Do we really think that Iorga's early 20th-century views should be emphasized in 2015? Borsoka ( talk) 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
HopsonRoad, Samtar, after reading the article I concluded that it does not meet the criteria of a GA. First of all, there are long sections which are not verified. Secondly, the article presents minority (scholarly?) views as facts (I refer to my above questions about the identification of two Slavic tribes with the Vlachs). The article does not fairly present the legend of Dragos's dismounting. Sorry, I think that the article needs significant modification if we want to preserve its present status as a GA. Borsoka ( talk) 04:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What does the mention and picture of the Blakumen Runestone have anything to do with the founding of Moldavia? The runestone mentioned is a grave memorial monument in cemetery in Sweden to a Hróðfúss, who was killed by "Blakumen" while traveling abroad. Where this murder took place and the identity of this/these Blakumen are themselves a matter of speculation. How is the Blakumen Runestone relevant? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit ( talk) 00:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
For example this sentence: "Victor Spinei wrote that a runestone which was set up around 1050 contains the earliest reference to Romanians living east of the Carpathians" is contradicted by the very next sentence: "It refers to Blakumen who killed a Varangian merchant at an unspecified place." TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit ( talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)