![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"A svijet je tada govorio da su se Sandalj i Jelena ljubili odavna, još dok je bio živ njezin muž Đurađ" [According to some rumors Sandalj and Jelena were inlove for long time, even while her husband Djuradj was still alive] link
This is published in novel "Obitelj vojvode Hrvoja" [Family of Duke Hrvoje]. Are there any scholarly sources for such claim?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 15:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I was uncertain how to translate Serbian word 'Blagovjerna' to English language. If I am not wrong, it is a title in Eastern Orthodox Christianity which is given to people who are saints or to potential saints. According to Serbian-English theological dictionary it maybe can be translated as pious or devout. I left it as 'Blagovjerna' because I used GBS and noticed there are English sources who use word blagoverni so I guess it is not a mistake. Any thoughts.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013
Three early comments, sorry that I got sidetrakced in the middle of this one. Will finish later tonight/tomorrow:
More:
On first pass, this article appears well researched and well sourced. The two biggest concerns I have about this article so far are copyediting and context. It's very difficult going for the non-expert reader, and needs work on both respects to meet criterion 1a (clarity and correctness). I've done some copyediting as I went, but it's clear that more is needed, to a degree that I think falls outside the scope of a standard review. I'm able to fix some basic spelling, punctuation, and preposition errors, but some sentences I've had more trouble untangling, like :
or
The article assumes a high degree of specialized knowledge from its reader, and would be clearer at times with a bit of context.
Etc.
I'm going to put this one on hold for seven days for these concerns to be addressed. If you're not comfortable doing the copyediting yourself, you might consider asking at WP:GOCE for a copyedit; the article appears to need a thorough check. Hope these comments help, and thanks again for your work. The contribution is very much appreciated! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, I made a few copy-editing changes and tried to improve the clarity of some of the prose. However, since I know just about nothing about this topic, I may have accidentally introduced some factual errors. Take a look at my changes; if you don't think it says what you think it should say, just bring it up on the GA review page and I'll try to help you make it say what it should say. Between my knowledge of the English language and your knowledge of Serbian history, I think we can make this work. AmericanLemming ( talk) 23:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
As Khazar2 said, I think some context would help the non-expert reader get more out of the article. These are some comments I have after reading through the article.
Other comments: These aren't necessary to get the article to GA status (or at least I don't think they are), but are just some ideas for further improving the article if and when you want to do that.
AmericanLemming ( talk) 02:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look at what you've done so far, and I believe that your changes make the article a lot easier for the non-expert reader to understand. Keep up the good work! AmericanLemming ( talk) 05:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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. | |
![]() |
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). | Since the majority of the sources are non-English, I'm not as certain as I would normally be about the reliability of sources. However, I see no issues on an initial look, and the subject matter does not seem controversial. |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
I am somewhat uneasy about the "née Lazarević" bit in the lead sentence. Was Lazarević not her patronymic rather than family name? The format implies that Lazarević was a surname she lost/renounced upon marriage, as if the subject of the article was a 20th/21st-century Serbian woman rather than someone who lived centuries before family names became standardized. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This image includes Jelena with dark hair holding a sceptre standing next to Milica. Maybe crop it and include it in the infobox?-- Zoupan 00:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jelena Balšić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"A svijet je tada govorio da su se Sandalj i Jelena ljubili odavna, još dok je bio živ njezin muž Đurađ" [According to some rumors Sandalj and Jelena were inlove for long time, even while her husband Djuradj was still alive] link
This is published in novel "Obitelj vojvode Hrvoja" [Family of Duke Hrvoje]. Are there any scholarly sources for such claim?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 15:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I was uncertain how to translate Serbian word 'Blagovjerna' to English language. If I am not wrong, it is a title in Eastern Orthodox Christianity which is given to people who are saints or to potential saints. According to Serbian-English theological dictionary it maybe can be translated as pious or devout. I left it as 'Blagovjerna' because I used GBS and noticed there are English sources who use word blagoverni so I guess it is not a mistake. Any thoughts.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 22:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:21, 25 April 2013
Three early comments, sorry that I got sidetrakced in the middle of this one. Will finish later tonight/tomorrow:
More:
On first pass, this article appears well researched and well sourced. The two biggest concerns I have about this article so far are copyediting and context. It's very difficult going for the non-expert reader, and needs work on both respects to meet criterion 1a (clarity and correctness). I've done some copyediting as I went, but it's clear that more is needed, to a degree that I think falls outside the scope of a standard review. I'm able to fix some basic spelling, punctuation, and preposition errors, but some sentences I've had more trouble untangling, like :
or
The article assumes a high degree of specialized knowledge from its reader, and would be clearer at times with a bit of context.
Etc.
I'm going to put this one on hold for seven days for these concerns to be addressed. If you're not comfortable doing the copyediting yourself, you might consider asking at WP:GOCE for a copyedit; the article appears to need a thorough check. Hope these comments help, and thanks again for your work. The contribution is very much appreciated! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, I made a few copy-editing changes and tried to improve the clarity of some of the prose. However, since I know just about nothing about this topic, I may have accidentally introduced some factual errors. Take a look at my changes; if you don't think it says what you think it should say, just bring it up on the GA review page and I'll try to help you make it say what it should say. Between my knowledge of the English language and your knowledge of Serbian history, I think we can make this work. AmericanLemming ( talk) 23:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
As Khazar2 said, I think some context would help the non-expert reader get more out of the article. These are some comments I have after reading through the article.
Other comments: These aren't necessary to get the article to GA status (or at least I don't think they are), but are just some ideas for further improving the article if and when you want to do that.
AmericanLemming ( talk) 02:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look at what you've done so far, and I believe that your changes make the article a lot easier for the non-expert reader to understand. Keep up the good work! AmericanLemming ( talk) 05:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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. | |
![]() |
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). | Since the majority of the sources are non-English, I'm not as certain as I would normally be about the reliability of sources. However, I see no issues on an initial look, and the subject matter does not seem controversial. |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
I am somewhat uneasy about the "née Lazarević" bit in the lead sentence. Was Lazarević not her patronymic rather than family name? The format implies that Lazarević was a surname she lost/renounced upon marriage, as if the subject of the article was a 20th/21st-century Serbian woman rather than someone who lived centuries before family names became standardized. Surtsicna ( talk) 22:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This image includes Jelena with dark hair holding a sceptre standing next to Milica. Maybe crop it and include it in the infobox?-- Zoupan 00:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jelena Balšić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)