# Talk:Géza I of Hungary

This review is transcluded from Talk:Géza I of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 03:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka, it would be a privilege for me to review this article for Good Article status. I will complete this review within the next few days, and will share my comments and suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! Thank you again for all your phenomenal contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Caponer, thank you for your kind message and your work. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka, I have finished a thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status! Before passing this article, I've listed several comments and suggestions below. Once these have been sufficiently addressed, the article will proceed to Good Article status! You'll notice that I've left fewer comments than in previous GA reviews of your articles, and I hope that you will not take this to mean that this review wasn't thorough--it simply means that I found the article to be in excellent shape overall! Thank you for all your incredible work on this article, and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the interim. -- Caponer (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your thorough review. I fixed most of the problems you mentioned. The one exception is mentioned below. I hope I will have a chance to work with you again. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Overall

Since this is a biography and the entire article deals with Géza's life, you may want to reorganize the article so that instead of having an all encompassing section entitled "Life," divide the article into sections: "Early years (before 1064)," "Duke in Hungary (1064–1074)," and "His reign (1074–1077)." Then "Family," etc. etc.
Where possible, try to consolidate internal citations at the end of the sentence to improve flow and readability.
If a primary source is verbatim cited in the text, I left the citation after the closing quotation mark. I think that this solution helps readers to identify the source of the quoted text. Otherwise, I consolidated internal citations at the end of the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Also regarding internal citations, try to order them in numerical order when listed in tandem.
Lead

The lead section adequately summarizes the entire contents of the article's prose below.
Following Pressburg, I suggest writing "(present-day Bratislava, Slovakia)." "Present-day" should be added to all current place names listed throughout the article in parentheses.
Early years (before 1064)

Wiki-link Holy Roman Empire in the fourth paragraph.
Duke in Hungary (1064–1074)

Wiki-link Pechenegs in the second paragraph.
His reign (1074–1077)

In the first paragraph, should this read "refuge" instead of "refugee"?
Family

No further suggestions.
Borsoka, I've re-reviewed the article and I've found that you have sufficiently addressed all my above questions, comments, and suggestions. I thank you again for your attention to detail and patience with me throughout this GAR process. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status--congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka. In the past month, there were news that archaeologists had found the burial site of Géza I under the the ruins of Vác Abbey, founded by Géza himself. I think there will be developments in the next times. What do you think, should we mention this new information in the article? --Norden1990 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Persze. :) Shame on me, but I have not noticed it. Thank you for the above message. Borsoka (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I added the news, however I don't know which paragraph would be the most appropriate to this info.--Norden1990 (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)