# Talk:Stephen IV of Hungary

Some of the references mention a work entitled "Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa", but it is not listed in the "Sources" section. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

John of Reading, thank you very much for the above message. I added the source. Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen IV of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 16:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
The sources are all offline, so I'm accepting them AGF. All are to reliable works published by a third party.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Several images had some blank parameters and so didn't explain why they can be used in the US, but I went ahead and fixed those, as that was a minor issue.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall: Overall, the article is good. I have only a minor question that I feel should be resolved before the article is approved. See the section below.
Pass or Fail:  I'm requesting a second opinion Passed.


### Use of sic
In the quote from The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, the word "the" is duplicated, followed by "[sic?]". The question mark is what I'm unsure about - is it standard to use it in this case? I checked out WP:QUOTE, MOS:QUOTE, and Block quotation, and none of them addressed this. However, MOS:QUOTE says that trivial spelling and typographic issues can be corrected without comment, if doing so does not damage the textual integrity of the quote. I think that this instance would qualify, so I recommend just removing the extra "the" and the "[sic?]" comment.--¿3family6 contribs 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

John of Reading, maybe you can help clarify here as to the best approach, since you added the comment?--¿3family6 contribs 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@3family6: The best solution for this would be for someone to access the source and check the quote. Failing that, I wouldn't object if the correction was declared to be trivial enough for the MOS:QUOTE rule to apply. I'm not consistent myself; sometimes I make the correction and sometimes I tag with [sic?]. The correction here should be from "the the" to "that the" to make the grammar of the sentence come right. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... that might affect the textual integrity. Perhaps just remove the question mark? You or some other editor, such as Borsoka, will have to make that edit, though. I can't per GA reviewing rules.--¿3family6 contribs 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark. I fixed the text in accordance with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks better now, but I want a second opinion on whether it's okay to correct the mistake, or keep sic without a question mark.--¿3family6 contribs 04:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand. I fixed the problem in accordance with the cited source: there is no sic in the cited source and there was no "the the" text in the cited source either. Why do we need a sic? Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so the mistake was in the writing of the quote here on Wikipedia? Sorry, I didn't catch that. We're set, then.--¿3family6 contribs 04:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)