Talk:Buda Chronicle/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: OrionNimrod (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Joko2468 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

General comments

Taking this up, excellent work on the article. Unfortunately there's some substantial issues with prose, but the article is of a manageable length and I'm confident that this can be addressed within the typical week-long timeframe. I added a U.S. PD tag to one of the illustrations. File:Attila szobor - Dunakeszi - 2.jpg doesn't seem to be in the public domain, under Usage rights it apparently says "No permission".

• Does the article need to be disambiguated from the Minorite Chronicle of Buda?
• How come the lede image is sized at 300px rather than its default 250px, or even 200px? Per MOS:IMGSIZE, it doesn't seem to be serving a purpose as the reader is very unlikely to be able to understand Latin.
• We don't need to remind the reader of Hess's forename in every section-- just referring to him as "Hess" will do.
• the history of book printing in other European countries does not begin with the publication of the history of the nation-- Is "nation" the right translation here? Nations are a modern invention, wouldn't "people" or "country" be more accurate? The source says that they're not aware of another example, I would qualify this with "generally does not begin".
• "The Hungarian book printing preceded England, Spain, and Austria." Is this accurate? This article and this suggests that the first book may have been printed in Spain in 1472. The other two seem correct, though I couldn't find a date for Austria. (you also don't need "the")
• At the end of the 1470s, 66 printing houses could operate in whole Europe, two of which were in the Kingdom of Hungary-- what does it mean "could operate"? Would changing this to "were operating in Europe" remain faithful to the source?
• Hess's quote seems to come out of nowhere, could this be moved to a Template:Quote box?
• What does it mean by "text variant" and which "14th-century Hungarian chronicle composition" is this? Looking at this article, I think the correct translation would be "textual variant"?
• It isn't necessary to repeat "The first part of the Buda Chronicle is a text variant of the 14th-century Hungarian chronicle composition"
• The link to Domanovszky (1902) returns 404 for me.

Copy-editing

There's a number of copy-edits that I would make to the prose, ranging from grammar to enyclopedic tone. I've been forthright in my recommendations only to help move things along, please feel free to discuss, amend, or push back on individual points. I've written recommendations that are beyond what I think is required at GA in green text. You can use Ctrl+F to find the italicised material.

1. the chronicle is better known as the "Buda Chronicle" since the 19th century --> the chronicle has been better known as the "Buda Chronicle" since the 19th century
2. Its text is eponymous part --> Its text is an eponymous part
3. With printing, the Buda Chronicle was not forgotten for centuries long as its predecessor Hungarian medieval chronicles, which were in manuscript codices, however the content of the Buda Chronicle soon became obsolete... --> Printing ensured that the Buda Chronicle was not forgotten for centuries, in contrast to the Hungarian medieval chronicles that preceded it in manuscript codices. However, the content of the Buda Chronicle soon became obsolete...
4. and this is the first incunabulum ever printed in Hungary --> and marked the first incunabulum to be printed in Hungary
5. (only Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo's Compendiosa historia Hispanica precedes it as printed national historical work in 1470, but this was printed in Rome by Ulrich Han) --> Only Rodrigo Sánchez de Arévalo's Compendiosa historia Hispanica, printed in Rome by Ulrich Han, precedes it in 1470 as a printed national historical work.
6. forgotten for many centuries until they were discovered by historians of the later centuries. This reads as a little clumsy, either change to "later historians" or specify which centuries.
7. subdividing into 246 chapters in 133 printed pages, starting from the Hun-Hungarian origin until the reign of King Matthias of Hungary up to 1468 --> subdivided into 246 chapters across 133 printed pages, starting from the supposed Hun-Hungarian origins until the reign of King Matthias of Hungary, until 1468. -- The Huns articles says, supported with several citations, In Hungary, a legend developed based on medieval chronicles that the Hungarians, and in particular the Székely ethnic group, are descended from the Huns. However, mainstream scholarship has dismissed a close connection between the Hungarians and Huns. We probably shouldn't be lending credence to the chronicle's claim in WP:WIKIVOICE.
8. The second part contains the last times of the reign of King Charles I of Hungary, the events of the period between 1335 and 1342. --> The second part covers the final years of the reign of King Charles I of Hungary between 1335 and 1342.
9. which also describes the events-- I think you can drop "the" here

Citations spot check

4, 3, 12, 16, 15

• 12: I'm not seeing where it says that the Moldavian campaign ended in a victory for Matthias. Please let me know if I'm being dense.
• 16: There's no page number provided for this and the book is 200+ pages long-- I had a go searching for the information but wasn't able to find it.

Quick fail

Apologies but I think I'm going to have to quick fail this nomination. I got about a quarter of the way through the prose before it sunk in how much work was required. The article needs attention from someone more disposed to copy-editing, I would recommend submitting a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. Parts of the article are well written, I think you're perhaps in a place to fix this yourself? If you think I've made a mistake then please let me know, either on my talk page or yours. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: