Talk:Gyula Kakas

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Gyula Kakas, who was a "small, girlish-faced boy", competed at two Olympics in gymnastics, set the Hungarian pole vault record, and played for a national champion football club?
5x expanded by BeanieFan11 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 377 past nominations.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - Second hook is more interesting, but needs some tweaking. See comments below.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: A tip of the hat for rescuing this from AfD and improving it to GAN. That said, the hook needs a bit of work. I added a BOLD Oxford comma to start, but here are my other comments.

  • "Football team" should at the very least be "Football club" to keep with standard (non-American) football terminology.
  • "National champions" is also a bit Americanized as there are multiple leagues in a given country. What would you think about "...competed in gymnastics at two Olympics, set the Hungarian pole vault record, and won the first-ever Nemzeti Bajnokság championship"? Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Etzedek24: Thanks for the review. Changed "team" to "club". I'm not so sure about the Nemzeti part though. "national champion" is easily understandable to just about all readers, whereas only a tiny fraction would understand what the Nemzeti Bajnokság championship is, thus making it less interesting.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Point taken, perhaps you could Wikilink "football club" to lead to Budapesti TC? Nitpicking aside, I think this is good to go. Etzedek24 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gyula Kakas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs) 11:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. If I make any mistakes or you have any questions, please let me know. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    7. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) No issues here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Pass assuming the issues discussed below are addressed. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) See discussion below. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) See discussion below. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Earwig shows something, but that's a site copying from Wikipedia, so it's fine. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The GA criteria states The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. So considering this, I'll pass this, but some info about his life outside of sports would be great (see this advice page). Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) No issues here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    See discussion below. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Stable. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The image is public domain. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No caption needed (although one could be provided) per MOS:CAPLENGTH Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Passed.

Discussion

[edit]
  • There are lots of WP:POV stuff; either remove/neutralize them or cite better sources (I know that the sources cited might say these, but these are obituaries which praise people and often make exaggerations):
    • he was one of the best gymnasts in his country
      • I think this is demonstrated by his many championships and Olympic selections as well as the praise given to him by his contemporaries. Thoughts?
        • I'm not sure whether you meant this sentence as he was one of the best when he was alive or in the entirety of Hungarian gymnastics. Because if it's the former, it's fine, but if it's the latter, I struggle to find any modern mentions of him. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Meant the former: clarified to he was one of the best gymnasts in his country during his career.
    • excelling particularly
      • Changed to "performing best in..."
    • was considered a significant surprise (could be fine if you only remove "significant")
      • Cut "significant".
    • he performed well
      • I attributed this in the text to Hajos.
    • Please remove the quote by Gyula Kiss and the second quote by Alfréd Hajós. I don't see the need for all of these quotes which were all after his death.
      • Cut.
  • Citations are needed for the following:
    • He was one of the dominant Hungarian gymnasts in subsequent years (I was unable to locate this in the cited source)
      • Cut and changed to He won many tournaments in subsequent years.
    • He also went on to make one first-team appearance for the club in 1902, a year they won the national championship.
      • The source reads In 1902 he played one match for the BTC football team and was a member of the national championship-winning team. Given that we know he played a lot for BTC's second team, it seems implied that the 1902 game was for the first-team (hence it refers to just "the BTC football team").
        • This sounds like WP:OR to me. Also, the second part of the sentence is still unsourced. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if it wasn't him playing for the first team in 1902 then it'd say something like "In 1902 he played one match for the BTC second team" as opposed to it saying he played for BTC. I feel like the source does verify the national championship: In 1902 he played one match for the BTC football team and was a member of the national championship-winning team. Plus, per our article, the only other year they won the championship was 1901, and the source would've mentioned it if he played in 1901. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most popular figure in Hungarian sports life I think you're referring to this: Mindenütt rajongásig szerették Kokas Gyulát kedves, lekötelező modoráért és önzetlen munkásságáért, but this doesn't say "the most popular figure". Either cite, fix, or remove this.
    • The source reads Kis termete ellenére is ismertté vált izmos testalkata és kedves, megnyerő modorával a legnépszerűbb alakja lett a hazai sportéletnek. According to Google Translate, that means "...made him the most popular figure in Hungarian sports life" – is that an incorrect translation?
      • Thank you, I missed that. Although it does say that, I feel like that's probably also an exaggeration. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • We do attribute it to Hajos. I'd think someone as significant as him saying that about Kakas is worth mentioning.
  • Kakas was the manager for the Budapest Gymnastics Club. Just to clarify, "Budapest Gymnastics Club" is different from Budapesti TC and Hungarian Gymnasts Association, correct?
    • I think so.
      • I think it is Budapesti TC, because Budapest Torna Club is in the source and the full name of Budapesti TC is also Budapesti Torna Club. Per huwiki, Budapesti TC also engaged in athletics. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed.
  • This isn't important, but per MOS:LEADLENGTH, consider making the lead a little bit longer (aim for at least 100 words).
    • Added two sentences to the lead.

@Kovcszaln6: Thanks for the review. I responded to each of your points. Let me know if I should do anything else. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Thank you. Please address the few remaining issues. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kovcszaln6: Responded. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Thank you very much for your work. I'll pass the GAN. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.