Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attila the Hun/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Attila the Hun

Self-nomination; I and others have done a great deal of work to bring this article out of its previous stubbiness. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. [[User:Norm|Nor^{m]] 15:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)}
• ^{I like it, but it needs more of a lead section that summarizes the important points about him and the image needs a better caption and source info. Also, as noted on the talk page, the manner of his death is too authoritatively written given the age and reliability of the sources, especially given a footnote describes a different method that is not explained in the text. Anyway it's great to have a former collaboration of the week nomination be nearly featured quality. - Taxman 16:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)}

  ^{See the talk page for the latter objection. —No-One Jones (m) 16:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)}

  All it needs is the information you wrote on the talk page about who made the claims and which is more reliable. A great article should cite every important fact by source, not state them as fact. - Taxman 19:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  Done. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Ok, but now I just don't understand your citation. The text says Priscus is the source for the conventional account, but the footnote says Marcellinus. Which is it? And now there is no mention of the conflicting account that had been in the footnote before, which even if not true may be worth noting if it was a widely accepted rumor. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  My mistake; I forgot to remove the initial footnote reference when moving the alternate explanation up into a body paragraph, where it is now (at the end of #Invasion of Italy and death). —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Looks good, now the image caption as source info are the biggest issues. - Taxman 13:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• object. lead section too short. image needs to be framed, not thumbed --Jiang 18:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Check again. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  good job. --Jiang

  The lead section makes the claim that it was Europe's largest empire. Is that generally accepted as true? For all history? Also the link to saga is to the disambig page so it is not clear what meaning you have in mind, and it should be explained a bit in the sentence anyway. Finally, the link to a section is problematic. If someone changes that section name, the link breaks. It is better to create an article, even if it is a stub at 'Migrations Period', or whatever is the correct article title. - Taxman 22:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

  Fixed; disambiguated "saga," noted that his the largest empire at the time (which it was), and took out the problematic link, which wasn't entirely necessary anyway. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support Object. The description of Attila's European history is very well done, but the article lacks historical context: the Huns were not just "a group of nomads living to the east of the Volga River in separate tribes". 1) How about a sections on origins: migrations of Asian population to the West, Xiong Nu connections, place of Attila in the Hun dynastic line. 2) Isn't the depiction of Attila as a Caucasian (photo) very debatable? Even the contemporary description by Priscus seems to be in contradiction. PHG 21:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  This is an article about the life of Attila; the history of the Huns belongs in their article (which I'll get to eventually. . .), though a short summary of it would be useful, yes, and I'll add one.
  All that is known about his place in the dynastic line is in there: he was Rua's nephew, and beyond that sayeth no source that I know of.
  The depiction is indeed debatable, however, as far as I know there are no first-hand portraits of him, so one guess is as good as another; some depictions even include horns.
  —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support, this is good stuff. Two things: his birthyear is estimated as 406. What is this estimate based on? Also, it is mentioned that "names "Attila" and "Ildikó" remain popular to this day". It is not very clear that Ildikó (Hungarian for Hilda, IIRC) is the name of his last wife, and not the Hungarian or Turkish form of Attila. Jeronimo 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  I actually don't know where the estimate comes from, so I took it out. The inclarity has also been corrected. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Support. +sj+ 20:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, new images are great. Nice work. - Taxman 04:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Fantastic article! Zerbey 16:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Great work! Securiger 12:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Though I did add a couple of small quotes. Wetman 01:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Simon A. 09:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)