Talk:Battle of the Ialomița/GA1

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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

Nominator: OrionNimrod (talk · contribs) 15:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Dibs! GGOTCC 01:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• @GGOTCC: Do you still want to review this, or should this be reset so someone else can pick it up? Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Thanks for the ping! I got busy recently, but have solid feedback. I am just not exactly sure how to word my thoughts, but will get something down in the next few days. GGOTCC 02:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @OrionNimrod, I am very sorry for such a delay. I had some issues trying to word my review as I was not really sure where to begin or exact parts of the Manual of Style is relevant.

  After reading the article several times, I know the prose is hard to follow. It reads as if several articles were merged into one, as the same ideas are repeated again and again. For instance, the location of the Iron Gate Pass is introduced, then dropped when naming the Iron Gate, before being reintroduced again and again. Another example is when John Hunyadi is mentioned. The article alternates between John Hunyadi and Hunyadi, despite there being no other people named Hunyadi that could be referred to.

  A major part of good writing is to maintain a straightforward timeline with relevant ideas all together without the need for repetition. This is particularly an issue in "background", where the first paragraph under "John Hunyadi" jumps from covering events in 1440, 1441, and 1448 before reversing and going back to 1441. In another instance, the Siege of Belgrade in 1440 is referred to in three different paragraphs, each mention adding new details but lacking previous context. The most confusing was the article mentioning the disputed location of the battle before introducing the battle itself, leaving the reader with no context. Everything comes off as being out of order, which is very hard to follow.

  While I normally write about ships, I employed a straightforward timeline and top-down style in HNLMS Kortenaer (1927) to cover specialized content in a linear and easy to follow way. In that article, I introduce the Dutch Navy and its goals, why it needed new ships following World War I, and why that was the rational to build Kortenaer. Each part narrows the topic down from a nation, to a period in a nation's history, to a specific problem that nation had in that period.

  We can do the same for this article. Here, the background article could be cut down to provide context to the Hungarian-Ottoman rivalry and Sigismund's status quo. Then, explain the Ottoman campaign in 1438 that demonstrates why the status quo was over and explains the new conflict. This way, information is not repeated and is more condensed. Right now, the article seems to focus on the entire campaign rather than a specific battle. While context is good, it can be overbearing and obscure the article's subject. When introducing Hunyadi, it is fine to go back in the timeline to mention his role, but this narrows down the scope of coverage from an entire war to one man. With the focus on Hunyadi, the timeline should continue to cover his raids into the Ottoman Empire, and a subsection to cover the Ottoman response and Şehabeddin's intention. With the focus narrowed down even further, the article can cover the battle and disputed narratives as the context for the battle on the large and small scale has been established.

  Does this make sense? I am fine with you taking as long as you need, but it feels a bit silly for me to nit-pick small details such as the image captions or grammar when the prose is confusing throughout the article. GGOTCC 03:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the section "The battle between John Hunyadi and Mezid Bey" is longer then it should be and detracts from the article's scope. It is already refered to as the Battle of the Iron Gate, and the most important aspect in relation to the Battle of the Ialomița was the outcome and impact on the campaign, not the smaller tactical decisions or debated narrative that concur on the big-picture events. There are smaller issues such as non-grammatical sentences throughout or an overly triumphant tone for the Hungarians, but this is easier to solve by sitting down and reading the article front-to-back/back-to-front and finding mistakes with fresh eyes. GGOTCC 03:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi GGOTCC, thanks for the review!

  I wanted provided a detailed background. That was a very tricky article, I even drew a map. Because the battle of Ialomita was recenty the battle of Iron Gate, and the battle of Iron Gate was recently the battle of Szeben. And morover the battle of Iron Gate is divided in 2 battles... OrionNimrod (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Nimrod, no worries! Are you saying that the article was previously titled the Battle of Iron Gate? GGOTCC 20:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi GGOTCC

  when I started writing the article I called it first "battle of Iron Gate" and not "battle of Ialomita", as all old sources (example: Chronica Hungarorum see images below, search text "The Battle of Lord Voivode John Which He Fought at the Iron Gate" = Hunyadi vs Sehabeddin), and -20th century historians said that: Hunyadi vs Sehabeddin = battle of Iron Gate, Hunyadi vs Mezid = battle of Szeben

  yes I renamed the Battle of Hermannstad/Szeben to Iron Gate: Talk:Battle of the Iron Gate#Article extension, confusion over the location of the 1442 battles + moved

  But when I collected many modern academic sources from more countries, they claim that battle was actually at Ialomita, (and even Jefferson claims it was more far at the Danube), and they claim the battle between Hunyadi and Mezid was actually at the Iron Gate, which claimed at Szeben earlier.

  It was really confusing in the beginning when I wrote the article.

  That is why I clarified the location at the beginning, and I wrote more things about the previous battles, as it can be many contradictory things, some historians still follows the old claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Iron_Gate&diff=prev&oldid=1313322174#Confusion_over_the_location_of_the_battle

  The map what I painted based on modern academic map, but I clarified in the text the battle location and I mentioned even the older claims

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anti-Ottoman_Campaigns_of_John_Hunyadi.svg#/media/File:Anti-Ottoman_Campaigns_of_John_Hunyadi.svg

  Bonus: the Iron Gate battle is actually 2 battles, some days distance between them, and more modern historians said that Hunyadi was not present in the first battle, while older sources said he was there. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Summarizing the confusion (many people still today, even many historians are still mixing them):

  OLD HISTORIOGRAPHY

  Hunyadi vs Mezid = 1. Szentimre and some days later 2. Szeben/Hermannstadt

  Hunyadi vs Sehabeddin = Iron Gate

  MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY

  Hunyadi vs Mezid = 1. Szentimre and some days later 2. Iron Gate (they claim Hunyadi was only just at the second battle)

  Hunyadi vs Sehabeddin = Ialomita (Jefferson claims the Danube) OrionNimrod (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• @GGOTCC: Have all concerns been resolved, and is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)