Talk:Vlad II Dracul

Vlad Dracul

In the article it says in English Vlad Dracul means Vlad the Devil. But I've seen it said that in English Dracul means the Dragon. Is it the Devil, the Dragon, or both? -annonymous 9/14/2012 1:15 AM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.216.101 (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It 'means' both, but in this particular instance it refers to 'dragon' according to Constantin Rezachevici, as I understand it. RashersTierney (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dracula means the Devil only. The word dragon in romanian is balaur. 2603:8001:D300:6C00:123D:FED6:C164:6801 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Birthyear

His birthyear is unknown even within five years. Do not add this back without a verifiable primary source for your addition.Wjhonson (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Mircea's Death

How do we know that Mircea was buried alive? What documented evidence supports this conclusion?BrettWarr1 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vlad II Dracul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SparklingPessimist (talk · contribs) 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article to make sure it meets GA guidelines. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No problems there.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article is kind of short, I'd like to see it lengthened a bit. The entire lead section is unreferenced and has no citations whatsoever, I would like to see some references be added. (Problem has been addressed.)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	It's really hard to tell if the entire lead section is original reasearch or not due to a lack of references and citations. (Problems have been addressed)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Scored a 13 percent of unorigniality on Copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until improvements are made. (Problems have been addressed)

@SparklingPessimist:, thank you for your review. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you should read WP:Lead which states: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Would you mention the sentences in the lead which are not verified in the main text? Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Please also study the list generated by Earwig's Copyvio Detector ([1]). The use of the titles of the referred sources can hardly be described as copyvio. I would be gratefil if you listed other cases of close paraphrasing that you found. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Why do you think that the article is too short? Could you mention some relevant details of Vlad's life which were ignored? Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no problems with plagarism, I just put the score there as a little reminder to myself. As for the lead section, I guess I'm just used to seeing citations being used in the lead. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at the following GAs: 'Adud al-Dawla, Ælfwald of East Anglia, Andrianampoinimerina, Berengaria of Castile, Harald Hardrada, etc. I think we can conclude that the sentences in the lead are rarely verified by in-line citations. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@SparklingPessimist:, thank you for promoting the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Date of death

The article says he was killed in late November, but the infobox gives a definitive date of 2 December. Which is correct? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the article does not say he was killed in late November. It only says that Wallachia was invaded in late November. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in the very first sentence: "Vlad II, also known as Vlad Dracul or Vlad the Dragon (before 1395 – November 1447)". —howcheng {chat} 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The definitive date of 2 December cannot be verified. The sources cited in the article suggests that he died in late November. Thank you for your message. I fixed the problem. Borsoka (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)