Talk:Alice of Champagne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll tackle this review as well while I'm at it, my review may be up by tomorrow, if not, it'll be available the day after. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (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.	Infobox Currently the infobox only covers the ruler's reign as Queen Consort of Cyprus from 1210-1218, is it possible to add that she was Regent of Cyprus from 1218 to 1223 and of Jerusalem from 1243-1246. These seem highly relevant as they are 1. a focal point of a large portion of the article and 2. a major part of her "career". Lede consanguinity -> this needs to be explained, I doubt many readers would see this word and go "oh yep, I know what that is". "Alice retained the title of regent until her death." -> Alice retained the title of regent until her death in 1246. Childhood Alice's younger sister isn't mentioned until the second paragraph and is also not mentioned in the lede. I would recommend that Phillipa should be mentioned after the first sentence of the section Childhood. Per below discussion. "with Champagne and Brie, in January 1198." -> with Champagne and Brie in January 1198. The comma is unnecessary. "Aimery of Cyprus died on 1 April 1205 and a few months later, Isabella I also died." Aimery of Cyprus died on 1 April 1205 and a few months later, his wife and mother of Alice, Isabella I also died. "Her fourteen-year-old daughter from her second marriage, Maria," -> Isabella's fourteen-year-old daughter, Maria, from her second marriage (to whom?) ascended the throne with Isabella's half-brother, John of Ibellin, acting as regent. "She was allegedly placed under the guardianship of her maternal grandmother, Maria Komnene, according to historian to Bernard Hamilton." Remove either allegedly or according, since, in this case they convey the same thing. In this case -> She was placed under the guardianship of her maternal grandmother, Maria Komnene, according to historian Bernard Hamilton. "according to historian to Bernard Hamilton" -> according to historian Bernard Hamilton. Cyprus Queen consort "to ensure Alice" -> to ensure that Alice Regent "demanded that the estates the nobles had seized from the Orthodox Church were to be restored to the Catholic clerics" -> demanded that the estates the nobles had seized from the Orthodox Church be restored to the Catholic clerics In exile Conflicts "Count of Tripoli, ." -> Count of Tripoli. "Alice's and Bohemond's marriage was subsequently annulled" -> Alice and Bohemond's marriage was subsequently annulled. (In this case, Alice and Bohemond are a single thing, an example; A and B's toys (basically theirs) sort of like Mine and Your's toys (basically ours). Their marriage was annulled, rather than Alice's marriage and Bohemond's marriage (since they are married to each other). "the High Court appointed his brother, John of Ibelin, as bailli without consulting with the emperor or Alice" -> without consulting the emperor or Alice. Jerusalem "In 1242, the citizens of Tyre offered to help the leaders of a coalition of barons opposed to Frederick's rule, Balian of Ibelin, Lord of Beirut, and Philip of Montfort, Lord of Toron, their assistance in seizing control of Tyre, which was then ruled by Richard Filangieri on Frederick's behalf" I assume this is to mean that the citizens helped the coalition seize control of Tyre, in which case -> In 1242, the citizens of Tyre offered to help the leaders of a coalition of barons opposed to Frederick's rule (Balian of Ibelin, Lord of Beirut, and Philip of Montfort, Lord of Toron), seize control of Tyre, which was at the time ruled by Richard Filangieri on Frederick's behalf. Family "the four baillis appointed by Emperor Frederick." -> by Frederick. Be sure to remain consistent in the naming of people, either refer to Emperor Frederick throughout or just Frederick. Or just insert the title and separate from Frederick, that works as well.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I have not come across any issues with the articles layout. The lede complies with the MOS, the article is broken up into sections, there has been no problems with the choice of words (though, some prose issues exist, per 1a) and the references and citations are properly formatted per 2a and b.
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.	The article provides all of its sources in an appropriate structure, a 3-column inline citation index and a list of all the used sources.
	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).	All of the in-line citations come from reliable published secondary sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Having carefully gone through a couple of the sources (Runciman and Hardwicke), I am confident that the article has been written without original research being conducted.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector is unable to detect any copyvio's, however, it's also unable to detect anything at all. As such, I will be going through a couple sources myself to try and confirm that copyvio's are indeed unlikely. While confirming the sources of Runciman and Hardwicke I also noted that the article is consistent with paraphrasing the sources and attributes quotes properly.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers all of the subject matter with regard to the article's main subject, Alice.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'll have to have a re-read of parts of the article as it seems to drift off at points. This could just be because I've been reading articles all day... you never know. There were some mildly confusing changes in names that I have made an attempt at rectifying. Other than that, the article is well focused on the topic and clears this review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral presentation with due weight applied to sources and no use of puffery or the such.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition, all outstanding complaints on the article talk page have been addressed (the article was at some point re-named as was requested on the talk page.)
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.	The first and last images were not properly tagged, I have updated them to PD-art and PD-1923, both are medieval artworks of unknown dating.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The first image has no caption, the others are fine. An appropriate caption has been included on the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	The issues that I had pointed out have been resolved. The article's prose has improved somewhat over the course of the review and the article has been brought in-line with MOS and style requirements. This article now passes the GA review.

As always, I will be using the above table for my review. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I have completed my initial review for this article, there are some minor issues that should be addressed. You'll probably note that I haven't given a mark for criterion 3b, I'll be taking a second look at the article soon and will give you a marking for that, probably within an hour or two of posting this. Thanks for your work on this article, I am about to go through the other article as well Christopher Bathory and will update there as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thank you again for your comprehensive review and comments. I agree with your most comments and I tried to address the issues you raised above. My first concern is the infobox: I think your suggestion is logical, but a GA about a lady in a very similary position (Elisabeth of Bosnia) neither does refer to her role as regent for her daughters. I seek the advice of Surtsicna (talk · contribs) on this specific topic, because I think she/he was a major contributor to that article (Elisabeth of Bosnia). I am not sure that Alice's sister, Philippa, should be mentioned in the lede or in the first three sentences. She did not play a specific role in Alice's life, she is mentioned only sporadically, when their life was closely contected. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, fair enough regarding the infobox, and ok if you feel that Phillipa is not significant enough to bring up earlier. That said, I think you may need to redo your edits again, it's only saved the caption. Or are you in the process of dealing with the prose issues? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Wait nevermind, I didn't reload the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka quick question, are Aimery of Lusignan and Aimery of Cyprus the same person? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same person. I modified the text (I think, he is better known as Aimery of Lusignan, because he had been a prominent baron in the Kingdom of Jerusalem before the Battle of Hattin). Thank you for your comment. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a couple copy edits, I made sure to differentiate between Isabella I, II and of Antioch, as well as Hugh I and Hugh son of Isabella and finally Humphrey the IV so as to prevent confusion. As far as I am aware, the only thing left is the infobox and I leave the final decision on that to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding the infobox, I followed the guidelines set in Template:Infobox royalty/doc. I agree that the position of regent is actually more noteworthy than that of a consort, but in many cases it is not clearly defined. Perhaps it is best decided on a case-by-case basis. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I leave the final decision as to whether to incorporate her Regencies into the infobox up to you, as per the above comment, case-by-case basis and as you are the major contributor to this article, you'll have to consider the case. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, please let me know if any further action is needed. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Borsoka the article is ready to move on to GA. Thanks for your contributions to this article and others. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)