Talk:Humphrey IV of Toron/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review. Please find my comments below. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest mentioning Baldwin IV's death in the lead; we jump to Baldwin V's death after mentioning Baldwin IV's relief of Kerak, which is a bit confusing if we don't make it clear that Baldwin IV died in the interim.

I expanded the lead to mention Baldwin's leprosy and dead. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1969 is early for an ISBN, so can you confirm that Baldwin is really the 1969 edition and not a later edition?

The book that I used do not mention a later year of publication. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This provision of the marriage contract suggests that the king wanted to prevent Humphrey from uniting two large fiefs, Toron and Oultrejourdan: This is phrased as a tentative deduction, but in the lead it's stated as definitely known.

I rephrased the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before long, Saladin set Humphrey free again without demanding ransom: do we know why?

I do not remember reading about Saladin's motives. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a "See also" link to War of the Succession of Champagne?

As far as I can remember, the invalidity of the divorce of Isabella and Humphrey was mentioned during the debates about the succession of Isabella's third husband, Henry II, Count of Champagne, in the County of Champagne. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That takes care of everything so I'm going to pass this. I would suggest mentioning the leprosy in the body of the article, since it's now in the lead, but that's no reason to hold up promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the promotion. I expanded the article in accordance with your above suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]