Talk:Raymond III, Count of Tripoli/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I will review this over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some minor things that are unclear (see below), but otherwise well written. It is a complex subject, but written in an approachable manner.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Very well referenced throughout, with high-quality sources (AGF on conprehensiveness). Earwig's tool shows no problems, neither did a spotcheck with Runciman. AGF on the rest, the article author is highly experienced.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
As noted below, there is one piece where the article (the marriage of Manuel I) seems to stray from WP:SS, but otherwise no problems.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Differing opinions in the sources and historians are given, the subject is treated as objectively as possible.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Captured in the Battle of Harim by whom?

Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. We do not know who was his captor. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that it is left unmentioned against whom he fought at Harim, and consequently who captured him. I propose "Captured by the Zengids/Nur ad-Din in the Battle of Harim". Constantine ✍ 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of constructs like Raymond's mother (Hodierna of Jerusalem). The name is not parenthetical, since you effectively introduce the person. I'd definitely recommend replacing the parentheses with commas.
Raymond claimed the regency as the closest male relative of Amalric's minor son and successor, Baldwin IV, after Amalric's death in 1174. I'd recommend putting the 'after Amalric's death in 1174' part at the beginning of this sentence.
The king married her sister and heir I think you mean 'his' sister?
Standardize Nur ed-Din to Nur ad-Din (in line with the other 'ad-Din' titles in the article
alliance with Saladin, allowing the sultan it may not be immediately apparent who the sultan is
As a general comment, the lede is very large, to the point of it being an article in its own count, with some detail and nuance that is perhaps redundant for the lede. I am sure it can be trimmed down somewhat, e.g. Raymond claimed the regency as the closest male relative of Amalric's minor son and successor, Baldwin IV, after Amalric's death in 1174. Although all bishops and many influential noblemen supported him, he was elected bailiff (or regent) only after lengthy debates. -> 'After Amalric's death in 1174, Raymond, as the closest male relative of Amalric's minor son and successor, Baldwin IV, was elected regent.'
May I suggest adding regnal dates (using the {{reign}} template) for the various rulers in the article?

I prefer to avoid adding regnal dates, because we cannot use them consequently. When Saladin or Nur ad-Din did start to rule (taking into account that they united a number of smaller realms)? Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The common convention is to use the point where they became rulers, i.e., the earliest date. The regnal dates show when a person was ruler, it is not necessary to distinguish between their various titles/territories. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a band of Assassins link Assassins
He ignored the instructions of her late husband (to appoint the master of the county if an underage count mounted the throne) in appointing Hodierna to administer the county confusing use of pronouns here. I assume this means 'Baldwin ignored Raymond II's instructions (to appoint the master of the county if an underage count mounted the throne) in appointing Hodierna to administer the county'? If so, change to the more straightforward form. Also, I am not sure I understand what exactly the meaning of Raymond's instructions 'to appoint the master of the county' is. It should also be explicitly stated somewhere here that this was a regency for the underage Raymond III.
that he witnessed in the royal capital in what capacity did he witness it?

Sorry, I do not understand your above question. Borsoka (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did he witness it in his capacity as count of Tripoli, or as one of the nobles resident in Jerusalem? Constantine ✍ 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know, or at least the cited reliable source does not reveal it. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a wife from the crusader states... and attacked pilgrims Hmmm, I feel this is a bit tangential for Raymond III, it concerns Baldwin much more than him. A simple summary that his sister was a candidate for empress would suffice, especially as this affair does not seem to have had any repercussions specifically for Raymond down the line.
acquired a high level of education in the prison from his Muslim captors?
Raymond, however, remained imprisoned Do we know why he was singled out?
was released because of developing conflict between Nur ad-Din's family and his ambitious commander, Saladin can you explain why that conflict encouraged the Zengids to release Raymond? Where they looking for a potential ally against Saladin, did they do it for the ransom money, or some other reason?
only after a two-day debate this suggests some opposition, or at least controversy, which needs to be explained. Even if the reason for the debate is unclear from the sources, it should be stated.
Without forcing the garrison to surrender, Nur ed-Din left Homs for Aleppo I assume you mean Saladin
landed at Acre at the head of a large army clarify that it was an army of fresh crusading volunteers from Western Europe
they wanted to "entice him to their own lands, hoping with his help to undertake something which would benefit their states" attribute the quote
I suggest splitting up the 'Campaigns and dynastic factions' section into smaller ones, there are a lot of distinct events covered here.
The royal troops customarily assembled at the springs. this statement needs to be referenced
Although he continued his campaign for nine years, the crusaders refrained from attacking his troops 'years' is clearly a mistake here, or not?
left the Western lands -> 'left the western lands of the kingdom'
Sibylla's staunch supporters -> 'Staunch supporters of Sibylla'
Raymond and Ridefort proposed adverse strategies 'adverse', though correct, will probably confuse people; 'opposite', perhaps?
attacking the Templar rear is that the rear of the Templars, or the royal army's rear, held by the Templars?
wrote that the king decided to stop (ignoring Raymond's advice) another instance where the use of parentheses is ill advised, I think; if the king ignored sound advice, that is not tangential.
The nearly-defenseless towns could not resist, and Saladin captured almost of them over the following month -> 'The towns of the kingdom, left nearly defenseless, could not resist' or analogous? At any rate, the 'them' in the article needs to be specified somehow, since not all crusader-held towns fell. I would also add a mention to the fall of Jerusalem here (it is mentioned later but not linked or otherwise explained).
Please add locations to the sources

I have never added location to the sources, because it is not required. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I keep getting demands to add the locations in my articles, and WP:HOWCITE does seem to recommend it. Anyhow, for me it is not a deal-breaker, but if you intend to push this to ACR or FAC, I am sure people will ask for it. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOWCITE's first example is a citation without location. I always resisted stubbornly. No added value. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le comté de Tripoli sous la dynastie toulousaine (1102-1187) has a journal ISSN but the journal name, volume number, page numbers, etc. are omitted

@Borsoka: I'm done with my first pass through the article. Please see my comments above and ping me when you've addressed them. I will then do another read-through to detect any remaining issues. A very interesting and well-researched article, well done. Constantine ✍ 12:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optional, and it just occurred to me, since most people will be familiar with him (only) from the movie Kingdom of Heaven, perhaps a mention of his appearance there, and that his character reflects precisely the 'classical' view by Runciman et al. might be a good idea. I am generally loath to add 'in popular culture' sections, but making the link might be of interest as the movie is rather well known, and has influenced popular perceptions (in so far as they exist) about the events surrounding Hattin, Saladin, Guy of Lusignan. Constantine ✍ 13:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review. I highly appreciate your work. I think I addressed most issues you raised above. Please also find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Sorry for the delay. Your edits are fine, I've answered the few outstanding issues above. Otherwise this appears good to go. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, thank you for your above clarification. I modified the text: [1]. Please let me know if further actions are needed. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, did you have a chance to review my edits? Please let me know what to do. Borsoka (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

I'm here to get this pushed over the line, @Borsoka: are you ready? Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting and well-illustrated
- Question: could the "The Chronicle of Ibn Al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from Al-Kāmil Fī'l-ta'rīkh, Part 2: The years 541-589/1146-1193: The Age of Nur al-Din and Saladin" source be credited to its translator in the harv refs? Just for a bit of neatness.
Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer. I am grateful for you for it. Yes, I am ready. I glanced over the bibliographies of some books: the primary sources are never credited to their translators. I am not sure we should force all references into the same template. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif:, did you have a chance to read my above comment? Borsoka (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't yet, thank you for the ping now. If that's the standard, I don't want to change it. The article seems great, sorry you had to wait! I'm happy to pass this. Kingsif (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif:, thank you for your understanding. I highly appreciate your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]