Talk:Bohemond II of Antioch

Untitled

What is the basis for the Guiscard byname? Srnec 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I am going to be taking a look at reviewing this article for GA. I hope to have a full review up for you by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 29 July 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.	To be honest, this is the first article I have come across that I didn't note any prose issues, excellent work. I have dealt with the Duplinks, of which there were many, and there are no current Dabs.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article is structured well, written nicely in the summary style and I didn't find any issues with article's setup overall.
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.	There are a list of sources in the article and they are formatted properly. That said, there is a single citation to Encylcopaedia Britannica which isn't appropriate, this is because EB much like Wikipedia solicits versions from it readers. EB is acceptable as a tertiary source for minor usage, at least, RSN discussions think so.
	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).	"He was born in 1107 or 1108." <- referring back to my comment about EB above, I'd need a reliable source to suggest that Bohemond was born in 1107 and EB is considered unreliable on Wikipedia. Refer above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There doesn't appear to be any OR, all of the work is cited to a reliable source (with a single exception). I will comment on this further if I come across anything.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's copyvio detector finds it unlikely that there are copyright violations within the article with a confidence of 9.1%. I will also be going through the article. I have gone through the article twice and gone through some of the sources that were accessible as well and haven't seen anything that suggest that there are any copyvio's.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Definitely, makes good use of the summary style and addressing the key issues; life, career and death. Further additions have been made to expand the article mildly but these are perfectly fine.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is quite clearly focused on the subject.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The presentation of the article is free from POV issues and the tone is neutral throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is most definitely stable, no disputes are outstanding on the article 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 image of the coin should be PD in the US because of {{PD-old-100}}, however, all images used on the EN-wiki must be tagged with an appropriate licence for the US. The other images are fine in this respect.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All of the images are appropriate to the article, one image doesn't explain why it's PD in the US. Once that's fixed then I can pass the article for criteria 6a. In terms of 6b, one other minor issue needs addressing, "Bohemond II's coin, depicting St Peter" -> A coin from Bohemond II's rule depicting St. Peter. To quickly explain the change, Bohemond no longer owns the coin so it seems strange to declare it as being his.
	7. Overall assessment.	The existing issues have now been resolved. The article is well-presented in the summary style and well sourced and referenced.

I'll be using the above table for my review, expect to find my comments on the article within the boxes that relate to the issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I am more or less finished with reviewing this article for the time being. Excellent work so far, this article is very close to GA. I have this page on my watchlist so feel free to notify me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review and comments. I highly appreciate your work. I fixed the reference to Houben's book, because it contained a wrong page. Sorry, I do not understand your remark about Britannica. Do you say it is not a reliable source for WP purposes? I deleted the image about the coin, because I am not an expert in the field of US copyright law, so I an unable to determine whether it is protected by laws in the USA. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, That is correct, Britannica is not a reliable source for WP purposes. I can take a look at the image and see if I can find a license tag for it, but believe me, I go to others for copyright law myself. I have taken a look at the image with the help of Nikkimaria and have concluded that the image of the coin is copyrighted, unfortunate as that is, it is what it is. The other images are still fine. On the topic of this review, the only task left is to find a replacement source for Encyclopaedia Britannica and then this article can be passed for GA. Btw, it seems I forgot to ping you when I made my initial comment, so, re-ping. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, thank you for your comment. I think Britannica is regarded as a reliable source for WP purposes, because it is a peer reviewed work, published by a renowned publishing house. Why do you think Britannica does not meet all criteria of WP:reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I've taken a look at WP:RSN and found that there's disagreement between editors on this point, and that majority opinion finds that EB is fine for use on the Wiki as a tertiary source. In light of that, and as EB is not under extensive use on this article, I'm happy to leave it be. As such, this article has officially passed the GA review. Excellent work and thank you for your responsiveness. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, sorry to be bothering you again in such a short while but I have another image question. There was an image on the article of a 1000 year old coin that hasn't got any explicit copyright information, I'm wondering, because I've seen this come a few times, when you take an image of an ancient coin, is it protected by copyright? I ask because I've read that it is not, but, I've also read that it is. The image in question is [1]. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

See Commons:Currency. Coins are three-dimensional objects, so there are two copyrights to consider: the coin itself, and the photo of the coin. For the purposes of currency, the date of issue is taken as the "publication" date, so an ancient coin is well out of copyright now. The question in this case is, what is the copyright status of the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria In that case, it's tagged with a bogus PD-70 designation, the coin itself is well outside of PD-70 and PD-100 but the image was uploaded in 2006 as part of an auction. US copyright law as I understand it does not require the creator to request copyright and is immediately covered by copyright at the time of creating it. In other words, the author must release the copyright for it to be PD or CC, they haven't done so on their page so assume that they haven't done it at all. The source is only accessible via the wayback machine. I think the image will need removing from Wikimedia Commons altogether. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The PD-70 designation is technically correct for the coin - whoever the creator was, they certainly died over 70 years ago! But yes, unless there is more information available about the photo the image will likely need to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Catholic... or Christian?

The infobox for this individual indicates his religion as "Catholic". While I understand that many Christians considered their church to be "catholic" (in the sense of "universal") from the second century A.D., and that there was some distinction made between the "catholic Christian church" and other minor heretical movements that occurred since then, weren't all European Christians simply "Christians" until the Protestant Reformation which didn't begin until 1517? And if Bohemond II was a Catholic, I have to ask, "As opposed to what?" As opposed to "pagan"? "Jewish"? The current Wikipedia article on Catholicism isn't much help in making this distinction. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That just means "Roman Catholic", as opposed to "Eastern Orthodox". I haven't looked to see who added it, but I imagine it could be someone who doesn't know there were other kinds of Christians in the Middle Ages. (I don't mean that to be an insult, of course! There was a time when I didn't know either.) On the other hand, someone will probably make the argument that there was no "Roman" Catholicism then, and it will keep getting changed to remove or add "Roman", as often happens on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I think "Roman Catholicism" is the best expression. I would be surprised if it could be challenged based on a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)