Talk:Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 07:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have been waiting for this. I will be cruel and uncompromissing, I promise, because I used to dream of completing this article. :) Borsoka (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, give it to me hard! I can let you have Fulk :P Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• ...the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the County of Edessa... Do we need the "thes"? Do we have to know the form of government?

The definite articles are a grammar requirement if the form of government is included, and I think that inclusion is helpful. The kingdom is commonly referred to as "the kingdom", and the principality as "the principality", and all four states are named after cities, so it helps distinguish them from the cities. At the same time it neatly establishes that Jerusalem was at the top of the hierarchy. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...in the First Crusade... In?

Replaced with "during". Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...in 1099... I would say 1098-99.

Yes, that would be more accurate if we are listing all four. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think its more accurate because the invasion took place in 1098 and 1099. The crusader states were established between 1098 and 1103.

• ..., also known as Baldwin II,... Delete (it is anachronistic in context).

He was the second Baldwin to be count of Edessa, and is rather frequently called Baldwin II of Edessa.[1] Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Shame on me!

• Make it clear that she was born in the city of Edessa.

The article cites one historian's opinion that she was born in Edessa. It cannot be much clearer because primary sources say nothing except that her father was count of Edessa when she was born. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...his cousin... PoV

Is it? That is how you described them in both Baldwin I of Jerusalem and Baldwin II of Jerusalem :) Since most scholars accept that the primary sources are correct in describing them as cousins, it seems to me to be the consensus. But the article can stand without it, so I have deleted it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...was proclaimed.. I would split this part into a new sentence to avoid ambiguity, and he could be introduced as Baldwin II.

Do you mean that someone might think that the dead Baldwin rather than the newly arrived living Baldwin was proclaimed the new king? If so, I hope this comma might assuage that concern. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I still do not like the sentence. Too many information in one single sentence.

• ...in a near constant state of war... With whom?

Hamilton does not specify. We know that they were at war with all their neighbors, and not infrequently with each other, so the general statement seems fine to me. The first sentence of the section also gives a decent hint, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...men were responsible for the defense... Close paraphrasing?

Fixed! Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...Latin ruler of Jerusalem... I would describe him as "Frankish" to avoid the introduction of a new adjective for the same idea.

I had the same idea and the same reasoning. I gave up on it when I realized I could not avoid "Latin" altogether. Now I think it can be reserved for the meaning "adherent of the Latin Church" and otherwise replaced with "Frankish". Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Morphia took no part in the public life of the kingdom, and neither had Baldwin I's wives Arda of Armenia and Adelaide del Vasto. I would rephrase it because what we know for certain that they did not sign charters.

Rephrased. They did not just not sign charters though (which, in any case, is the minimum). We know for certain that Morphia also did not take up rule during Baldwin's captivity. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Brisebarre.

Introduced as "the nobleman". He was not lord of Beirut yet. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...was sent to France... By whom? Why France?

By the assembly. Because Fulk lived there. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...personally providing for a force of 100 knights for a year... I would clarify that this happened after he left Outremer.

The source does not say it, and I have been considering removing that sentence altogether. To me the section seems to be on the verge of going too much into detail about Fulk as it is. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...were to be held by the couple... Why not "were held by the couple"? The present wording raises unnecessary questions. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not what the source says. I am struggling to find a source that says "were held". Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mayer surmises that Roman refused to accept female succession. Alternative explanations?

I have not encountered any. Have you when you expanded the article about Roman? In the article about him I do not see any explanations that would be incompatible with Mayer's. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• My concern is that we do not actually know why Roman rose up.

• ...to prevent a coup by Alice... Some more context? Can we describe a dowager's attempt to assume the regency for her infant daughter as a coup?

The cited source does. The primary source alleges that she tried to usurp her daughter. Other historians question whether she had right even to a regency. Reworded for context anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delink Joscelin I of Edessa.

Delinked. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...to again seize power in Antioch... Again?

Clearer. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...marriage contract... This is not mentioned previously.

Fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hamilton agrees with Mayer's conclusion that the conflict originated from Fulk's replacement of the kingdom's established nobility with newcomers from Anjou. Mayer should also cited.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• The noblemen may have expected... Attribute this PoV to a scholar.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ..."young and very handsome" count... Name him.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...a secret lover... Delete the adjective.

That would not work out well. The secrecy is the whole point. Witnesses are not an obstacle if you intend to fornicate openly. (Ahem, Urraca.) Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce the curia regis with one or two words.

Replaced with plain English "court". Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Introduce Rohard the Elder.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Fulk himself did not feel safe around his wife's supporters. I would mention the primary source of this statement. Borsoka (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything I try ends up making the rest of the paragraph look like it did not come from that source, i.e. William of Tyre. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ..., and the royal couple conceived another child. A son, Amalric, was born in 1136. I would consolidate.

The conception of Amalric was a milestone in their reconciliation, which is the topic of the paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ..., who had been sent to be raised in a convent during Baldwin II's reign,... Delete.

I think it is important to remind the reader because the paragraph explores the possibility that Yvetta's religious profession was Melisende's idea. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would rephrase to avoid repetition: "who had been living in a monastery since childhood/who had grown up in a monastery/..."

• Melisende judged that Ioveta was of too high birth to be a mere nun and decided that she should be made an abbess instead. Is this a fact or a PoV?

Fact. If not marked as PoV, it is a fact - unless, of course, I forgot to mark it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• For me it still reads as a typical scholarly PoV. :)

• ...remove her... I would say "remove her sister who had been born after their father's coronation", because Yovetta's special status was long ago mentioned.

Expanded, but I am not yet sure whether this needs to be mentioned three times. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• In 1338... Fix the year.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• There was no royal election because... Is this necessary?

I have clarified that Melisende's father had been elected, and that there was no election in 1143 because she just continued as a ruler. But is it absolutely necessary? Probably not. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Baldwin started issuing charters in 1144 at the latest, when he issued one without reference to Melisende; Mayer believes that Melisende soon forbade that any charters be issued in her son's name only. Why does he believe it? Was it the only charter Baldwin issued alone?

Clarified. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...had incurred the queen's wrath in the early 1130s by supporting her husband's attempt to exclude her, but he... Delete, or only mention that she had forgiven him.

I think that by the time they reach that section, most readers will have forgotten that Rohard had been an opponent of Melisende. He only appears once in the preceding text, after all. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...; Ralph was "almost certainly" the same man who had been chancellor to the English queen Matilda of Boulogne, Melisende's kinswoman, and thus had Melisende's trust I would mention Barber's PoV in a footnote as a PoV, because the kinship between her father and the Boulogne family is uncertain.

Barber says that Matilda was related to "both the Boulogne and Rethel families". Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would still move this into a footnote (if not delete), because it is not highly relevant.

• ...but "killed the Franks wherever they could" Who said this?

Clarified. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would link the Second Crusade in the first sentence of the third paragraph of section "Holy War" (instead of in the section's first paragraph).

That is how it originally was, but the link "a crusade" looked as if it would lead to the article about the crusades in general, whereas "a new crusade" looked more specific. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The leaders of Jerusalem were concerned that Louis would be diverted by Prince Raymond of Antioch, and were relieved when Raymond fell out with the king. Delete.

Why? Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because it is not highly relevant. Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...holy orders... Holy orders?

Clarified. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A decision to attack Damascus had already been reached... Some context? What is Damascus? Why did they decide.

Elaborated. Surtsicna (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• ...because Damascus was a valuable ally against Nur al-Din... I would say "because Damascus had so far been a valuable ally against Nur al-Din..." Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Instead, ... Delete.

Deleted. Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Scritorium?

Scriptorium replaced with scribes because our article about scriptorium does not match what Mayer has in mind. Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Two claimants to Galilee emerged, Simon and William... This is Mayer's PoV.

Not worth opening that can of worms then. Removed. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A link to Mirabel?

Added. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Baldwin barely outlived her, dying on 10 February 1163. Delete. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to state because in the next section we mention Amalric as king. The section deals with the assessment of Melisende by the court historian of Baldwin's successor, Melisende's favorite son. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Queen Melisende.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; fix the caption.

What is wrong with the caption? Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Fulko jeune.jpg: delete (there are too many pictures)

It serves to highlight that Melisende married an experienced ruler. It is also the only image of a seal. If you strongly feel that there are too many images, I would suggest taking out Fulko dvur.jpg instead. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Queen Melisende.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; this is the same as the infobox's picture

I do not understand. There is only one Queen Melisende.jpg in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Fulko dvur.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed
• File:Atentat.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; who is Hugh?

Hugh is introduced in the section in which the image appears, and is discussed in the same paragraph in which the image appears. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• File:Egerton ms 1139!1 fse005r.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed
• File:FoulquesofAnjou-death.jpg: US PD tag is needed: US PD tag is needed
• File:Fulko melisenda plac.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed
• File:Balduin3.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed
• File:ConcilAkra2.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed
• File:Baudouin III sermonnant Mélissende.png: US PD tag is needed
• File:Silver denier of Baldwin III of Jerusalem.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed
• File:609 - Jerusalem - Church of the Virgin.JPG: delete (another picture depicts her tomb) Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the only image of her tomb. The preceding image shows the interior of the church. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have moved the tomb image to the death paragraph and the church interior image to #Ecclesiastical relations. Surtsicna (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

US PD tags added. I do not know what I can do about the dead links. Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried something new with the captions, having read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Drawing_the_reader_into_the_article. Let me know what you think. Surtsicna (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Source review

• References 2a, 2e, 8 are verified.