Talk:Baldwin V of Jerusalem

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Robertus Pius (talk · contribs) 16:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, here’s some things I noticed.

• "because he was the tallest of the great lords present" needs a source.

• Western princes refused to come to aid, likely because they could not be offered the crown but, at most, the prospect of a temporary rule on behalf of a minor. - What exactly were they refusing to come to aid for? What aid did Baldwin need?

Besides that I didn’t see anything else needing changes. Very interesting read. Good job!

Outcome

On hold. ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My! Robertus Pius, this is the fastest review I have ever got. Thank you for your interest and kind comments. I doubled the citation for the "tallest of the great lords"; it is a quote after all, so it does not hurt to overcite. The quest for aid is explained in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see that. I read it through it a few times and for some reason I thought it didn’t sound related to the first sentence, to me it was worded as if the aid was about something else. Or maybe I was just having a brain fart, which is more then likely. Alrighty then, I’m going to read through it one more time just to recheck everything then I think we’re good to go. Definitely deserving of good article status! Kind regards, ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Baldwin V of Jerusalem
• Elzear Horn
• Zehava Jacoby
• Tomb of Baldwin V

)

Horn's drawing of Baldwin's tomb

• ... that Israeli art historian Zehava Jacoby was able to suggest a reconstruction of the lost tomb of the medieval child-king Baldwin V of Jerusalem, destroyed in an 1808 fire, using a drawing (pictured) friar Elzear Horn had made in the 18th century? Source: [1] "On the basis of Horn's drawing, which proves to be fairly accurate, it is now possible to suggest a reconstruction of this monument".
  • Reviewed: Quia maior, Wantage Code, Vanilla odorata, John Snow (public house)
  • Comment: A GA and three new articles. Have fun!

Improved to Good Article status by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 22:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Baldwin V of Jerusalem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Reviewing - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• This DYK nomination was done on 10/24. Baldwin V of Jerusalem was promoted at GA on 10/17. Elzear Horn was created on 10/19 and Zehava Jacoby and Tomb of Baldwin V were both created on 10/24. So the nomination is timely.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• BVoJ is 6251 characters. EH is 1866 characters. ZJ is 1835 characters. Tomb is 2002 characters. Unless there is significant overlapping content, all is good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overlap is not significant.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• All articles are well-sourced.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• All articles are neutral.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• BVoJ copyvio is 89.8%. I have never seen such a high number. Please paraphrase and summarize rather than copy. EH is 1%. ZJ is 22.5. Tomb is 0%. Just fix BVoJ.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• WP:AGF on hook source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Hook interesting-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Pic PD, used clear.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• QPQ done (4x).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think just the 1 copyvio needs to be fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, there is absolutely no copyright violation, let alone 89.8%. I do not understand where you get those numbers. Please do some manual spot checks. Most of the sources can be partially accessed via Google Books. Surtsicna (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's the Info List. That website copies Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)