Talk:Ermengard of Italy

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:Ermengard of Italy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 21:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

---

I'll start this review tomorrow. I've given it a quick once-over and have an idea of what I plan to say, but no major issues visible at first.

@Tim O'Doherty Apologies for the sudden notice, but I will be out of the country until the end of July. I thought I would be able to wrap up this GA review before then, but due to preparations I must undertake as well as personal circumstances, would you mind placing the review on hold until I return and am able to devote my full attention to addressing your comments? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No prob. Take as much time as you need; there's no deadline. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead: Time to wrap this up. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

First comments

Having looked over the article again, I suggest the following:

Lead:

"She was the second and only surviving daughter of Louis II, Holy Roman Emperor" → maybe "She was the second daughter and only surviving child of Louis II, Holy Roman Emperor" would do?

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"she was betrothed" → can't we just have "she was engaged"? WP:ELVAR.

I would prefer to stay as close as possible to the sources. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"to the junior Byzantine Emperor Constantine, but [...]" → having three consecutive capital letters that lead to different articles is a bit jarring. How about "to the junior Byzantine emperor, Constantine, but [...]"? Not sure about this one though.

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"In 876 Ermengard married" → "In 876, Ermengard married" - this one's up to you.

Normally I use commas. Not sure why I didn't here. Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also chuck in a comma at the end of this: "connections to the Carolingian dynasty".

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, shouldn't "879 - 887" have an en-dash, so "879 – 887"?

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Early life and Engagement to Constantine

"engagement" in this section header should be lowercase: "Early life and engagement to Constantine".

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"was the daughter of Emperor Louis II and his wife Engelberga. She was also a great-niece of Emperor Charles the Bald" → "was the daughter of Louis II of Italy and his wife Engelberga, and a great-niece of Charles the Bald"

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"she was instructed in the scriptures by Anastasius Bibliothecarius" → maybe a word or two of context about who Bibliothecarius was.

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ermengard and Constantine were betrothed in 870/871" → I've not got a problem with "betrothed" here, but can we remove the slash? "Ermengard and Constantine were betrothed in either 870 or 871" feels a bit smoother, unless him getting down on one knee took an entire year.

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

""filia imperatoris Italiae et desponsata imperatori Greciae" → maybe offer the translation in a footnote. I can guess what this means ("daughter of the emperor of Italy and engaged to the emperor of Greece", I presume) but many won't. You could also do it in brackets, the same way you did it for "Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit".

Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Constantine may have been 13/14" → can this be clarified? "may have been" implies he may not have been either 13 or 14, or does it mean that Constantine was definitely either 13 or 14? Your call.

Fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikilink "Patriarch". Additionally, does it need to be capitalised?

Both fixed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"during that time, rumors circulated → not sure whether we use AmE or BrE here, but if it is the latter, change it to "rumours circulated".

Personally I use AmE. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll do "Queen of Provence" later. Earwig gives 3.8% for copyvio, which is a fantastic score, so I'll pass that without delay. Apologies for the late review, but real life got in the way of doing it sooner. More to come tomorrow.

@Tim O'Doherty: Enjoy your time in France. In the meantime, I have taken care of all the issues raised. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead - Alright. I'll be back in the UK in three days, where I'll have access to my computer, and will finish the review in due course. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead - I'm going to pass this now. There are two queries below, but they're very minor and I don't want to hold this review up any longer. I could see this as a featured article one day; definitely could be an interesting DYK, given that she was held hostage. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Queen of Provence

"Ermengard was married to Boso of Provence, who was a nobleman" → "Ermengard was married to Boso of Provence, a nobleman".

"Ermengard died in 896/897" → "Ermengard died in either 896 or 897" might be a bit better per MOS:SLASH, but this one's your call.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Follows the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Reference section is coded up properly, a spot-check will be done soon.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   No OR found.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Main aspects covered

   b. (focused):

   Article is not unnecessarily long.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrally written.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Tagged image, no non-free files used.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Appropriately used image, caption and alt text is good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Source spotcheck

1. 3a -
2. 8a -
3. 10 -
4. 11a -
5. 16a -
6. 17 -
7. 18 -
8. 19 -
9. 20 and 21 -

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)