Talk:Baldwin I of Jerusalem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to review this interesting article. Amitchell125 18:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Initial assessment

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   • The article is generally well written, but there are lots of small changes that need to be done. (see below) Now sorted.
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• No problems with the quality of the sources. However, I am unhappy with the lead section, which is over-detailed in places, whilst also containing significant gaps that prevents it from being a summary of the articles most important points. See below for details.

Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

• Excellently referenced. All sources can be accessed online.

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);

• Consistently good choice of sources. I have not yet checked the sources section to ensure it is free of errors.

it contains no original research; and

• No research in article.

it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• All fine.

Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

• See below for issues that need to be addressed to achieve this criteria. Sorted.

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

• The article covers a great deal that is not directly concerned with Baldwin, but his biography only makes sense if it is included. I will have a closer look at whether anything would improve the article if was removed.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

• No issues here.

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

• Stable.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

• All images meet the criteria.

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• See below for further information. Several images (all from the Bibliothèque nationale de France) cannot yet be identified sufficiently well enough. I can possible help here to identify which documents held by the BnF contain the images.

• sorted. Amitchell125 05:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, this long article contains a wealth of interesting and well written information. Many of the points I have identified below can be easily remedied. I have yet check the citations fully, check for plagiarism, etc. I'll get on with this in a day or so.

Lead section/Infobox

• Link to Jordan leads to the country and not the river
• If Baldwin was the first king of J, there should not be a predecessor

Early life

• Who was/is Susan B. Edgington?
• When did he abandon his church career? Any particular reason for it?
• The two sentences about Godehilde of Tosny would be better off combined.
• Why was there a conflict at Stenay?

Is this important in the context of the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Easily left out. Amitchell125 15:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Charters of grant needs a link.and/or an explanation.

First Crusade

• A map might be useful.
• The image in this section are not described adequately in WikiCommons. How is it known what is depicted? Alternative images or improved text in WikiCommons is needed for them to be valid.

• I have checked the correct manuscript for the Ida image, amended the WikiCommons text,and amended the caption, so this image can be used. Amitchell125 18:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Add link for Constantinople.
• To many readers, suburbs has a modern meaning. Is there a more suitable alternative you could use?
• Imo an image of Alexios would be useful in this section.
• The long march across Asia Minor sentence needs copy-editing to make sense.
• Are the 'separate contingents' mentioned in the text heading for Cilicia or Tarsus? The sequence of events in his section needs to be a bit clearer for a reader to follow.

Count of Edessa - Establishment/Consolidation

• The long quote should be referred to in the text, and perhaps (imo) not included in full at all.
• "Armenian Thoros of Edessa" - he ruled as king - so his title should be included here.
• The sentence about the murder of Thoros and his wife needs to be combined with the previous sentence, as they are connected.
• That Christopher MacEvitt is a historian needs to be put in this section where he is mentioned, and not later in the article.
• I have produced an English version of the map used in the article (shown), which would be more appropriate fro readers.

Map replaced. Amitchell125 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• "He married the daughter of the Armenian lord of a nearby town..." Do we know their identities or the name of the town? If not, this should be stated.
• The last two sentences of the paragraph relating to the death of Balduk should be made into one, as they are connected.
• Damascus and chronicler, burghers and emir need links.
• 'a contemporary historian of the First Crusade,.' - punctuation at the end.
• 'Fifty', not '50' knights.

King of Jerusalem - Coronation/First successes/Battles at Ramla/Expansion

• Jaffa,monastery, Robert of St Eusebio and Mount Carmel need links; Oultrejordain needs a link (also in the lead section), also dinar, Berber, sultan and Tiberias.

Links done (no link for Robert of St Eusebio exists, 'sultan' is beside a named sultan)

• The Battle of Nahr al-Kalb image and the one in the next subsection have the same issues as detailed in the First Crusade section above.

The battle image is now fine. Amitchell125 19:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• "To finance his journey" - which journey is being referred to here?
• "enabling him to make arrangements to defeat the attack and he routed the Damascene troops." Any details of this event, e.g. the nature of Balwins's 'arrangements' or the scale of the defeat?
• imo Geldemar Carpenel and Arnulf of Chocques both need short explanations to say who they were, otherwise their appearance in the text appears to be rather random.
• "Baldwin's soldiers pillaged it, massacring almost all adult men and many women." This sentence needs copy-editing.
• "patriarchs" - singular or plural?

Sorry, I do not understand. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

already sorted, I think. My apologies. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Ignoring all advice, Baldwin rode out against them with about 500 horsemen, including dozens of new crusaders, from Jerusalem on 17 May." should probably read, "On 17 May, and against all advice, Baldwin and a force of about 500 horsemen that included dozens of new crusaders, rode out to meet the Egyptians."
• Amend "Baldwin urged Alexios I Komnenos not to obstruct their journey in a letter." to "Baldwin wrote to to Alexios I Komnenos, urging him not to obstruct their journey."
• Replace "gave rise to internal conflict..." with "led to internal conflict..."
• minor brother needs clarification - younger? less important? other meaning?

Sorry, I do not understand. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

'Minor' can be misread within the context of the sentence. I think in this case it means 'younger', in which case it needs to be changed to 'younger brother'. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Within the context, the term referred to a ruler who had not reached the age of majority, but the younger adjective is an acceptable alternative. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• "In the ensuing battle," appears superfluous - later in the sentence it clear a battle occurred.
• 'constructed' or 'built', instead of 'erected' for a medieval fortress/castle?
• "forced him to abandon it" - replace it with the siege.
• "the whole church of Jerusalem" is written as a quotation - did Baldwin speak these words? Where is the source if this is the case?

Sorry, I do not understand. He did not speak this words, but wrote them (or rather his scribe wrote them in his name). There are two sources cited at the end of the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the quote marks, as the words were not spoken. Please revert this if it doesn't look right to you. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a quote from a letter. I think the quote marks are needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Replace he summoned them 'in the name of the "whole church of Jerusalem" with he wrote to them, summoning them in the name of the "whole church of Jerusalem" to clarify the quote and make the sentence clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me the above version would be less clear (or even offensive) in the context. Quotation marks are the signs of quotations. Why should we assume that average editors do not know this? Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As you wish. :) Amitchell125 15:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Baldwin spared the life of the townspeople " - replace with lives.
• "and hurried to Shaizar" - the link here points to a battle, but it is not mentioned here.

Death

• Presumably Ibn Zafar al Siqilli is the correct link for Ibn Zafír .
• link Cairo.
• "on the frontier." - be specific here if possible.
• "He was buried in the Calvary Chapel " - the location of the Chapel needs to be added here.

Legacy

• The link to 'Roger I of Sicily' needs to be moved from the family section to here.
• chancellery, Holy Land, regent and Lotharingia need links.
• Who is Malcolm Barber?
• Historian Alan V. Murray emphasises that no primary source evidences that Baldwin fathered children. This needs to be copy-edited to correct the English.

Family

• Who is Hans Eberhard Mayer?
• homosexual needs a link.

Sources/Further reading

• Of the the following sources, the Internet Archive books can all have either of two templates added to them, as they are accessible online: or (registration required).
  • The Alexiad is available to borrow from the Internet Archive (registration required)
  • Asbridge is available to borrow from the Internet Archive (registration required)
  • France is available to borrow from the Internet Archive (registration required)
  • Jaspert is available from the Internet Archive
  • Maalouf is available from the Internet Archive (registration required)

source amended. Amitchell125 05:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

improved source found Amitchell125 20:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Runciman, Steven (1989a). A History of the Crusades, Volume I and Volume II are available to borrow from the Internet Archive (registration required)

source amended. Amitchell125 05:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tyerman is available to borrow from the Internet Archive (registration required)

Google Books removed as they do not need a template added after them. Amitchell125 19:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall

A detailed article on an important figure in history. What has been achieved so far is impressive. I'm putting the article on hold, please comment as you make each improvement. I'll complete the review in a few days, and research the image issue - a challenge! Amitchell125 21:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Further issues to be addressed

(up to Baldwin's coronation)

• (ref 18) As the reference in Barber does not verify the date as 27 November, (Barber gives no specific date) it should be removed.

• Reference 17 confirms the date.

• (ref 28) the page in Asbridge does not include Baldwin's family as hostages - replace reference with one that does?

• References 27 and 29 confirm the information.

• (ref 50) 100 knights and 200 infantrymen - not 300 knights, please amend the sentence.

Please cheque the source, the sentence is correct.

Apologies. Amitchell125 15:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 51) Tancred raised his banner, not the Turks.

• The cited source does not say that Tancred raised his banner. No source claims that Tancred was allowed to enter Tarsus.

• (ref 58b) Change to 'He probably hired…'.

• Sorry, I do not understand your above suggestion. The sentence is verified by Runciman.

That's fine. Amitchell125 15:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 69e) This reference to Asbridge does not appear to verify the sentence, and should be deleted.

• I added further references.

• (ref 73c) There is no reference to the establishment of Antioch on p.73, a new reference is required here.
• (ref 75a) Thoros changed his plans about using Baldwin as a mercenary - the sentence linked to this reference needs to be changed to say this.
• ('During his march towards Antioch, Kerbogha did not wish to risk allowing the crusaders to hold Edessa.') Imo the sentence should read 'The news that Baldwin was established in Edessa persuaded Kerbogha to divert from his march towards Antioch.'

that's fine. Amitchell125 15:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 97 - Asbridge p. 253) This reference does not appear to verify the statement in the article.

I am assuming that Turbessel and Ravendel are written by Asbridge as Tell Bashir and Ravendan. Amitchell125 15:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 110b) Walter?

Amended to Warner. Amitchell125 15:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The above points are not difficult to address, and should not take a great deal of time to sort out. I will start checking the second part of the article later this weekend. Amitchell125 14:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

(after Baldwin's coronation)

• 'Shortly thereafter, an 20,000 strong Egyptian army invaded the kingdom.' This figure does not appear on p. 70, Barber states only "the Egyptian army was much bigger than [B] realised." Replace 'an 20,000 strong' with 'a strong'.
• Godric of Finchale does not appear in Barber. Replace 'He first fled to Arsuf, then an English pirate, Godric of Finchale, took him to Jaffa' with 'He fled to Arsuf, after which an English pirate took him to Jaffa'.
• Lilie does not not mention a letter from Baldwin on these pages.
• The Saracens actually destroyed their own fortification - change 'destroyed a fortress' to 'forced the enemy to destroy their own fortress'.
• (Lock p. 32 both references) No mention of Ayez, also no date of 13 June (on p. 32).

  Information - but no date - is given in Runciman (the following reference), refs taken out accordingly. Amitchell125 14:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 191a) The sentence is incorrect. It should read, 'In the autumn of 1115, Baldwin commenced the building of Montreal.'
• 'An Egyptian fleet routed the Norwegians'. But Barber writes that the Egyptians were intimidated by the presence of the Norwegians and were forced to withdraw - the text needs to be amended.

Amended - please revert/amend accordingly if I am mistaken. Amitchell125 15:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 191a) replace 'lasted for' with 'took'.
• Maalouf p. 64 (3rd reference) does not mention Pagan or Baldwin's wife (incorrect page number?).

  Searched everywhere in Maalouf to no avail, so ref removed. Amitchell125 14:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ref 211) The reference links only to a Wikipedia article and not the reference book, so the link needs to be removed.

The changes you have made already look fine, I have completed all the references apart from Runciman Vol. 2, I will complete the review in a day or so. Amitchell125 07:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Amitchell125:, thank you for your comprehensive review. I highly appreciate your work. Sorry, I will be on holiday till 21st August and I will have only limited access to WP. I seek your patience. Thank you again. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Have a good holiday! I can complete the review ready for after the 21st, and will probably do a few of the easy edits myself. Thanks for your work so far, Borsoka. Amitchell125 18:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(Lead section)

• Remove:

Was the second crusader ruler / supplied the main crusader army with food during the siege of Antioch / Daimbert and Tancred offered Jerusalem to Tancred's uncle, Bohemond I of Antioch / Godfrey's retainers took possession of the town and urged Baldwin to claim Godfrey's inheritance / Since a Muslim ruler captured Bohemond, Baldwin marched to Jerusalem meeting little resistance

I deleted the first statement, but otherwise I disagree with you. I think these are important elements of his life (he helped the crusaders to take Antioch, he almost lost Jerusalem against Bohemond). Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead section as it stands is in danger of containing too many details, and is not a brief summary (see MOS:INTRO) - all of the above details should be saved for later and only summarised here. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I maintain my previous remark. The lead has to summarize the most important points of his life. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Include if possible:

Parent’s names / was youngest/third son / fought for Godfrey in 1086 / travelled overland towards Constantinople / paid homage to the Byzantine emperor / suffering of army across Asia Minor / adoption by Thoros / Baldwin’s high taxes and property grants

I added his parents names and mentioned that he was their youngest sons. Sorry, I think his fight for Godfrey, his travel throgh Europe and his homage to the Byzantine emperor are not the most important elements of his life. Why do you think the sufferring of the army across Asia Minor is so important? All crusaders suffered, but there is no specific mention of Baldwin's difficulties during the journay. Borsoka (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy not to include the parts you mention but there definitely needs to be something added between "...one of the most successful commanders of the First Crusade." and "Baldwin and the Norman Tancred launched a separate expedition...", even if it is only 'At the start of the crusade, Baldwin and the Norman Tancred launched a separate expedition....'. Then it is clear to the reader that paragraph 1 is talking about his life prior to the First Crusade, and Paragraph 2 is talking about events during the crusade. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

After the capture of Jerusalem, Baldwin of Le Bourcq, succeeds Baldwin / First and Second Battles of Ramla / Illness in 1116 and recovery / march against Egypt in 1118 / Re-opening of old wound, forcing him to return towards home / Death on 2 April 1118

Uncertainty surrounding his second wife / marriage never annulled / Baldwin's third wife returned to Sicily following advice / agreement that Baldwin was probably homosexual. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Last push

Hi Borsoka, thanks for your work on the article completed over the last few days. I have helped with some of the issues. Only the lead section now remains before the article is passed.. Do we need a few more days to finish the job? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Renomination

Hi Borsoka, I would encourage you to renominate the article once the problems with the lead section have been addressed. Thanks for all your work, there shouldn't be a problem getting it to GA next time it is nominated. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your bold and comprehensive review and also for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)