Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch

Wife?

The article on Amalric II says Behemond married his daughter, Melisende of Lusignan. . . . ----Michael K. Smith 01:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (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:

   It's probably just me but I am having a hard time getting through the names and keeping them all straight - I think I just need to read the article a few more times before I give a Yes to this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

   The lead is too detailed, it should give a summary or an overview. Shearonink (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

   This issue has been corrected sufficiently. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   References all look good to go. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Wow, the references are all from prominent, recently-published sources. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyvio tool shows this article as being clean as a whistle. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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):

   Now passes this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

   No edit wars, article seems very stable. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

   All the permissions are valid. Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The main issue at this point is the length of the lead and its detailed information. Everything else looks pretty good - I'm going to do some more proofreading-readthroughs to see if there's anything I've possibly missed. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

   The lead has now been sufficiently edited to pass the GA-MOS issues. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a GA! Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, for your comprehensive review and supporting approach. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armoiries Albret.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)