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

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the following days. Constantine ✍ 20:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well written, with a clear and succinct prose style. References are to scholarly sources of a high standard. Some comments:

• The Egyptian ruler Saladin this is a common trope, but not really accurate; Saladin ruled over both Egypt and Syria.

Describing a ruler of Egypt and Syria as an Egyptian ruler does not seem inaccurate to me, but I will gladly humor you :D Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The name of her mother is unknown (Varzos, Vol. B, pp. 143–144); per Byzantine custom it would be very unlikely if it was Maria, as children were usually named after their grandparents and almost never had the same name as one of their parents.

Extremely unlikely. Indeed, the name of her mother was removed during the expansion but snuck back in. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Enclose the Greek title protosebastos in {{transl|grc|}} per MOS

Huh. Never knew about that. Done. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding regnal dates to the various rulers and potentates (such as popes) to help the reader.

That, I think, would call for sources verifying those dates, and I think that any such dates that are helpful to the reader should be stated in prose anyway. E.g. Amalric becoming king in 1163 is relevant; Baldwin III becoming king in 1143 much less so. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rather disagree: Amalric and Manuel coming to the throne in the same year for example shows that they were likely of the same generation and likely had a long history of interactions since then. I generally find regnal dates useful myself, and they are fairly typical in scholarly literature too. I've also never encountered the requirement that regnal dates should be independently verified, not even in FA reviews. I will not insist, however, as indeed the relevant dates are mentioned, and the article is well written enough that it doesn't need the extra context. Constantine ✍ 20:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• {{green|Wishing to restore the alliance with the powerful Byzantine Empire}} a little context on why this alliance was disturbed?

I think the disturbance is well-explained: Baldwin III died. What we lacked is the explicit statement on how the alliance had been forged in the first place. A reader might not pick up on it being through Theodora and Baldwin's marriage. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Muslim sultan is that not somewhat redundant? Sultan by definition means Muslim.

It is redundant, but I do not think we can expect an average reader to know the definition. It is vital to establish a religious context here, though I suppose it can be done with "Muslim ruler" too if the redundancy is too disagreeable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link the Siege of Jerusalem (1187) in the main article as well (e.g. at besieging the capital).

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• After besieging the capital, Saladin arranged for Maria, her children, household, and possessions to be escorted to Tyre.[64] Jerusalem fell on 2 October. Does this mean Maria left the city before it capitulated?

The chronology of the story suggests so, but it is not explicitly stated. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding also a map of the pre-1187 kingdom, which shows places like Kerak or Nablus.

That would be very helpful in many articles, but I do not see any such map on the Commons. I would request it at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop but I do not have any RS to offer them. Surtsicna (talk)

I understand. I certainly won't hold up a GA nomination for this, but you could use another expedient, like [Fatimid_invasion_of_Egypt_(914–915)#Invasion_of_Egypt this]. Constantine ✍ 20:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamilton 2016 is cited but not listed in the reference section.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please provide ISBN for Riley-Smith 1973.

Done. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is very heavy reliance on Hamilton 2000 in the article. Per se this may not be a problem, especially for the narrative parts of the article, but I have to ask whether other sources were considered.

They were. For example, in the Ibelin alliance section, Hamilton's view is contrasted with Runciman's. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the section on judgments on her character, I would recommend adding other scholars' views as well, if they exist.

I have not been able to find any that go deeper than the "Greek filth" description other than Hamilton, and even he does not dispute much of it. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotcheck in Hamilton 2000 p. 106 for #28 does not exactly cover the statement in the article that [Saladin] had encircled the crusader states during Raymond's regency. It can be inferred, but in the source it is not presented as fait accompli. Other spotchecks check out fine.

Changed to "who had become a threat to the crusader states". It should be clearer to the average reader. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, will do a second pass after the above is taken care of. A very good article, which presents the Byzantine politics of Jerusalem and Maria's role in them clearly and understandably. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Constantine. I am looking forward to more. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some final comments, or suggestions rather, in a really desperate effort to find something

• Is the redlinked Cathedral of Tyre the same as it:Cattedrale Crociata di Tiro? Would be a case for using the Template:Interlanguage link.

Good find! Done. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The fate of her children with Balian, apart from John, is left unclear; there are links for three of them, but otherwise they are not mentioned. Would her daughter Margaret warrant a redlink?

Done. I do not think either Margaret or Helvis are notable, and we probably should be looking into an AfD for the latter instead. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I hit upon this during a second round of spotchecks: Gerish makes a very interesting point that William of Tyre does not mention Maria at all as queen consort after her marriage as a sign of her lack of authority. This might be interesting to add.

I expanded a bit about Maria's status as consort and as dowager, underlining how powerless she was until she was widowed. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of possible points of interest to mention to give some context:
  • Maria's father John was a favourite of Manuel, who had semi-adopted him after he was orphaned and had him as a close confidante ever after. But for his death in 1176 John would in all likelihood have been the chosen regent for Alexios II. So Maria was not just the daughter of one of the many Komnenian princes, but of someone most intimately connected to the emperor; not a small catch for Amalric.
  • On Maria's enmity with Raynald of Chatillon it may also be relevant that Raynald had invaded Cyprus while Maria's father was governor there, defeated and took Maria's father prisoner, and left a terrible impression with vile atrocities against the populace. For the Byzantines Raynald was very much an object of hatred after that, as shown by Manuel's deliberate humilitation of him in 1159. It is thus not unreasonable to assume that Maria added a personal enmity to the political rivalry with Raynald.

That's all. Constantine ✍ 20:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, none of the sources dealing with Maria mention this, and I am not comfortable with introducing sources that do not mention Maria at all. I do wish a historian somewhere made these connections. Perhaps a Greek-speaking one did, but that is not accessible to me. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and indeed the connection is nowhere made explicit AFAIK. Constantine ✍ 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: just in case you did not notice my comments above. Constantine ✍ 11:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I had not, Constantine. I was even wondering if I should remind you about this review. How awkward it is to find out that I was the one being waited for! Surtsicna (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Your changes look good, and I am happy to promote, as it is well deserved. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]