Talk:Amalric of Nesle

Amalric of Nesle has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 30, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages: Crusades Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Amalric of Nesle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Patriarch Amalric was, according to the archbishop of Tyre, "reasonably well educated but bereft of intelligence and virtually useless"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amalric of Nesle.

Wikipedia

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 16:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Amalric divorces Agnes

... that Patriarch Amalric was snubbed at the royal court because of his role in a royal divorce (pictured)?

Source: Hamilton (1980) p. 76

ALT1: ... that Patriarch Amalric was, according to the archbishop of Tyre, "reasonably well educated but bereft of intelligence and virtually useless"? Source: Hamilton (1980) p. 78
ALT2: ... that "no other Latin patriarch had ruled for so long" as Amalric of Nesle and yet "no other had made so little contribution"? Source: Hamilton (1980) p. 78
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The United States of America (album)

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 184 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Surtsicna, review follows: article well in excess of 5x expanded from 27 October; article is well written and cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable offline sources; happy to AGF there are no copyright violations from these sources, the Earwig check is fine; hooks check out to the source cited (from Google Preview at least), for ALT0 I have amended "divorce" to "annulment of a royal marriage" as there is a difference; a QPQ has been carried out. Image needs a US PD copyright tag but is undoubtedly in the public domain, if you can address this and check you are happy with the amendment to ALT0 I should be able to approve - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tag added! I am not quite happy with the amendment, Dumelow, because it does not flow or catch attention nearly as well as "royal divorce"; and while divorce and annulment are different things in modern law, in the Middle Ages the annulment was the divorce, and indeed historians of the Middle Ages use the terms interchangeably, "divorce" even more commonly. See the source for this hook, for example. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surtsicna. Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I have returned ALT0 to its original wording and am happy to leave the final decision up to the promoter - Dumelow (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

@Surtsicna: is the missing Hamilton 2000 reference

Hamilton, Bernard (2000). The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521641876.

TSventon (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Embarrassing. Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen. Do you use a script to display Category:Harv and Sfn template errors? I have User:Svick/HarvErrors. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used a single script. I'll look into it. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can recommend the script as it is easy to produce Harvard reference errors on Wikipedia and the script produces very prominent error messages. TSventon (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Constantine ✍ 13:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 18:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the next few days. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

he showed very little political initiative and had no interest in military affairs. for a modern reader not familiar with the period this is scarcely surprising; perhaps a small addition, e.g. 'unlike other holders of the office' or similar? This is not explicitly mentioned in the article body, except for the allusion to Heraclius' political involvement, so perhaps the juxtaposition could be )more strongly) mentioned in the main article?

Oh, that is a good observation. I have elaborated. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~at the insistence of the High Court. suggest adding 'and against the King's will', 'much to the King's displeasure' or similar, to explain the next sentence.~~

Clarified. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rise

~~the court chaplain of Queen Melisende some context might be useful here, i.e. that Melisende was Fulk's wife, but also queen suo jure.~~

Melisende's status is explained more neatly in the following paragraph, which says that she reigned alongside Baldwin III. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Franks recognized only the Latin patriarch the institution of the Latin patriarchate has not been mentioned thus far. Suggest adding it after rather than Catholic.. It might also be useful to add a note as to the Latin patriarch's position vis-a-vis the Pope and the King of Jerusalem here.

I elaborated on the role of the patriarch.[1][2] --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even better than expected. Thanks. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sanity check: I assume there is no indication in the sources of the approximate date when he was born, or of his life prior to coming to the Levant?~~

Haha, love the sanity check. No, unfortunately not. I started work on the article about Guy of Lusignan and gave up when I realized that he just pops up out of nowhere as an adult man in all the sources I can find. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarchate

~~Would Frederick de la Roche warrant a redlink?~~

Frederick de la Roche gets a blue link in Rise. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~the Cathedral of Tyre as in Maria Komnene, Queen of Jerusalem, add a link to the Italian article?~~

Of course. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

other bishopless sees I am a bit confused here: does this mean sees that at that time had no incumbents appointed to them, or is it meant to reflect the ancient Byzantine ecclesiastical jurisdictions, that the Catholics usually tried to restore? I.e. that these sees would not be restored, but remain under the Latin patriarch?

Clarified. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~and even death a dew more details? How many deaths, and in which party?~~

Hamilton does not say. It might not be known. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Greek Orthodox archbishop of Jerusalem patriarch, not archbishop~~

Of course. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The emperor soon recalled 'Emperor Manuel' or 'Byzantine emperor' for clarity~~

Changed to Manuel, but he is the only emperor ever mentioned in the text. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarossa is also mentioned, but Manuel suffices here. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~the Ayyubid ruler Saladin add that he was Muslim, or better yet, the main Muslim opponent of the Crusader states~~

Done. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

~~The usual question: the article relies heavily on Hamilton and his views. Is there no other source?~~

That is a fair and expectable question. It would be possible to cite Malcolm Barber or Steven Runciman for the bits of general history of the kingdom (e.g. Saladin encircling the kingdom), but Hamilton is the authority on the Latin Church in the crusader states and the only author to have written about Amalric's career. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio spotcheck looks good.
~~Optional suggestion: Would recommend citing the actual chapter in Hamilton Jotischky 2020 rather than the entire work for accuracy and verifiability.~~

Done. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional suggestion: add an infobox.

I have been considering it, though it's a bit ugly. --Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely up to you. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. A well-written article that is easy to read and follow, and presents its subject with sufficient context and detail. Putting on hold till my comments are addressed. Constantine ✍ 18:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the easiest reviews I have ever had to perform, passing now. Constantine ✍ 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.