Talk:Sicilian business

Sicilian business is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Unlimitedlead (talk) at 20:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Middle Ages: Crusades Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

English Royalty Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sicilian business/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Unlimitedlead (talk · contribs) 20:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Image review

File:An account of the events produced in England by the grant of the Kingdom of Sicily to Prince Edmund, second son of King Henry the Third Fleuron T142892-1.png: the source at Commons is not specific enough (it is the introductory page of a website); add alt text.

I found the source of the image at this Cambridge journal, but the steps following this are foreign to me. What do I need to do? But on that note, I have added alt text.

File:Kingdom of Sicily 1190.svg: I think the caption is misleading ("a few decades before"); could it be replaced with a map presenting the region around 1283?

Believe me: I share your lamentation. However, this is all I could find :(

File:Jindra3 deti.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; add alt text.

Dead end. Should I just replace the image?

File:Edmund 1.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; add alt text.

An analogous image can be found as "File:Detail from the roll of the genealogical line from Henry III to Edward II, with an extension to Edward III.jpg", but the source link is "dead" in the sense that the British Library website has seemingly taken down their previously digitalized scans of medieval manuscripts.

Louis9 Innocentius4 Cluny.jpg: add alt text. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Source review

Academic sources of high quality are cited.
Jobson (2012): delete the place of publication (alternatively, add the same info at each titles).

Removed.

Weiler (2006) and Weiler (2012): why are both needed? Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super awkward... I was only able to access certain excerpts of this book from different versions! Is this permissible?