Talk:Humphrey IV of Toron/GA1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Borsoka in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your thorough review. Please find my comments below. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Suggest mentioning Baldwin IV's death in the lead; we jump to Baldwin V's death after mentioning Baldwin IV's relief of Kerak, which is a bit confusing if we don't make it clear that Baldwin IV died in the interim.
  • I expanded the lead to mention Baldwin's leprosy and dead. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • 1969 is early for an ISBN, so can you confirm that Baldwin is really the 1969 edition and not a later edition?
  • The book that I used do not mention a later year of publication. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • This provision of the marriage contract suggests that the king wanted to prevent Humphrey from uniting two large fiefs, Toron and Oultrejourdan: This is phrased as a tentative deduction, but in the lead it's stated as definitely known.
  • Before long, Saladin set Humphrey free again without demanding ransom: do we know why?
  • I do not remember reading about Saladin's motives. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That takes care of everything so I'm going to pass this. I would suggest mentioning the leprosy in the body of the article, since it's now in the lead, but that's no reason to hold up promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the promotion. I expanded the article in accordance with your above suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply