Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch

Bohemond IV of Antioch 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: March 16, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 October 2016..Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Disability

Bohemond IV of Antioch is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Wife?[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]