Talk:Alice of Champagne/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll tackle this review as well while I'm at it, my review may be up by tomorrow, if not, it'll be available the day after. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As always, I will be using the above table for my review. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have completed my initial review for this article, there are some minor issues that should be addressed. You'll probably note that I haven't given a mark for criterion 3b, I'll be taking a second look at the article soon and will give you a marking for that, probably within an hour or two of posting this. Thanks for your work on this article, I am about to go through the other article as well Christopher Bathory and will update there as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you again for your comprehensive review and comments. I agree with your most comments and I tried to address the issues you raised above. My first concern is the infobox: I think your suggestion is logical, but a GA about a lady in a very similary position (Elisabeth of Bosnia) neither does refer to her role as regent for her daughters. I seek the advice of on this specific topic, because I think she/he was a major contributor to that article (Elisabeth of Bosnia). I am not sure that Alice's sister, Philippa, should be mentioned in the lede or in the first three sentences. She did not play a specific role in Alice's life, she is mentioned only sporadically, when their life was closely contected. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , fair enough regarding the infobox, and ok if you feel that Phillipa is not significant enough to bring up earlier. That said, I think you may need to redo your edits again, it's only saved the caption. Or are you in the process of dealing with the prose issues? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Wait nevermind, I didn't reload the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * quick question, are Aimery of Lusignan and Aimery of Cyprus the same person? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are the same person. I modified the text (I think, he is better known as Aimery of Lusignan, because he had been a prominent baron in the Kingdom of Jerusalem before the Battle of Hattin). Thank you for your comment. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a couple copy edits, I made sure to differentiate between Isabella I, II and of Antioch, as well as Hugh I and Hugh son of Isabella and finally Humphrey the IV so as to prevent confusion. As far as I am aware, the only thing left is the infobox and I leave the final decision on that to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding the infobox, I followed the guidelines set in Template:Infobox royalty/doc. I agree that the position of regent is actually more noteworthy than that of a consort, but in many cases it is not clearly defined. Perhaps it is best decided on a case-by-case basis. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I leave the final decision as to whether to incorporate her Regencies into the infobox up to you, as per the above comment, case-by-case basis and as you are the major contributor to this article, you'll have to consider the case. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , please let me know if any further action is needed. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, the article is ready to move on to GA. Thanks for your contributions to this article and others. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)