Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice of Champagne/archive1

Alice of Champagne

 * Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a Jerusalemite royal princess who ruled the Kingdoms of Cyprus and Jerusalem as regent for her son and an absent relative for years in the first half of the 13th century. She also laid claim to a French county but could not seize it. I was planning to nominate the article with as a co-nominator because they had been a major (and critical) contributor but they have been inactive for months. As I have always loved Surtsicna's articles about medieval royals, I hope they are well and will return to our community soon. I would be really grateful for any comments and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:SilverDenierHenryIOfCyprus1218-1253.jpg needs an explicit tag for the original work
 * Thank you for your image review. Tag added.


 * File:Map_Crusader_states_1240-eng.png needs a source for the data presented, and see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Source added, and I sought the assistance of editors at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Airship
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.
 * Childhood
 * somewhat odd that we get a definition of the Third Crusade ("a large military campaign for their rescue proclaimed by the papacy") but not the First. I think the "a large military campaign" bit can be moved to describe the First, or just removed.
 * Rephrased.


 * somewhat obscures the fact that there were 90-odd years between the beginning and end of the sentence.
 * Expanded.


 * could probably be combined for smoother prose
 * Rephrased.


 * The phrase "the widowed Isabella" appears twice within short order in the second paragraph.
 * Rephrased.


 * is there an "and" missing?
 * Rephrased.


 * I think the mentions of Alice and Philippa could go earlier in the paragraph, possibly right after their parents' marriage. As it stands, the chronology and names are a bit confusing for a non-specialist reader.
 * Restructured.


 * why was it up to Philip to decide who to invest the counties with?
 * A previous sentence now clarifies that the two counties were situated in France.


 * Some background on Isabella herself wouldn't go amiss (first husband isn't mentioned at all, second husband and eldest daughter aren't mentioned until third paragraph, no details of fourth marriage, etc.) The article places much less prominence on her and her life/lands compared to her husband.
 * Expanded info on Isabella.


 * Also, according to Isabella I of Jerusalem Alice had an elder full-sister who died in 1205. This surely has to be mentioned, if true?
 * Alice was her parents' eldest child, according to the cited sources. Her youngest full-sister, Margaret "almost certainily died in childhood", according to Bernard Hamilton (Hamilton, p. 225). Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Cyprus
 * I believe "stepsiblings" is typically hyphenated.
 * Modified.


 * birth years would be helpful
 * The dates are uncertain.


 * I think the prose in the final two sentences of the "Queen consort" subsection could be tightened.
 * Rephrased.


 * What was the practical difference between the positions of regent and bailli? The fact that Alice installed Philip suggests that she had greater power (was that a royal prerogative?), but then he prevailed over her in the tithing dispute.
 * I doubt this is the consequence of a difference between their position, and also doubt that an exact definition of their position could be added, for it was changing (as it is demonstrated by the article itself).


 * do we know when they began?
 * Rephrased.


 * Little bit wordy, and could probably be trimmed.
 * Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In exile
 * I don't think the "to allow" is needed.
 * Done.


 * this sentence doesn't really expand on the last one enough, and could easily be combined.
 * Rephrased.


 * is this sentence necessary?
 * Deleted.


 * when?
 * Added.


 * the "successor of ... Frederick" made me think the latter was dead at this point.
 * Reference to Frederick deleted.


 * "Henry I" is written once, "Henry I of Cyprus" twice; I'm not sure the regnal numbers are necessary in the context they are being used (there aren't any other Henry's to talk about) and the "of Cyprus" is definitely unneeded.
 * Rephrased.


 * too much "Cyprus"
 * Jerusalem
 * Rephrased.


 * as the only barons referred to thus far have been Cypriot, might be best to clarify
 * Done.


 * these three short related sentences could be combined
 * Done.


 * Nothing about her burial or legacy? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, all sources inform us about her death and succession. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comprehensive review. Sorry, but I need to wait until weekend to address the problems you indicated above. Borsoka (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I addressed the above problems. Thank you for your patience but I was extremly busy in real life. 02:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Airship, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * Dunbabin is listed in Sources, but is not cited. Similarly Runciman 1979a and Treadgold.
 * Thank you for starting the review. The three sources were cited in an ancestors' table and they remained when the table was deleted. Now, I deleted them. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it would be worth mentioning in "Childhood" when Jerusalem the city ceased to be part of the kingdom.
 * That the city remained in Muslim hands is now mentioned in the article.


 * "could challenge a count's posthumous son's claim to his counties." Should "a" be 'the'?
 * I preferred "their uncle".


 * "the investigation was not "pursued with any degree of rigour" (Bernard Hamilton)". You can't attribute in brackets like that. Either introduce and name the person quoted properly in line or paraphrase it.
 * Rephrased.


 * "The administration of the kingdom was, according to the contemporaneous lawyer Philip of Novara, arranged by Hugh I on his deathbed, although the contemporaneous Chronicle of Ernoul and Bernard the Treasurer suggests that Alice acted independently, whereas a papal letter of February 1226 states that the Cypriote nobles, barons, knights, and people elected Ibelin as bailli." This sentence is getting a bit long to follow.
 * Divided into three sentences.


 * Link Consanguinity.
 * Linked.


 * "renounced her claim to Champagne and Brie for 40,000 livres tournois and estates yielding a yearly income of 2,000 livres". Who paid her this? It is in the same sentence as talk of a papal tribunal, so the implication is the Pope!
 * Rephrased.


 * "She allegedly renounced the County of Jaffa". Is this what you mean, or does 'It is assumed that she renounced ...' capture the source better?
 * Rephrased ("probably")


 * "he concluded that Frederick could no more administer the Kingdom of Jerusalem on his son's behalf". I think ' could no longer administer' works better.
 * Done.

A cracking article. Explains complicated situations about as well as they can be. Just the mostly nit picks above from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough review and suggestions. I hope I addressed all issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * Dictionaries I have checked show stepbrother as one word.
 * Done.


 * "After a dispute with Philip of Ibelin, bailli of Cyprus in 1223, she left the island." This raises several issues. 1. You need a few words of explanation of why Philip was powerful enough to drive her out even though she was the regent. 2. The Bailli link goes to a northern French official. 3. You need a comma after "Cyprus" as without it 1223 is when Philip was Bailli, not when she was driven out.
 * Rephrased and delinked.


 * "because of kinship". I think "because of their close kinship" would be clearer.
 * In modern eyes, their kinship was not close. The grandfather of Isabella's grandfather, Baldwin II of Jerusalem was their common ancestor.
 * How about "because of medieval rules concerning consanguinity"? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rephrased with a reference to canon law.


 * "The kingdom and two other Crusader states—the Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli—survived due to the Third Crusade, proclaimed by the papacy for their rescue, but the city of Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands." Maybe clarify that the kingdom was confined to a small strip along the coast.
 * Added.


 * "Under popular pressure". I would take this to mean pressure by the common people, but presumably you mean by the nobility and if so this should be clarified.
 * No, the townspeople also urged her to remarry.
 * Maybe "under aristocratic and popular pressure". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "both born while their father was count," What is the significance of this qualification? Was there a time when he was not count?
 * Yes, of course there was a time when he was not count. A link to "born in the purple" added.


 * You are inconsistent Cypriot or Cypriote.
 * Fixed (Cpyriote).


 * "Alice "spent the revenues of the kingdom liberally", resulting in conflict with Philip of Ibelin.[26] After some debate with the bailli about the tithes payable to the Orthodox clergy, Alice left Cyprus". This is vague and confusing. You refer to conflict over her extravagance, and then say she left after "debate" over tythes, which does not sound serious. What was the cause of her leaving and was it voluntary or was she expelled? Did she consent to leaving her children?
 * Rephrased.


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the review. I hope I addressed all the above problems. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "visited with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II". I assume you mean that he visited Frederick, not visited some place with Frederick. I would delete "with".
 * Indeed. Deleted.


 * "accusing Eustorgius of partiality". In whose favour?
 * Done.


 * "but a disease prevented Frederick from departing Italy". This does not sound right to me, which may just be a personal preference. I prefer he was too ill to depart Italy.
 * Sorry, I do not understand your concern.


 * "Alice and Bohemond's marriage was subsequently annulled but this did not temper her ambitions." Why should it have tempered her ambitions? This seems a non-sequitur.
 * Deleted.


 * "Runciman, Steven (1989) [1951]. The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades. A History of the Crusades. Vol. III". The publication date of this volume is unclear on WorldCat, but you link to a review which dates it 1954, and there were no later editions. I am not sure of the rules, but I would take orig-year to be for first editions of books which had more than one edition. 1989 is presumably just the date of the reprint which you are using, and it is misleading as it implies that the book is more up to date than it really is. I have always assumed that you should cite the date of first publication of the edition you are citing, not of the unaltered reprint you happen to be using. I see you are doing the source review. What is your view on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree,, including the use of the  parameter. I take it we're both looking at OCLC 958220960?   ——Serial Number 54129  13:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I deleted the link. Sorry, I do not understand your concern. I cannot refer to the 1951 edition because I do not cite it. Section "Sources" makes it clear that the work was first published in 1951, so nobody misleads anybody. I refer to two other FAs, that follow the same method: Raymond III, Count of Tripoli and Raynald of Châtillon. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no 1951 edition because the book was first published in 1954 and there was no later edition. You are citing the original publication as your copy is just a reprint so you should give the date as 1954. I have a 1986 reprint of Stenton's 1971 third edition of Anglo-Saxon England. The orig-date for the book is 1943 when the first edition was published. If I cited the date as 1986 then people would suppose that the third edition was published then, so I give the date as 1971. How would you show the dates for Stenton? what is your view on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE seems pretty clear that that the date(s) are for editions, not mere reprints, so if 1954 is the date of the sole edition then "(1954)" alone is what I'd expect to see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The book was published several times: first in 1951, and I used the 1989 publication. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. According to WorldCat, volume I was published in 1951 and volume III, which you cite, was published in 1954. There was a reprint with corrections in 1955, but all subsequent issues were reprints. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1989 reprint I used says that it was first published in 1951. Borsoka (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) WorldCat does not say that volume III was first published in 1954 . Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The page you link to is for the 3 volume series and it says 1951-54. As I point out above, it is 1951 for vol 1 and 1954 for vol 3. it is also wrong to give the date of the reprint. In view of the source errors, I am unable to support, but I do not think the errors are serious enough to oppose, so I am closing this review without giving an opinion either way. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. Just for clarification, WorldCat does not say that vol 3 was first published in 1954. My copy of vol 3 makes it clear that it was first published in 1951, and reprinted in 1951 (!), 1953, 1954, 1957, 1962, 1968, 1975, 1980, 1987, 1988 and 1989. When mentioning the year 1989 and indicating the original year of publication (1951), I followed an accepted (and quite logical) practice. If somebody wanted to compare the text in the article with the cited book, they could easily find the relevant pages. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An early review indeed says that vol 3 was first published in 1954, so I change the original year. Thank you for spotting the mistake. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That oclc looks right. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Pending. A little before my period, but I have the basic texts. ——Serial Number 54129 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Formatting is fine. Ignoring the false-positive of Runciman's appendix. Authors are all established historians (Cardiff, Cambridge, glad to see Nottingham, punching above its weight...), independent scholars, or work at Western Maryland College. No obvious omissions from the canon, and nothing that jumps out as outremer :) It is slender and well-presented.

I also echo what said above regarding ; there is a hole in Wikipedia's medieval coverage where once he edited. I also benefitted from his collaboration and incisive input into discussions. ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your source review. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Runciman's appendix. Could you explain it? Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Serial Number 54129: pinging. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is total trivia. Completely irrelevant. Absolutely inside baseball. I only mention it because if I do not, someone even more retentive than myself will notice. All AGF notwithstanding. All it was: because Borsoka delineated fn2a/b with a comma, it calls a  error. But being an appendix, it's a false positive. In my book anyway. Now that took far more time to explain than it should have done. *bizarre faced emoji here*  :)    ——Serial Number 54129  13:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan
Hi, saving a spot, will be adding comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Matarisvan, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, my comments:
 * In the infobox, we should add Isabella I of Jerusalem and Alix of Montferrat as the predecessor and successor respectively as the Queen consort of Cyprus. We have this in the Royal titles section at the bottom but not in the infobox.
 * Added.


 * In the infobox, consider adding her tenure, predecessor and successor as Countess of Jaffa. Also consider adding this to the first sentence of the lead.
 * Added. Her rule in the County of Jaffa is mentioned in the same paragraph in the lead.


 * What were her titles from 1233 to 1243? We have a 10 year gap here.
 * She was dowager queen.


 * In the lead we have her as the regent of Cyprus from 1218-1223, but in the infobox we have 1218-1232. Which one is correct?
 * Fixed.


 * When did the High Court of Jerusalem reject her claim? Do we know the year?
 * Sentence rephrased to make it clearer.


 * Link to Acre in the sentence on Henry's fall?
 * Done.


 * Do we know the year of death of Isabella I? If so, we should add it to the Aimery died and Isabella followed sentence.
 * Rephrased to make it clearer.


 * Link to papal legate and prelate?
 * Both linked.


 * Link to High Court of Jerusalem in the body?
 * Linked.


 * Is the Thomas of Acera we speak of the same as Thomas I of Aquino? If so, consider linking?
 * Yes. Linked.


 * In the biblio, link to University of Wisconsin Press and Steven Runciman?
 * Both linked.

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed review. I think I fixed all problems. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A great article, happy to support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

FrB.TG (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)