Wikipedia:Peer review/Raynald of Châtillon/archive1

Raynald of Châtillon


The article is about a controversial (or rather notorious) crusader leader. He assumed power first in the Principality of Antioch, then in the Lordship of Oultrejourdain through marrying wealthy heiresses. He tortured the Patriarch of Antioch, plundered the island of Cyprus, and launched a plundering raids against the Arabian coast. He was captured in the Battle of Hattin, and was beheaded by the victorious Saladin himself. I've listed this article for peer review because I still have doubts about its neutrality and comprehensiveness. Thank you for your suggestions, Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tytire
I find the article very comprehensive and exhaustive. Well sourced and written. The incipit is way too long and detailed, it may be shortened drastically (one para).Tytire (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I am not sure that reducing the lead into one paragraph would fully in line with MOS:LEADLENGTH. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UC
Medieval history can be complicated at the best of times, and this article does a good job of holding our hands through a lot of characters, places and events. I'm particularly impressed with the integration of a tricky historiographical tradition throughout. Some suggestions and observations below. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of the Palladii, and a quick Google doesn't turn up a lot (there's the odd Palladius in Roman history, but it doesn't seem to be a family name). How sure are we that these senators actually existed?
 * The monography of the French historian Jean Richard is the final source of the statement which is repeated by the British historian Bernard Hamilton. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Does either phrase it in a way that's unequivocal that they were real senators (e.g., not something like "...claimed to be descended from a Roman senatorial family called the Palaladii")? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Tytire that the lead is currently somewhat outsize with the rest of the article: I'm not sure about drastically shortening it but pruning it down by about 20-25% might help. There's a bit of verbal flab that can go without causing much bother: for example, the reigning Princess of Antioch can simply be cut to Princess of Antioch, as we generally assume people's titles are current unless stated otherwise. Similarly, Raynald made a raid in the valley of the river Euphrates at Marash to seize booty from the local peasants can be Raynald raided Marash in the Euphrates valley to seize booty, and was held in prison can be was imprisoned.
 * I made an attempt to reduce the text.


 * I'd always briefly introduce people and places: a few words as to who a person is. Generally, job, nationality and, if appropriate, rough era are helpful for people; the modern or ancient country is useful for places.
 * I introduced people but I think introducing places is mainly superfluous.
 * Remember WP:POPE: we shouldn't assume that readers will have any idea where or what the Duchy of Burgundy was, what Châtillon-sur-Loire (a castle? A country? A city?), or how Antioch and Jerusalem go together. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I could do with a little more context in the Prince of Antioch section as to why everyone's fighting: I understand the Byzantines and Armenians, but why do the Knights Templar get involved, and where does Cilicia come into it? The map here is very useful.
 * A small thing, but citing five sources for Raynald's beheading comes off as WP:OVERKILL.
 * The statement has been frequently questioned by editors (or vandals).
 * If it is really felt that all five are necessary, then WP:OVERCITE would encourage bundling them: there's a big readability trade-off to having so many consecutive footnotes in the text. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * References to three sources are deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a long quote from al-Athir: we generally discourage lengthy quotations from primary sources. Is there a good rationale for presenting all of this without commentary?
 * I always prefer to quote primary sources and I think this quote is not extremly lengthy.
 * Wikipedia doesn't, unfortunately: see WP:NPS. Remember that our articles are meant to be built around the synthesis of reliable secondary sources. The key thing to ask is what each quoted sentence (or so) is doing for the reader's understanding of the article (rather than their general interest): what would we lose if we ellipsis-ed it out? If the answer is "not much", we should probably cut. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather raise the question: would the article be improved through deleting the quote. If the answer is "No", we do not need to delete it. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Images: File:Renaud de chatillon rende omaggio a manuele I comneno 01.gif needs as US PD tag, as dos File:ReynaldofChatillon&PatriarchofAntioch.jpg, File:Seal Reynald of Chatillon 2.jpg, File:Français 2629, fol. 300, Couronnement de Gui de Lusignan.jpeg and File:Rnaud prissonier.jpg. I'd suggest being a little clearer on where the manuscript images come from: are they contemporary with Raynald?
 * Done (an unverified picture deleted). Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * File:Karak Castle 2.jpg and File:IIIBelaFotoThalerTamas.JPG might need a tag for the building and statue themselves, depending on Freedom of Panorama laws.
 * Cyprus would never entirely recover from the devastation that Raynald's and Thoros's marauding raid caused: I know it's sourced, but never seems a bit far-fetched.
 * Deleted.


 * The "Legacy" section seems to be more a "Historiography" one: I don't see much comment on the impact (or not) of Raynald and his life and actions after his death.
 * Changed to "Assessment".

I am really grateful for your comprehensive review. I need some more time to address all issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem; nice work with the replies so far. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)