Wikipedia:Peer review/William of Tyre/archive1

William of Tyre
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've spent months working on this article, and I think I am finally satisfied with it. I am wondering if I've made it inaccessible to a general reader; have I assumed too much intimate knowledge of the crusades? Can the structure of the article be refined? Have I used one book too excessively? Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, Adam Bishop (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * General suggestions -
 * Suggest giving quickie explanations for wikilinked terms such as burgesses, in order to keep folks from having to click through the link to figure out what an unknown term might mean.
 * I'm a big fan of meatier leads, and this one seems skimpy to me. My general rule is to include a sentence for each longish paragraph in the article.
 * You often start paragraphs with "He/His/Him" which is sometimes unclear. current practice is to use the article subject's name the first time he/she is mentioned in a paragraph. I've done some, but probably more could be done.
 * If you're planning on FAC, a bit of explanation on the various princepalities in Outremer wouldn't go amiss, nor would a map.
 * If going to FAC, need alt text for the images.
 * Four links to disambiguation pages, I would not even begin to guess which one is correct, so left them for you to fix, sorry!
 * I'll channel Deacon here and put in the plea for the section on sources for his life as well as a bit more background material. I'm not a Crusade scholar, just have the most general knowledge a Anglo-Norman student has to know (which, honestly, isn't much. England's crusading is something that pretty much begins and ends with Richard I!) but a bit more background on the infighting and stuff would help make things more understandable for the non-medievalist/non-historian.
 * Lead -
 * "... which had been established a generation prior to his birth after the First Crusade in 1099." This is somewhat unclear to me, and probably would be more so for a non-medievalist. The "after the First Crusade" phrase is unclear whether it is modifying William's birth or the establishment of the kingdom. I know it probably means the kingdom, but suggest a reword to make it clearer.
 * Lots of sentences in the lead start with "He..." suggest some variation to keep away monotony.
 * Early Life -
 * "Jerusalem had been conquered in 1099 at the end of the First Crusade,..." by whom? From whom?
 * "scholaster"? I know this means basically school master, but non-medievalists won't. Link and explain term.
 * Graham Loud and J. W. Cox are who? Historians? Biographers?
 * Religious -
 * "Egypt had already been invaded by earlier kings..." somewhat ambigious here, Egypt's been invaded by tons of kings, might clarify which kings are meant here.
 * "... Peter W. Edbury, however, has more recently argued that William must be considered extremely partisan as he was naturally allied with his benefactor Raymond..." this is the first mention that Raymond was William's benefactor, and it's rather jarring. Need some explanation or something because at this point in the narrative, it's all be Amalric and Frederick who have been William's patrons, with maybe Baldwin.
 * When did Frederick the archbishop of Tyre die?
 * "... William was one of the delegates from Outremer..." you've not mentioned the term "outremer" before this, should explain what it is to non-medievalists.
 * Patriarchal election -
 * No citations in the first paragraph of this section.
 * "Raymond and Bohemond were King Baldwin's nearest male relatives in the paternal line, and could have claimed the throne if the king died without an heir or a suitable replacement." something about this sentence reads awkwardly to me, it's the "could have claimed" ... maybe "could claim"?
 * Death -
 * a small explanation of who Baldwin V was and how he was related to Baldwin IV is not a bad idea here.
 * Works -
 * The curly quotes for the block quote are frowned on at FAC, just a word of warning. (People are much more against them now than they were in the past)
 * Suggest linking the various grammar terms in this section
 * The quote starting "Chronology..." would need a citation directly on it at FAC. One solution would be to move the quote to the end of the sentence next to the citation so something like "Even for basic information such as the regnal dates of the kings of Jerusalem, "chronology is sometimes confused, and dates are given wrongly"."
 * "In England, however, the chronicle was expanded in Latin, based on William, the Itinerarium Regis Ricardi, and Roger Hoveden; it was written around 1220." this sentence confused me. If the chronicle was expanded, of course it was based on William, unless you mean some other William? And the last phrase seems out of place. Perhaps move the last phrase earlier in the sentence to something like "In England sometime around 1220 the chronicle was expanded in Latin, with information from the Itinerarium Regis Ricardi and Roger Hoveden."?
 * "The RHC edition.." jargon.. you've not used this abbreviation before, needs explanation.
 * "at least fifty-nine manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts" this quotation needs a citation on it.
 * give regnal dates for Alfonso the Wise?
 * And some explanation for who Marino Sanuto the Elder?
 * Modern assessment -
 * quickie explanation for "topos" most non-academics will have no clue what the heck it means.
 * "... were influential in perpetuating this point of view, although the recent re-evaluations of this period by Peter Edbury and Bernard Hamilton have undone much of William's influence." needs a citation
 * References & etc. -
 * Please add undefined
 * Need to note non-English languages for sources not in English. (this is mainly an FAC thing, obviously)
 * I took the liberty of fixing some typos, etc. Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's awesome! Thanks, that's exactly what I was hoping for. I figured I was probably being too jargon-y. I won't be able to get to this for a few days, but I'll fix whatever I can. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind I'm not totally a non-medievalist in this sphere. I do know some stuff. If you are serious about FAC, I suggest getting Iridescent or Brianboulton to read it over, they are excellent at playing "non-medievalist" (Malleus has read so many of my bishops at this point I'm not sure he qualifies as a non-medievalist yet). By the way, it's a great article, very comprehensive and should be good at FAC when it's ready. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will, thanks. I have some more questions:
 * Just how meaty should a lead be? I know that even if this were to become an FA, it's a little on the short side. The lead might become overwhelmingly long.
 * I was thinking about adding more images, but I couldn't think of anything appropriate. There is that Battle of Hattin image I guess, but we've never really determined what it is or where it's from. What else can I add?
 * I was thinking that I should mention modern historians only in the notes, aside from really important ones like Edbury or Huygens; Loud and Cox, and that whole aside about the historiography of the different factions, could be removed from the main text. Or should I actually put more of that in? Like, for "sources of his life" do you mean a separate historiographical section? Is there a good example of this I could follow?
 * More background is easy enough, no problem there.
 * I'll let you know when I've done all this. Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deacon's been nagging me into putting a "sources for the life" section into the more obscure bishops/others. See Urse d'Abetot which is my latest FAC. I get the impression that Willie here is one of those guys that hasn't had a full biography nor does he have a lot of primary sources that are all together. On the lead, I'd think another four five sentences would probably make it work. Myself, I'd do more, but I'm a person who usually ends up over-leading the articles she's working on. Images, keep in mind you'll need them to be pretty ironclad and they need alt text so you don't want to many. I don't think the historiography of the factions is a bad fit at all, it's good to point out how his work might have been biased/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I've implemented almost everything you mentioned. I don't have a specific source for the idea that Edbury and Hamilton have "undone much of William's influence", since it's the kind of thing "everyone knows", although I can see how it sounds like my own conclusion. I think rewording that paragraph would probably fix it. I also don't have a separate section for sources of his life, since his own work is pretty much the only source for his life. There is plenty of stuff written about him (the bibliography used to be dozens of items longer), but it all ultimately derives from his chronicle. (There are a few charters which mention that he was chancellor, as would be expected, but that's the only other source I can think of.) I'm not sure what I could say in a new section.


 * One thing that is still nagging me is the section about his chronicle and the section about "modern assessment". I think some of the assessment should be merged into a "themes" section with the chronicle bits. But I also think it works the way it is now. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and what are the four links to disambiguation pages? (I didn't click every link but no obvious candidates jumped out at me.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ascalon in Religious and Political life, Mount Sion in the bottom of the same section, Antipope Victor IV in a footnote, and Corpus Christi College in a footnote. I have a disambiguation finder in my monobook that helps a lot finding them. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, fixed, thanks. Another general question - the English translation of William's chronicle is available online, but it requires a password and possibly a subscription. I can get it through my university library's website, but for most people I suppose it would be inaccessible. Should it still be included in the external links? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note it, but note that it requires a subscription or that it may require one. It's looking really nice, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I made one large reorganization of the Chronicle and Assessment sections; now everything relating to themes of the chronicle is in the Chronicle section, and modern historical opinions are in the Assessment section. I think that's it...I should be done now. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)