# Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch

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

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)
I am going to give this article a review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This issue has been corrected sufficiently. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
C. It contains no original research: 
Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The lead has now been sufficiently edited to pass the GA-MOS issues. Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Congrats, it's a GA! Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, for your comprehensive review and supporting approach. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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)