# Talk:Alice of Antioch

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KGV  (Talk) 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alice of Antioch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 10:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 06:59, 20 December 2024 (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: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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): 

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: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Source review

Relevant academic sources, including a monography about Alice, are cited.
References 2, 3, 4, 12, and 43 verify the connected texts. Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Reference 44 is to be fixed.
I do not understand what needs to be fixed. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can remember the page should have been fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
...the Church a share in the spoils of her raiding expeditions Close paraphrasing?
Rephrased. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The two cities passed to her daughter, who was the sole ruler of the principality from 1149 to 1153. Close paraphrasing? Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Rephrased. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
A direct reference to Mayer's work is needed when his words are quoted in section "Assessment".
Cited. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments

...a Frankish crusader... Frankish?
Linked. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Can we refer to him as a crusader at the time of Alice's birth? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
To call him a former crusader would be odd, but I suppose "Frankish nobleman" would be fine. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...in the First Crusade in 1099 During and in 1098-99.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...rightful heir, Bohemond II... I would add the adjective "absent" to introduce his arrival to the East, mentioned in the following sentence.
Expanded. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...Bohemond was then invested with the principality I would avoid the verb "invested" because 1. it closely paraphrased; 2. it raises the question by whom; and 3. it implies that he was vassal of Baldwin (which is dubious).
Rephrased. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Baldwin thus relieved himself of the responsibility for the principality... I think the text does not reflect what Asbridge says: the arrival of the lawful prince relieved him and the marriage secured the alliance.
Rephrased. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
... similar to the earlier princesses of Antioch, Cecilia of France and Alice's aunt Cecilia of Le Bourcq Misleading: they had not received the same towns. I would delete it.
Rephrased. I need to introduce the aunt here because she is mentioned later. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...this must have been a shattering blow... What?
Clarified. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Introduce William of Tyre (especially mentioning that he wrote his chronicle decades after the events).
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Burgess or burgher? If burgess, fix the link.
Replaced with the simpler "knight", as Runciman describes him. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...who in the same year led a major revolt against Fulk... Why not past perfect or future in the past?
The order of events is not clear. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Hugh was opposed to Fulk's attempts to exclude Melisende from power. He was defeated, but Melisende succeeded in gaining a share in the government of the kingdom. Delete.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...seized the see of Antioch... Did he seize it?
That is how Barber describes it, but it makes no difference here. Rephrased. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The princess is traditionally said to have then sent an embassy to Byzantine Emperor John II Komnenos, proposing a marriage between his youngest son, Manuel, and either herself or her daughter, but Asbridge suggests that this offer may have been made already in 1130 and not by Alice. I would clarify that Kinnamos is the source, and I would rather mention Buck's more elaborate (also similar) PoV (Buck 2017, p. 191).
Expanded. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The accepted version of events... I would say "The traditional version...", or "A widely accepted version..."
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Asbridge suggests that this offer may have been made already in 1130 and not by Alice. Buck's PoV is very similar.
Noted. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
...by the Greek patriarch... I would add that "titular" or that he lived in Constantinople.
Rephrased per Asbridge. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...had close ties to the Abbey... More info?
Expanded to say that Antiochene princesses were buried at Josaphat. Buck says: "That Constance, along with other Antiochene princesses, was eventually buried in the abbey of Our Lady of Josaphat, a foundation with extensive land rights in the principality and ties to other princesses, including Cecilia of Bourcq and Alice, certainly suggests that the female members of the ruling house were visible figures in the religious landscape." I am not quite certain that we can conclude from this that Alice and Cecilia were buried at Josaphat. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
...her elder sister, Queen Melisende of Jerusalem... Delete "of Jerusalem" (she is already introduced and the same sentence refers to the kingdom).
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
William of Tyre writes highly favorably about Melisende... Why? (His misogyny is mentioned in the section's secon sentence.) Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Expanded to mention Melisende's achievements. I read somewhere, and forgot where, that William was evidently reluctant to criticize anointed people. I think it was used to explain why he did not criticize Melisende or even that one queen who eloped to live as a concubine of her own cousin. But that source does not mention Alice at all, so it would be SYNTH-y to cite it in this context. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
... the patriarch decided... Name him because two patriarchs are mentioned previously.
Named. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
(Lead): ...she seized power in Antioch for the third time I would make it clear that she assumed power on her daughter's behalf or as regent, and delete the text "for the third time". Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Image review

File:Baldwin II of Jerusalem.jpg: US PD tag is needed; the source is a dead link. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Now I see it dates 150 years after the events, however, so I am no longer convinced it should be there. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Overall:  --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)