# Talk:William Longsword of Montferrat

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Longsword of Montferrat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be your GA reviewer. I absolutely love this topic and I have a lot of background in researching the crusades, so when I saw that this was nominated for GA status, I had to immediately take my chance! I'm a bit busy today, so expect this review to start tonight or tomorrow. I'm very excited and I have very high hopes!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 17:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I am very glad to have provided this opportunity! Let's see what you have to say :D Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll begin the initial review now 
Initial Review:

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: 

I'll begin the spot check shortly 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 23:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)


### Spot check
Since I have physical copies of two sources in the article (and I already know that the article matches with them just by reading it), this spot check should go very quickly :) 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Spot #1
The Leper King and His Heirs by Bernard Hamilton

Reference #13:
Article says: Hamilton believes that the decisive defeat of Emperor Frederick by the Lombard League at Legnano on 29 May made the alliance undesirable to the nobility of the kingdom, for Frederick was not only unable to assist them but was also still at war with the pope and the king of Sicily, whose aid was also needed. (109 - 110)
Book says: Although he (William of Tyre) does not give any reason for this reaction, it probably reflected the changing fortunes of Frederick Barbarossa, since the Montferrat marriage had been arranged in order to secure his protection for the Crusader States. On 29 May 1176 the emperor had been decisively defeated by the forces of the Lombard League at Legnano, and his protection then came to appear more of a liability than a benefit, since not only was he in no position to intervene in the Latin East, but he was also still at war with the pope and the king of Sicily, whose aid the Franks of Jerusalem needed. It goes without saying that this is a pass.
Reference #20a:
Article says: In early 1177 King Baldwin was preparing to attack Egypt, but William fell ill in Ascalon in April. The illness lasted two months. King Baldwin visited him and fell gravely ill too. The king recovered, but his brother-in-law did not: William died in June, leaving Sibylla pregnant. His body was transported to Jerusalem and interred in the vestibule of the Hospital of St John. (118)
Book says: But when everything in the Latin Kingdom seemed to be going reasonably well, William of Montferrat fell sick at Ascalon. His illness lasted for two months and the king came to visit him, but he too fell gravely ill. In June William died, leavign his wife pregnant. His body was taken to Jerusalem and buried in the vestibule of the Hospital of St John. Another very clear pass. Onto the other book.


#### Spot #2
Sybil, Queen of Jerusalem, 1186-1190 by Helen J. Nicholson

Reference #4c:
Article says: Nicholson proposes that the nobility may have been concerned that William, once king, would try to exclude Sibylla from power, as King Fulk had tried to do to Queen Melisende. (59)
Book says:In the case of Sybil's and Baldwin's paternal grand-parents Melisende and Fulk, although the eventual settlement was a joint rulership, it appears that initially Fulk tried to govern alone - and the nobles of the kingdom were not happy with his government. Perhaps in October 1176 some of the nobles of the kingdom feared that William Longsword intended to take over the government in his own name and excluse his wife and the nobles of the kingdom. Obvious pass.
Reference #15:
Article says: inker (though "this did not impair his judgement"), traits undesirable in a king of Jerusalem.[14] In a chronicle written in the late 12th and early 13th century, the cleric Tolosanus of Faenza commended William's appearance, integrity, sexual restraint, and faithfulness to his wife. Tolosanus called Sibylla Beneesente, meaning "benevolent" or "well-disposed"; Nicholson interprets this as possibly William's pet name for Sibylla. (14)
Book says:Writing in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century in his home town of Faenza, the cleric Tolosanus included in his chronicle particular words of praise for Sybil's first husband (William), describing him as handsome, virtuous, faithful to his wife and sexually abstemious. Uniquely, he called Sybil "Beneesente", meaning "Benevolent" or "well-disposed" (this could also feasibly have been William Longsword's pet name for his young wife)... Obvious pass. As expected, this was the easiest spot check I've ever done, and will likely remain the easiest I ever get to do. Onto the main review. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)


### Infobox
This isn't a requirement, only a suggestion: I'm wondering if an infobox would be nice to have here. To save your time, I'll make it myself, and if you like it, we can paste it into the article from the source editor :). 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 00:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I do strongly believe that not all articles need infoboxes and that some are better off without. I shall consider adding this one. Thank you for creating it! Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)


### Lead
I'd strongly expand the lead, not only because it is only 122 words long, but to add more context and content from the article. I'd suggest adding that William was selected thanks to his family ties to Frederick Barbarossa and Louis VII (and that Frederick's defeat made William far less popular), that Baldwin IV had leprosy, and that William's posthumous son was Baldwin V, the future king of Jerusalem. Besides an expansion of the lead (which I'd be happy to help with), I see no issues with it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverosie (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC) 

I've added about 50 words. I mentioned Baldwin V, the reluctance of the nobility, and Baldwin IV's leprosy. The ties to Frederick and Louis were already there. I am purposefully witholding details, though; the goal is to entice the reader to read more! Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)


### The main review
The rest of the review will be formatted like this:
I'll be abbreviating the paragraph and sentence I'm referring to in my suggestions to P and S. For example, paragraph 2, sentence 3 would be P2S3. The paragraph counter also resets with each new section.
Please use the  Done template or strikethrough to indicate that a problem has been fixed, and add any comments/questions after the points that you have. I'll add sections of the article as I go. If you don't agree with one of my suggestions, please tell me, and we can discuss it 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 18:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)


### Background
P1S2: ...a vassal of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa Even though it's common knowledge, it should be specified that Frederick was the Holy Roman Emperor.
Far from common knowledge, but I suppose one could invoke the problem of two emperors. Anyway, done :D Surtsicna (talk)
P1S3: His mother, Judith, It should be specified that this is William Longsword's mother, as it could be referring to William V in this sentence.
Of course. Surtsicna (talk)
P1S5: The House of Montferrat loyally supported the emperor in the latter's long conflict with the Lombard League... For clarification and consistency, we can simply say "his" instead of "the latter's".
Right. Surtsicna (talk)
Suggestion: P2S1: William grew to be "reasonably tall" and "a good-looking young man", in the words of the archbishop of Tyre, "with reddish-gold hair" For the sake of flow, I'd suggest rearranging this sentence to put all of the physical traits together before mentioning "in the words of the archbishop of Tyre"
I've reworded the sentence, though I kind of liked it interspersed. Surtsicna (talk)
P2S1 + P2S2: "with reddish-gold hair".[6] He was trained in warfare since childhood,[6] This is an example of citation overkill. Since these two citations are back-to-back, you only need to keep the last one.
Citation overkill is citing many sources where one or two would do. Repeating a citation is not citation overkill. I strongly prefer not having the citation for one sentence in the middle of another. Surtsicna (talk)
Strongly encouraged suggestion: P2S3 + P2S4: The young William's father participated in the Second Crusade in the Levant; 15th-century Piedmontese publications celebrating the Montferrat family's various overseas engagements alleged that the younger William also took part in this crusade, but modern scholarship rejects the notion.[8] The family enjoyed a good reputation in the crusader states of the Levant thanks to William V's crusading efforts.[2] For clarity, I'd suggest rearranging this, first mentioning that William V participated in the second crusade, then that the family enjoyed a good relationship as a result of this, then the false claim that William Longsword himself went with him.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)


### Family tree
Suggestion: I'd suggest color-coding the kings of different kingdoms (france and germany) with rounded boxes, like how Baldwin IV's article has members of the different political factions circled in red and blue.

I do not think that would be helpful because they are all already marked as "of Germany" or "of France". Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)


### Marriage negotiations
Suggestion: P1S2 + P1S3: Because Baldwin had leprosy and could not marry, the royal government considered Sibylla's marriage crucial. A brother-in-law could rule the kingdom as regent and eventually succeed Baldwin as king. I'd suggest merging P1S2 and P1S3 for flow and clarity
Done. Surtsicna (talk)
Suggestion: P2S2: He too had taken part in the Second Crusade While it can easily be assumed, I'd suggest specifying that "he" is Frederick and not William
Of course. Surtsicna (talk)
P2S3: ...the kingdom under the imperial protection The second "the" should either be deleted, or the sentence should be expanded to say "the imperial protection of Frederick/The Holy Roman Empire"
Right. Surtsicna (talk)
P2S5: ...this oath suggests that Sibylla's previous betrothal, to Count Stephen I of Sancerre, I don't think the commas are necessary here
The commas indicate that Sibylla had only had one previous betrothal. Surtsicna (talk)
P4S3 + P4S4: The archbishop does not say why.[10] The noblemen claimed that they had not adequately considered the matter at the time and had since come to oppose it.[11] I'd suggest merging these sentences for clarity and clarification
I think there is more clarity in simpler sentences. Surtsicna (talk)


### Countship
Suggestion: P1S1: then aged around 17 It should be specified that Sibylla was 17, not the marriage (even though this is easy to assume)
Fairly easy to deduce who was 17, but let's make it explicit anyway :) Surtsicna (talk)
Nothing else for this section. In my eyes, it is already GA status


### Death and aftermath
P1S1: In early 1177 King Baldwin was preparing to attack Egypt... There should be a comma after 1177
There can be, but it does not have to be if I recall correctly. I do not mind it being there. I have reworded the sentence a little bit anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Also nothing to say here!


### Overall
My procedure will go like this: If all of the changes listed above are resolved within 3 - 4 days of me posting this, the article will be quick passed. If not, I will place the article on hold for as long as you need (but ideally not over three weeks).
This article was a pleasure to review, and I'm confident that it will pass! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna one more thing: This might not be the right place for me to say it, but thank you so much again for your contributions to so many articles about the crusades!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
It's my pleasure. Fulk, Baldwin III, and Guy are waiting for you ;) Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll be reading the article once more, and then I'll most likely be passing it! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 00:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna I've passed the article. Congratulations!!! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 00:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)