# Talk:Walter III Brisebarre

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walter III Brisebarre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Surtsicna (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 04:47, 18 January 2025 (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: 

Image review

Could you add a map, and possibly an other picture? Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would love to have a map showing the internal feudal division of the kingdom, but that might be a tall order considering the need for a reliable source. This map used to be in some articles, but I prefer to remove it; the colors are just random and the borders do not seem to be based on scholarly consensus. If you know of a reliable source, whether textual or a map, that we can use to request a map at WP:LAB/MAP, let me know. At the very least we could have a map showing the principal settlements, cities, and fortresses within the kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
What about this one [1]?
That is the source for the first one and with the same issue. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Why not mention the siege of Kerak by Nur ad-Din?
It is mentioned in Walter_III_Brisebarre#Lordship_of_Transjordan. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I referred to the caption: why do you mention a potential siege instead of the one that occurred during his rule?
Source review

Does Pen&Sword publish peer reviewed sources?
According to Reddit, they "basically don't bother peer reviewing their submissions so quality is dependent entirely on the author." Fulton mentions in the preface that "Denys Pringle, whose guidance over the years has been transformative, and Steve Tibble, a great friend and colleague, have each reviewed large parts of the manuscript, which is much improved thanks to their suggestions and corrections." Pringle and Tibble are exactly who I would expect to be consulted. Fulton then also mentions a Micaela Sinibaldi as providing feedback, but I am not familiar with her. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Otherwise, academic sources of high standard are cited. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
References 1, 4a&c, 8, 10, 11, 31 are verified.
I also consulted another work (Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem by Steven Tibble) which confirms information in the article.
Mary E. Nickerson posited three lords of Beirut named Walter, making the last Brisebarre lord Walter III. Add a reference to her work.
Added. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
..., and Lady Marie According to Mayer, this is only an assumption (op. cit. p. 869)
Explained. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Blanchegarde was only a small fief, owing eight knights. Rephrase to avoid close paraphrasing.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I think references 4b and 12 should be fixed. Borsoka (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I have fixed 4, but do not see anything wrong with 12. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments

Section titles: why not "Lord of..." instead of "Lordship of..."?
It's lordship as in position of a lord, rather than a territory. Countship, kingship, lordship. It does not matter much to me. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would avoid ambiguity.
Just as I was making the change, it became clear to me why I had chosen those section titles. When the section is titled "Lord of Transjordan", it appears to say that everything discussed in it happened during Walter's tenure as lord of Transjordan. That, then, is not NPOV. "Lordship of Transjordan" is neutral on the issue because it can also refer to the territory in which the attacks indisputably happened. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Humphrey II. Why was their consent needed to Humphrey's transaction?
Expanded. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Milly.
This is a bit tricky. Mayer insists that Philip was never officially lord of Nablus, but also concedes that he was lord of Nablus in practice. I was going to say "Nablusi landowner" or something to that effect, but it is superfluous to the rest of the sentence. I settled on "magnate". Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would refer to his marriage before his father-in-law's transaction is mentioned.
To me this looks like placing the marriage chronologically before the transaction, which is not supported by the sources. It also separates the two sentences that deal with Walter's attendance of Baldwin. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Walter was a patron of the Order of Saint Lazarus. I would delete it.
Agreed, it looks like routine patronage. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
...she offered to take their place... I would say, "she took their place".
It obscures the fact that such an arrangement was her idea. That the exchange materialized is made explicit when we say that she was later freed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
What about "she voluntarily took their place"?
It still does not convey the information that the exchange was her idea. She could have voluntarily gone upon someone else's suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Acre.
Introduced. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
... the union of two great lordships Name them and make it clear that they would have been united under Walter's rule.
Done. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Link "minor":
Linked. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Upon Beatrice's death, which happened before 24 February 1174,[18] the lordship passed to her aunt Stephanie. I would move it to the end of the section. Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This too poses chronology issues. Even if we explicitly state that it is not known when in the 1167-1174 timespan Beatrice died, mentioning her death after the events of 1170-1173 visually places those events within her tenure. I also see it as the first paragraph mentioning events that definitely concern Walter and the second as discussing events that he might have been connected to. Surtsicna (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I spot him as a potentially interesting personality in the history of Outremer years ago, when I first read The Leper King by Hamilton. I am glad that you completed this nice article. Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)