Talk:Raymond II, Count of Tripoli

Raymond II, Count of Tripoli has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 30, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages: Crusades Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Military history: Biography / Middle East / Medieval / Crusades

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Crusades task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raymond II, Count of Tripoli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	IMO the prose is adequate for GA.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	All five criteria are met.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Densely cited.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	A good mix of reliable and pleasingly recent sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	All views are well sourced. Differences are well presented.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No Earwig issues - 0%!	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article covers all important aspects. It gives due weight to different sources and mixes contemporary and modern sources well.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains focused on its subject.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutrally written with no apparent POV.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Nothing but minor improvements over the last 9 months	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	So far as I can make out, the images are all free use.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	A good mix of different types of image, all appropriately captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A good, tight little article. Well researched and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I hope to start this in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Prose.

Komnenos/Comnenos. Could you pick one and be consistent.
I have made some copy edits. Could you check whether you are happy with all of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive review. Please read my edits here: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking that I ought to find more to comment on, but you seem to have covered things well. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]