Wikipedia:Peer review/War of the Antiochene Succession/archive2

War of the Antiochene Succession

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article (about a prolonged war in the Near East during the period of the crusades) for peer review because its neutrality and comprehensiveness are still to be checked. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cplakidas

mediation of Henry I of Jerusalem (r. 1192–1197) given that the Kingdom of Jerusalem is mentioned as destroyed a few lines earlier, perhaps explain why there still was a King of Jerusalem.
Expanded.
Seljuq rulers of Anatolia does this refer to the Sultanate of Rum?
Rephrased.
Shortly after Bohemond returned Antioch, to Antioch, I assume?
Fixed.
Clarify that Bohemond IV is Bohemond, Count of Tripoli
Clarified.
Link the Amanus Mountains and explain their location wrt Cilicia and Antioch
Linked and explained.
Raymond-Roupen tried to capture Leo this ought to be explained a bit as it is very surprising
Expanded.
The new conflict lasted for decades this teases the reader but provides no information; IMO at least a mention as to when it ended and its final outcome would be warranted. Is there a relevant article that might be linked here?
Rephrased.
In the infobox, if the occupation of Antioch was temporary, it was not an outcome of the war? The phrasing of With Leo's death in May 1219 and Bohemond's restoration, the war "came to a rather unspectacular end" suggests that the end of the conflict is placed, inter alia, at Bohemond's recovery of Antioch.

Otherwise I think the article is well-written and balanced. As it is not my area of expertise I cannot judge on comprehensiveness, but it is easy to understand and follow the twists and turns of the conflict. Constantine ✍ 15:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Srnec

Invited by Borsoka. The comments below were written up before Constantine's comments above.

I have made copyedits to the article as I reviewed it. Please vet them.
Given that Antioch is described as a principality at first mention, I feel that "Armenian Cilicia" in the same sentence needs to be described in a similar way. I understand that there is some difficulty here because Cilicia's status changed between the 1190s and 1200s, but we need to get a clearer sense of what this thing is that is challenging a principality.
Modified.
Ayyubid emir of Aleppo has no links, but Seljuq sultan of Rum has two. If Ayyubid emir of Aleppo is too much blue, consider removing the dynastic names from both (although Seljuqs are mentioned later in the lead).
Linked both consequently.
Personally, I find the vital dates intrusive. To me, on Wikipedia these dates are easily found by clicking links. They are best used in lieu of precise dates where such are unknown. But is it important to know when Conrad of Wittelsbach died?
All deleted.
I suspect some readers will find Armenia/Cilica hard to parse since the article basically combines the noun "Cilicia" with the adjective "Armenian".
I tried to be consequent.
Renoart of Nephin ... routed Bohemond at the gates of Tripoli. Leo seized the Antiochene fortresses in the Amanus Mountains ... After crushing Renoart of Nephin's revolt, Bohemond returned to Antioch, forcing Leo to sign a truce for eight years in summer 1206. This paragraph is jumpy. And how does Bohemond "force" a truce on Leo?
Rephrased.
A conflict between the new papal legate, Peter of Capua (d. 1214), and the Latin Patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Angoulême (d. 1208), who had become Raymond-Roupen's supporter, ended with the excommunication of the patriarch. A sentence like this needs at least one date (excommunication), preferable two (Peter's arrival). Of course, it does not need anyone's date of death.
Rephrased.
Leo entered Antioch, but Bohemond collected his forces and defeated the Armenians. Is the year 1207? Last we heard Bohemond was forced into the citadel.
Rephrased.
The paragraph beginning Before long lists the many things Leo did that would upset the pope in 1211–1212. The next paragraph begins Pope Innocent, who had proclaimed a new crusade in 1213, wanted to persuade Leo to assist the crusaders. Readers may suffer from whiplash.
Rephrased and context added.
The Zasso image, which is probably not a painting, adds very little value given its low resolution, poor crop and bad colour.
Antiochene noblemen, including Acharie of Sermin. Was he a nobleman?
Yes, according to the source cited.
Taking advantage of the absence of Bohemond IV. Why was Bohemond absent?
Explained at the end of the previos section.
In 1217, Raymond-Roupen tried to capture Leo, but the Templars assisted Leo to flee to Cilicia. A startling sentence given everything that's gone before. Why wasn't Leo in Cilicia? Why the betrayal? Money?
Rephrased.
The new conflict lasted for decades. Should there be a red link?
Rephrased. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources are fine. Personally, I would like to see some indication of what the primary sources are.

I do not seen any issues with neutrality. Or comprehensiveness, really. It does feel like there are missing details we would like, but I do not know if these details are available. Srnec (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your peer review. I returned and will address the above issues in a couple of days. I highly appreciate your comments, suggestions and edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]