Talk:Sicilian business

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sicilian business/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Unlimitedlead (talk · contribs) 20:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. 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:
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Image review

  • File:An account of the events produced in England by the grant of the Kingdom of Sicily to Prince Edmund, second son of King Henry the Third Fleuron T142892-1.png: the source at Commons is not specific enough (it is the introductory page of a website); add alt text.
I found the source of the image at this Cambridge journal, but the steps following this are foreign to me. What do I need to do? But on that note, I have added alt text.
  • Perhaps the source article could be cited at Commons.
Done.
  • File:Kingdom of Sicily 1190.svg: I think the caption is misleading ("a few decades before"); could it be replaced with a map presenting the region around 1283?
Believe me: I share your lamentation. However, this is all I could find :(
  • File:Jindra3 deti.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; add alt text.
Dead end. Should I just replace the image?
  • Yes, this would be the best solution.
Done.
  • File:Edmund 1.jpg: the source is a dead link; US PD tag is needed; add alt text.
An analogous image can be found as "File:Detail from the roll of the genealogical line from Henry III to Edward II, with an extension to Edward III.jpg", but the source link is "dead" in the sense that the British Library website has seemingly taken down their previously digitalized scans of medieval manuscripts.
  • In this case, the image should be deleted because it is not verified. Alternativel, is there a book presenting the same picture. It could be cited at Commons.
I think I've taken care of all of our image issues. Let me know if anything is amiss.
Done.

Source review

  • Academic sources of high quality are cited.
  • Jobson (2012): delete the place of publication (alternatively, add the same info at each titles).
Removed.
Super awkward... I was only able to access certain excerpts of this book from different versions! Is this permissible?
I have removed this citation.
  • The text ...who was dressed in Sicilian robes is not verified by the cited source (it refers to "Apulian robes").
Fixed.
  • The uncertainty in the text Henry III may have developed hesitations... is not verified by the cited source. I would delete it.
Fixed.
Added citation.

Comments

  • ...dispatched an emissary ... Why not papal legate?
Done.
  • The inaugural monarchs of the fledgling Kingdom of Sicily, the Normans,[a] possessed a unique relationship with the Catholic Church. Authorization for the establishment of the kingdom, as well as royal authority, were received from the Pope,... I think this part is misleading especially together with the previous sentences. 1. The special relationship between the Sicilian kingdom and the papacy was based on the Treaty of Melfi which made the Norman rulers of southern Itally papal vassals. 2. The royal authority, as the previous sentences indicate, was granted to the kings not by the Pope, but by an Antipope. 3. I would mention that the Italo-Normans were important allies of the papacy against the Holy Roman Emperors during the Investiture Controversy. 4. I would also mention that Frederick inherited Sicily from his mother, and that the popes had made several attempts to separate Sicily from the HRE.
Done.
  • ...the Emperor having Sicily confiscated from him in 1245 The Emperor?
I see how that was unclear. Reworded.
  • ...papal nuncio... Not anachronistic?
Fixed.
  • ...Sicily would be transferred... I would avoid the verb "transfer", or alternatively I would say that "the claim to Sicily would be transferred to him/bestowed on him/..."
Done.
  • ...for the restoration of a papal enclave in Sicily... I think not for the restoration, but for the "usurpation/conquest/.... by the Hohenstaufens/....". I would write southern Italy, because Benevento is located in this region.
Can you clarify what you mean about the "restoration" wording? But I have changed the "Sicily" part to say "southern Italy".
  • ...2000 ounces to Rome... I would delete "to Rome" because it may be misleading.
Done.
  • ...the Pope's domains... Rephrase to avoid misinterpretation ("the popes'/the papacy's/..." or the "domains of the Holy See")
Done.
Done.
Done.
  • In some cases, you capitalise the title when referring to a certain person ("the Pope"), in other cases you do not ("the prince").
I think "pope" is capitalized when referring to a specific pope, but I'm not sure whether this is the case with the word "prince". English is a strange language...
  • The prince's candidacy was likely proposed earlier, but did not materialise due to the candidacy of Charles of Anjou... This info should be mentioned in the first paragraph for chronological reasons.
Understandable, but I think the current situation flows better narratively.
  • Situating Edmund on a foreign throne... Is this grammatical?
I believe so.
  • ...could make use of the kingdom... I would clarify that this is the "Sicilian kingdom".
Done.
  • ...of the wealthy kingdom... Delete. (If the kingdom's prosperity was one of the reasons of his acceptance of the offer, this should be mentioned previously.)
Done.
  • ...in his capacity as nominal monarch... Delete "nominal".
Done.
  • ...to claim the Kingdom of Sicily... I would say "to seize/conquer/assert his son's claim/..."
Done.
  • ...was raised to the station of Prince of Capua... I do not understand. I assume, he was granted the principality in theory.
You are correct. All of this was just English assertion of a tenuous and theoretical claim LOL.
  • ... to consolidate Plantagenet dominion... Consolidate?
Changed the wording.
  • ...to pay homage... Why not "do homage", or alternatively, "swear fealty"?
Oops, silly me. Done.
  • ...until he reached the age of fifteen I would delete or rephrase it ("and he were to do homage at the age of fifteen")
Okay I tried rewording.
  • ...Bishop of Bologna... Could you name him? I would mention his function of papal legate, because he could enfeoff Edmond with Sicily only on behalf of the Pope.
He is not named in the text.
  • ...with the throne of Sicily... Delete "the throne", or rephrase the sentence to make it clear that Edmond was enthroned as king of Sicily.
Done.
Reworded.

@Unlimitedlead: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning working on both this GA and my FAC today/tomorrow, with priority to my FAC. If I don't get to this article in the next few days, I may have to request that you place it on hold indefinitely because my next block of free time is a month from now. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please find my further comments below.

Done.
  • ...and subdued Conradin two years later, securing Charles' rule in Sicily. I would link Battle of Tagliacozzo.
Done.
  • Weiler argued that the impact of the "Sicilian business"...Runciman wrote... Runciman reasoned... Why not present simple?
Done.
  • He claims that the ultimate failure of the ambitious plan was not the fault of Henry III, who had sought to expand Plantagenet influence in the face of a challenging political situation in Europe. I do not understand the link between the sentence's two parts.
Changed.
Changed.
Changed.
@Borsoka Okay, done as well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this interesting article meets all GA criteria. Thank you for completing it.

Article name

This article has a misleading name - as if it was about a type of business. I think "The Sicilian Business" would be much better. It is common to include "The" in article names, and the title is invariably prefixed by "the" in the text of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Shall we wait until the GA review has concluded, though? Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name

"Sicilian business" is not just a historiographic term, but a term used at the time: negotium regni siciliae, the business of the kingdom of Sicily. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh! That's so cool! I'd love to add a note about that in the article. Do you have any source(s) I can cite for that? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this paper, JSTOR 555832, it is in a quoted letter from Henry III to William Bonquer [de]. Can you access it? I'm sure there must be some more accessible source that mentions it. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I've been using Wikipedia for JSTOR access for ages. Thanks for the pointer! I'll go add it to the article right now... Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to quote a secondary source for it, the phrase "negotium Sicilie" is used several times in Weiler's book, which is already cited in the sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SonOfYoutubers talk 17:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: *Weiler, Björn K.U. (2006). Henry III of England and the Staufen Empire, 1216–1272. Royal Historical Society: Boydell Press. p. 147. ISBN 0-86193-280-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Well-written article, no identifiable copyvio, recently promoted GA. Hook cited in article. Assuming good faith as the source is inaccessible to me. Good job! jolielover♥talk 04:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sicilian_business