Talk:Joscelin I of Edessa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Joscelin I of Edessa is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Wombatmanboy (talk) at 23:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review.
|
 | Joscelin I of Edessa was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 11, 2026. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Joscelin I of Edessa won his final battle while carried in a litter and died of his wounds shortly thereafter? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Danishmends
What does "Danishment" mean? RickK 03:10, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's a Turkish tribe, they had a sultanate (or some sort of territory) in eastern Anatolia. It's also Danishmend or Danishmendid. Adam Bishop 03:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Kaysun Fortress
The fortress of Kaysun is above the town of Çakırhüyük in Adıyaman Province, Besni district. Aramgar (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Joscelin I, Count of Edessa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Wombatmanboy (talk · contribs) 02:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 06:57, 9 December 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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Image review
- File:Joscelin I of Edessa.jpg: at Commons, a dead link is sourced and a US PD tag is missing.
- File:Coinage of the County of Edessa.png: a US PD tag is missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Source review
- Fix references 5, 19, 28, 34, 36, 39-41, 44-45, 48-51, 53-54, 64, 70, 76, 78, 81, and 93 (they are not linked to the cited sources). Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
@Wombatmanboy: I saw you edited the page but I seek your comments on my above remarks. I am planning to close this review. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
Due to inactivity I must fail this article. I hope the nominator (or an other editor) will renominate it because it already had the potential of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for the inactivity. I have renominated the article after the references and images were fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Borsoka and Wombatmanboy: Where does this nomination stand? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
- Currently, it's being reviewed by Reverosie, and I'm waiting for further comment. Wombatmanboy (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, I am sorry for the inactivity. I will be back to do more today! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 18:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- I failed this nomination a couple of months ago (). Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- I do see that, and I'm sorry about the delay again. Something came up in my life but I'll be back sunday. That being said, I'll look at you review as quickly as possible to see what issues have and have not been resolved. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 14:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
- Currently, it's being reviewed by Reverosie, and I'm waiting for further comment. Wombatmanboy (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- ... that Joscelin of Courtenay urged his fellow lords to crown a man whom he openly disliked?
- ALT1: ... that Joscelin I of Edessa won his final battle while carried in a litter (pictured) and died of his wounds shortly after?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zwei Gefühle
- Comment: Expansion by Wombatmanboy. I hope more such work is to come!
Surtsicna (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Everything seems fine, but inline citation should be provided for each hook. Htanaungg (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Inline citations are provided for both hooks, Htanaungg. Surtsicna (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- Surtsicna Dozens of citation errors are currently present in the article. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors for a way to visualize these. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Of course, Htanaungg. Here are the citations with excerpts: "The most influential member of the council was the Prince of Galilee, Joscelin of Courtenay; and he demanded that the throne be given to Baldwin of Le Bourg, Count of Edessa. He himself had no cause to love Baldwin, as he carefully reminded the council; for Baldwin had falsely accused him of treachery and had exiled him from his lands in the north." Runciman p. 143
"Thereupon the aged Count hoisted himself from his bed and was carried in a litter at the head of his army to fight the Turks. The news of his coming startled Ghazi, who had thought him already dead. Disquieted, he raised the siege of Kaisun. A messenger rode hurriedly to tell Joscelin; who had his litter laid on the ground that he might thank God. The effort and the emotion were too much for him; and he died there by the roadside." Runciman p. 185 Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Broken SFN Links
Hi Wombatmanboy, I was skimming this before moving to the DYK queue and I see that there are broken SFN links. Could you fix these when you have a chance?
Broken links:
- Runciman 1969, p. 143
- Nicholson 1951, p. 415.
Thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oh sure. I can get that done pretty quickly. Wombatmanboy (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- The sfn links are now fixed. Thank you for notifying me. Wombatmanboy (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Joscelin I, Count of Edessa/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Wombatmanboy (talk · contribs) 23:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Joscelin I, Count of Edessa/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
An introduction
Hello! I'll be your reviewer for this article.
I saw that this was ready to be reviewed months ago during my lengthy hiatus (I was very busy!), and promised myself that, if this somehow had no reviewer by the time I was ready to return to Wikipedia in good faith, I would be the one to do it. Lo and behold, the wait times are even worse than I remember! As the creator of Wikiproject Crusades (which you are a member of!), I'd like to make things easier for people writing articles about the subject I've devoted so much time to improving the coverage of. My process for reviewing articles is a little different from most, so let me tell you how it goes:
The review manual
I do my reviews in a bit of a strange format in order to maximize efficiency and clear the backlog without sacrificing quality. Since this is my first GA review in a while, I am VERY open to feedback on this :)
First, I spot check the article before opening the review in the first place. Articles that fail the spot check will be quick failed with evidence attached, and articles that pass will move to the prose review. Since you’ve haven’t been quick failed, that means you’ve passed! I'll be reviewing some sources during the prose review though, so if I missed something during the initial spot check, it might come up then.
As for the prose review, I will only contact you if an issue comes up that I am unable to fix myself. Minor fixes regarding grammar, formatting, and sentence structure will be done by me; I see no point in emphasizing an easy fix and making you change it instead of doing it myself. If there are no major issues, the article will be quick passed, and if there are, I will let you know.
If you’d like me to do a more strict review of your article, just let me know in a reply to this comment! If I happen to quick pass the article before you can ask, leave a message on my talk page and I’d be happy to go more in-depth with you!
If you don’t like my style of reviewing articles or have any suggestions, let me know in the review or on my talk page! I’ll keep note of your specific preferences and honor them in future reviews. If you wouldn't like me to be your reviewer again, please don't be afraid to let me know!
If you do like my style, on the other hand, I’d be happy to become a more frequent reviewer of yours; if you nominate a new article and you’d like me to review it, don’t be a stranger and leave a message for me! I love reviewing articles, and I’d be more than happy to review yours if I’m not too busy.
I'm very excited to review this article! Joscelin is a very interesting and important figure of the Crusades, so it's important that he gets quality coverage! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 16:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Notes from the reviewer
- Regarding the first main paragraph after the lead...
When little is known about a historical figure’s childhood and earlier years, editors usually opt to use that section to give the reader important context. More information should be added about Joscelin’s parents (and his elder brother Miles), along with the situation at hand when Joscelin enters the historical record. Right now, the article feels like it throws you right into the content without any phasing in or warning, so it needs that context as a cushion as well. A stunning example of this being done right is actually the article about Joscelin II, Count of Edessa, which YOU wrote nearly singlehandedly! You know exactly how to do this well, so I don't think I'll have to help you with this anymore than pointing it out (but if you want my help then please reach out!) 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 17:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review! I'm currently trying to find some sources on Joscelin's family, particularly his brother Geoffrey, who died in the Levant. Wombatmanboy (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
- Again regarding the first paragraph
First of all, thank you for your quick response to my last comment! I'm again here to request a bit more context in the first paragraph, this time about the Crusade of 1101. I know that Joscelin himself is scantly mentioned in these records, but more context regarding what happened than simply saying "the crusaders were annihilated" would be nice to have since these events were very relevant to the article's subject. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 17:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
- I rewrote the first paragraph into its own "First years" years section including Joscelin's origins, family, and the crusade of 1101. Wombatmanboy (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- Your work here is absolutely amazing! I'm going to be a bit busy for the next few hours, but I'll be back to the review as soon as I can be. Keep up the good work :) 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 14:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Reverosie, are there any further comments for the article? is it ready to be passed? Wombatmanboy (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- To clarify: I have been working on this despite the lack of edits, and my work is nearly done. Instead of picking at the article as I was doing before, I have decided to sit down and revise all of it before publishing all of my changes at once. I am very sorry and should have been more clear about this before! 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 02:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Reverosie, are there any further comments for the article? is it ready to be passed? Wombatmanboy (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
- Your work here is absolutely amazing! I'm going to be a bit busy for the next few hours, but I'll be back to the review as soon as I can be. Keep up the good work :) 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 14:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Lead
I made some changes to the lead to make it more focused on Joscelin, if there are no issues. I also wanted to clarify that he was an intermediary for the Franks, because it could've been interpreted as him being a third party. Chronicler Frank (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)