Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2019

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 October 2019 [1].

Ayyash Al-Haj edit

Nominator(s): Free Syrian 200 (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Syrian leader Ayyash Al-Haj and his family, They fought the French during the French Mandate over Syria with the outbreak of the Great Syrian Revolution in Jabal al-Arab and Ghouta of Damascus for independence.

The French sentenced Ayyash Al-Haj and family to exile to Jableh on the Syrian coast, executed one of his sons and imprisoned another one 20 years, later assassinated Ayyash Al-Haj in his exile.

This article is translated from Arabic and I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria.

Looking forward to any constructive feedback. Free Syrian 200 (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a very new article which needs a bit more work done on it before a run at FAC. There is too much that is unsupported and too much that is not neutral (bordering on hagiographic in places). - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SchroCat Thanks for your opinion, Please inform me of the necessary amendments from your point of view to work on them, and regarding of unsupport and neutral, I documented all the information contained in the article, I did not just mention references and sources, but I upload them on the site ( archive.org) for document more.--Free Syrian 200 (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many to go through separately, which is part of the problem: FAC is to apply a final check and polish to articles that are as good as they can be. This article is riddled with fundamental errors throughout. One jarring example is "...practice law in Deir Ezzor, Besides a law, he was appointed a lawyer". Now, comma followed by a capital occurs throughout (this is the sixth example in the text), and "Besides a law" makes no grammatical sense in English when applied to a person - and this is one part of a sentence selected at random. General rule of thumb is that each paragraph in the body should be supported by at least one source, shown at the end: there are seven unsupported paragraphs I could see at a quick look.
This article is not right or ready for FAC at this time. It needs to be thoroughly overhauled and taken through lower reviews first (GA, A Class and Peer Review are all good places to get the more obvious wrinkles ironed out, but only after it is given a good copy edit and a check is made that all and every relevant piece of information has been accumulated from every possible reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Gog the Mild edit

I am in broad agreement with SchroCat. In particular the article needs fully referencing. It also needs a full copy edit, the prose is nowhere near FA standard. Unless the nominator can do or get done a lot of work on the article quickly I think that this is heading for a quick fail. I would suggest: withdrawing the article; completing the referencing; running the article past GoCE; and work with MilHist to get a B class assessment with a view to a future GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129 edit

Also oppose per above, unfortunately. There are large amounts of text lacking sourcing, and the prose is both ungrammatical and often far from neutral. The latter is not just unFACworthy, but against both policy and pillar. ——SerialNumber54129 12:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [2].

Ghostbusters edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When there's an unfeatured article in your neighborhood, who ya gonna call, impartial reviewers. Yes, it is that time, an article created SIXTEEN years ago in 2003 based on one of the greatest comedies of all time is finally, IMO, in a position to be recognised as one of the greatest articles of all time. Do not be afraid, the worst that will happen is cats and dogs living together, perhaps some mass hysteria, but your input will be much appreciated. And remember, if anyone asks you if you are a god, you say yes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • I'm wondering about the comprehensiveness of the source coverage here. The vast majority of the article is cited to news and popular web sources, but this particular film has received extensive coverage in scholarly literature.
  • I see a number of different box office numbers in the body, but not seeing that the one in the infobox and lead is cited anywhere - am I missing it?
  • Some of the other details in the infobox and lead don't appear to be cited anywhere, such as runtime or the haunted houses
  • Wizard Entertainment is a publisher not a work. Same with AMC, Stan Wilson School, check for others
  • FN6: the catalogue itself is the work, so should be in that parameter rather than as part of the title
  • FN12: date doesn't match source. Same with FN94, 19, check for others
  • FN16 is missing author. Same with 52, 142, check for others
  • 150, 123, check for others. Also be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first, and how you are ordering Bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN17 and 22 appear to be the same. Same with 88 and 89, check for others
  • FN23 title is missing italics
  • What makes Beyond the Marquee a high-quality reliable source?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • Missing full citation details for Larson 1985
  • FN49 should use pp not p. Same with 29, 30, check for others
  • FN71 is missing agency. Same with 69, 68, check for others
  • FN97 is missing page number. Same with 98, check for others
  • Billboard is a work not a publisher. Same with Custom PC, check for others
  • Filmsite.org, Film.com, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above the Law should be piped. Same with Custom PC, check for others
  • No citations to Browne or Shay
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

Oppose pending cleanup of citations and response to point 1. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for taking the time to look this over. I'm working the references but I don't understand what you mean by point 1. There are a broad range of sources used in the article. If you mean I haven't used as many books I just prefer to use sources that people can check at will rather than sources people have to ask the References noticeboard to go look up. That's just a personal style, I want everything able to be evidenced as immediately as possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but that means you're going to be including in the article primarily the content that can be supported by those kind of sources, and missing out on interpretations that are not typically reflected there - for example, something like this, or this, or this, or this. I'm not saying you need to use these particular publications, but by excluding academic sources I'm not sure you can say this article is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as required by WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is every change I've made based on your input. I believe I've addressed the errors with the existing references but please let me know if I've not implemented them in the manner you meant. As for your other issues:
  • The scholary sources, are you meaning for them to be used in a thematic analsys of the film's content? I mean I have tried to do that in the section already there but it was a struggle to find sources, which isn't aided by the genius decision to release a 2016 film with the same name. I don't mind using sources if they exist, but at the same time I'm not going to spend $150 buying access to those documents. Maybe one day being an editor will be a paid position but sadly we're not there yet. Certainly if you can suggest an alternative I'm happy to incorporate information, but I've developed the article to the best of my ability with every source I could find.
  • Spending $150 is not your only option for accessing sources - we have a resource exchange which may be able to help, or possibly your local library, where no open copy is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask at the resource exchange, but to clarify, are you meaning that this information should be used for thematic analysis?
Nikkimaria, I'm working through the references I've been able to get from scholary sources but is this really what you wanted including? The one about Immigrants for instance is just like...projecting stuff onto the film. I want to make sure before I start inserting this into the article because I'm not 100% on the purpose of it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, my argument is not that these specific sources must be used, but rather that the article should reflect the scholarly as well as the popular press on the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BeyondtheMarquee. I did debate this but I believe wholeheartedly that the content it is sourcing is genuine and factual. The text is present in the video made alongside the person being interviewed so I do not believe it to be in error, according to this, other sites/notable people do comment on the site, they seem to have a clear, informed team, and a staff structure. They are the only site I've found that contained all of this information, and I believe I found the site as it was linked to by Gizmodo, who linked from Aintitcoolnews. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another pass based on your feedback which you can see here. I was ordering Bibliography entries by surname. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has dropped into the "Older" section with open opposition regarding the sourcing and no other substantial review. It seems that a good amount of work is needed before this is up to par, and it should probably undergo some peer review outside of FAC to ensure the sourcing is up to the quality available for a topic like this. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference on the next nomination, a good amount of work is not needed. NikkiMaria wants academic commentary which I'm trying to add but it's incredibly boring and I don't agree with it so it's moving at a slow pace. The referencing issues were addressed, NikkiMaria did not respond to most of my comments responding to theirs, and I did actively try to involve them in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [3].

1985 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the event surrounding the most famous snooker match of all time. The 1985 championship had Steve Davis, three times a champion of the world, unplayable, meet Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor in the final. The event was murred with new drug testing laws, where this was the first snooker tournament to have players tested. The final, which Davis led 8-0 looked like it would be Davis' fourth title, before Taylor fought back to tie the match at 17-17, and be played on a deciding frame.

The final frame went all the way down to the final ball, with whoever potted the black ball would become champion - both players missed - Taylor finally potted the black to win his sole world championship. The match was known as the "black ball final" (for obvious reasons), lasted over the two days permitted, finishing in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The event made all sorts of records, including still holding the record for highest viewership of a broadcast after midnight in the United Kingdom (That includes Northern Ireland, if you were wondering). The event fell into folk status for snooker, and over 30 years on, the match, (and the event as a whole) is still relevant.

Article is one of my favourites to have worked on, and I feel it meets the criteria. Please let me know your thoughts, oppose/support, or any comments on the article as a whole. Thank you.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1985_World_Snooker_Championship_book_cover.jpg: FUR needs completion. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria - thanks for taking a look. My knowledge if NFCC isn't great, and I just used to wizard to upload. I have added some information, but I'm not sure if it's enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins edit

@Lee Vilenski: I'm still working through the article but here are my first comments for you to look at:

Lead section (suggested wording changes)
  • was the ninth time the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible; the first event took place in 1927. > was the ninth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible, the first being in 1977. (surely here we want to refer back to the 1st one at the Crucible in 1977, not the very first one in 1927?)
  • was held from 27 to 31 March for 87 players at the Preston Guildhall; > was held at the Preston Guildhall from 27 to 31 March for 87 players;
  • 16 players reached the main stage, with 16 invited seeded players. > 16 of these players reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players.
  • The event was broadcast in the United Kingdom > The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom
  • The total prize fund for the event was £250,000, with the winner receiving £60,000 – the highest prize pool for any snooker tournament to date. > The total prize fund for the event was £250,000, the highest prize pool for any snooker tournament to date; the winner received £60,000.
  • who had won the event three times > who had already won the World Championship three times
  • Davis met Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor in the final, > He met Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor in the final, which was a best-of-35-frames match.
  • Davis taking an early 8–0 lead in a best-of-35-frames match. Taylor battled... > Davis took an early 8–0 lead but Taylor battled...
→→ Yes looks fine. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who potted the ball winning the event > who potted the ball winning the title
  • his sole world championship > his sole World Championship
  • a 143 in his first-round match > a 143, in his first round match
  • with 10 more in qualifying matches > with ten more in qualifying matches (to be consistent with "ten" elsewhere in article? or change the others to numeral "10"?)... "tenth seed Tony Meo", "in the tenth frame", "after ten frames", "There were ten century breaks"
    • MOS:NUM is confusing, but the current is correct. It is supposed to be consistent with other numbers in the sentence, so the 14 in this case. In fact, this would be true if there were 9 centuries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Fine by me. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event was the first professional snooker championship banning performance-enhancing substances > This was the first professional snooker championship to introduce a ban on performance-enhancing substances
  • with drug tests being given to all players in the main stages > with all players in the main stage having to undertake drug tests.
  • It holds the record > The final between Davis and Taylor holds the record
  • of a program shown after midnight > for a program shown after midnight
  • and broke the existing records for most-viewed > breaking the existing records for the most-viewed
Scoreline fixes
  • Tournament summary...
  • he lost to Wayne Jones, 10–6 > he lost to Wayne Jones, 6–10
  • before losing 10–2 > before losing 2–10
  • but lost 10–6 > but lost 6–10
  • First round...
  • to lead 5–8 but eventually lost 10–8 > to lead 8–5 but eventually lost 8–10
  • to trail 8–1 > to trail 1–8
→→ Ok. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francisco trailed 8–1 > Francisco trailed 1–8
  • and lost the match 10–2 > and lost the match 2–10
  • lost the 1979 final to Terry Griffiths, 24–16 > lost the 1979 final to Terry Griffiths, 16–24
  • in the second session to trail 9–7 overnight. > in the second session to trail 7–9 overnight.
    • We keep scores the same once they are denoted, we can't just change the scores around. Score was already denoted at 8-0. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Not sure what you mean by this. The subject of the scoreline has switched from Davis (who was leading 8–0) to Taylor who now trailed (7–9). You can't trail 9–7, that's a leading scoreline. Would be true to say Davis led 9–7 but not Taylor trailed 9–7. Taylor was at the wrong end of the 9–7 scoreline! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Missing player tags (when first mentioned in Tournament summary)
  • second-seed Tony Knowles and Tony Jones > second seed Tony Knowles and qualifier Tony Jones
  • won his match against Neal Foulds > won his match against qualifier Neal Foulds
  • defeating Willie Thorne 10–6 > defeating 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6
  • defeating John Spencer 10–3 > defeating 13th seed John Spencer 10–3
  • during the season by Eugene Hughes > during the season by qualifier Eugene Hughes
  • Alex Higgins and Dean Reynolds > Alex Higgins and qualifier Dean Reynolds
  • defeated Ray Edmonds 10–8 > defeated qualifier Ray Edmonds 10–8
  • Rex Williams and Terry Griffiths > qualifier Rex Williams and eighth seed Terry Griffiths
  • but defeated Joe Johnson 10–8 > but defeated qualifier Joe Johnson 10–8
  • his first session against Dennis Taylor > his first session against 11th seed Dennis Taylor
    • Do we really need to mention that each player is a qualifier? We already have a sentence saying a seeded player plays a qualifier. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Yes you have a point but sometimes it just makes it a bit clearer. Also, if you look at the Knowles/Jones match at top of First round section, it says "between second seed Tony Knowles and Tony Jones" but on next line it says "Jones, the qualifier, took four of the next five frames..." so why not just say "between second seed Tony Knowles and qualifier Tony Jones" in the first place? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---More to come later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview (suggested wording changes)
  • Referring back to first paragraph of 2019 Background section: I prefer the wording of first sentence there: "The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker." then second sentence could be "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before spreading to Europe and the Commonwealth."
  • Link world championship in first sentence? + link snooker in first sentence in "of the game of snooker"
  • "The world championship features" > "The World Snooker Championship features"
  • "The first world championship, in 1927" > "The first World Snooker Championship, in 1927"
  • "the event has been held at the" > "the tournament has been held at the"
  • "...in the final.[9][10] This was Davis' third championship; he previously won in 1981 and 1983." Need to clarify that we're still referring to the 1984 event here, not the 1985 one, can be sorted by combining the sentences with semi-colon and slight reword. "...in the final;[9][10] this was Davis' third world title, having previously won the championship in 1981 and 1983."
→→ Is this better? "...this was Davis' third world title, having previously won the championship in 1981 and 1983." Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The winner of the 1985 event received a prize" > "The winner of the 1985 championship received a prize"
  • "The tournament was the first to feature drug tests" (first WSC or first snooker event overall?) > "...the first snooker event to feature drug tests"?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Format (suggested wording changes)
  • "which began at Preston Guildhall on 27 March" (did it not also end there!?) > "which was held at the Preston Guildhall between 27 and 31 March"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who went into the main draw" > "who progressed to the main draw"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to play one of the top 16 seeds" > "to play the top 16 seeds" (the 16 qualifiers didn't all play the same top 16 seed, they all played different ones!)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The draw for the tournament was made at the Savoy Hotel in London" [ref.5 is not relevant to this statement] + WHEN was the draw made?
Removed - No idea when it was made. BennyOnTheLoose might know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski It was 16 January 1985. Guardian article from 17 January 1985 says "when the draw was made yesterday at the Savoy Hotel.." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players"... Is it worth linking "seeded" to Seed (sports) for the layman? (Either here or in lead section where it's first mentioned.)
  • (Note b wording):
    • "defending champion was ranked outside world the top 16" > "defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would have replaced the world 16th-ranked player as..." > "would have replaced the player ranked world number 16 as..."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Note b now has a big chunk of text missing – should read: "If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings, he would have replaced the player ranked world number 16 as an automatic qualifier." Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 16 in the semi-finals" > "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 25 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 31 in the semi-finals" (according to Main draw tree below anyway!)
I think you've misread. 31 frames to win the semi-finals was more of a 1960s thing! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Yes, my mistake, I saw that as meaning the maximum number of frames in the match, rather than the number needed to win, d'oh! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six former world champions participated..." Order list according to number of titles thus: Reardon(6), Spencer/Davis(3), Higgins(2), Griffiths/Thorburn(1)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Use correct chronology in former champions list? ...swap Steve Davis / John Spencer (JS did it first!) + swap Cliff Thorburn / Terry Griffiths (TG did it first!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "six titles:" inside parentheses, etc.?
I don't think this is relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorder first sentence of Prize fund section? > "The event had a total prize fund of £250,000, an increase of £50,000 in the total prize pool from the previous year, and the winner received £60,000, an increase of £16,000 in the winner's prize money from the previous year."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Main draw (suggested wording changes + date inconsistencies)
  • "Shown below are the results for each round" > "The results for each round of the main stage of the championship are shown below."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need space below Stevens/Edmonds first round match
I'm not sure what you mean. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ This is what I see: after the Stevens/Edmonds match, the date 16 & 17 April is shoved up against the bottom of the box instead of having a nice space to separate the top/bottom halves. Maybe this is a display problem. Is there any way of forcing a gap between 'bottom of top half' and 'top of bottom half' in tree? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no date above the Charlton/Campbell first round match
added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to match tree, the second round matches were played from 17 to 21 April but Second round section above states "from 18 to 22 April"
  • According to match tree, the quarter-finals were played 22 & 23 April but Quarter-finals section above states "on 23 and 24 April"
  • According to match tree, the semi-finals were played 24 & 25 April // 24, 25 & 26 April but Semi-finals section above states on "25 and 26 April"
  • The first round dates probably need checking for consistency too, e.g. only one of them is showing up as 17 April (Thorburn/Hallett)
I agree. Maybe Benny who I pinged earlier can help with this (he gave me the offline sources for this one). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski First round was 12th to 17th April. Second round started 17th (there were both first and second round matches on 17th) and finished on 21st. Quarter-finals 22nd and 23rd. Semis 24th to 26th. Thorburn vs Hallett was on 16th and 17th. The first round dates will need checking, as suggested - e.g. Stevens v Edmonds finished on 17th.

I'll see what I can do, hopefully in the next day or so. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amended dates for two matches based on reports from The Times and the Guardian. Was able to get evidence from these two sources supporting all other Crucible match dates except Reardon v Hughes (may have started on 15th) and Charlton v Campbell. I'll check elsewhere for those later. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reardon v Hughes and Charlton v Campbell matches both started on 14th and concluded on 15th. Source: Daily Telegraph articles for 13/04/1985 and 15/04/1985. ("Knowles in Tight Finish." Daily Telegraph, 13 Apr. 1985, p. 32. The Telegraph Historical Archive, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/BwpeU2. Accessed 17 Oct. 2019. ; Hale, Janice. "Easy for Higgins & Griffiths." Daily Telegraph, 15 Apr. 1985, p. 34. The Telegraph Historical Archive, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/Bwptb6. Accessed 17 Oct. 2019). I made an amendment in the article to reflect this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we could talk about only linking players' names in first round column to reduce overlinking? (This would obviously affect all WSC articles.)
WP:OL does not effect tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ OK you're right. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---These are my latest comments. Still looking at Tournament summary section and Refs. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary (suggested wording changes in intro)
  • "Qualifying rounds for the event were played from 27 to 31 March" > "The championship's qualifying rounds were played between 27 and 31 March"
  • "There were five knockout rounds, with 87 players" > "There were five knockout rounds in qualifying, starting with a pool of 87 players."
  • "The second to fifth qualifying rounds had 16 matches each," > The other four qualifying rounds each consisted of 16 matches, with 32 players taking part in each round." (full stop at end)
  • "with the winners of the earlier round meeting the 16 higher-ranked players" > "The 16 winners of each round met the 16 higher-ranked players"
  • "he lost to Wayne Jones, 6–10" > "he lost to Wayne Jones in the first qualifying round, 6–10"
  • "Danny Fowler made the highest qualifying break" > "Danny Fowler compiled the highest break of the qualifying rounds"
  • "in the following round." > "in the subsequent round." OR "in the next round."
  • "in the fourth round" > "in the fourth round of qualifying"
  • "in the fifth (and final) qualifying round" > "in the fifth." (can we get away with this elipsis?)
First round (suggestions/queries)
  • "matches in two sessions" > "matches, each played over two sessions"
  • Not sure about the phrase "pegged back" !?
  • "Jones, the qualifier, took four of the next five frames" > "Jones took four of the next five frames" (do we need to say he's the qualifier, as you said before that doesn't need to be mentioned after the intro)
  • "drug tests were performed" > "drug tests were carried out"
  • "first-round matches, with Patsy Fagan defeating 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6 and John Parrott defeating 13th seed John Spencer 10–3" > first round matches: Patsy Fagan defeated 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6 and John Parrott defeated 13th seed John Spencer 10–3"
  • "Spencer was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis shortly after the tournament; it affected his vision" > "Shortly after the tournament, Spencer was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis which affected his vision"
  • "After being defeated twice during the season" > "Having been defeated twice during the season "
  • "A low-scoring match ... Reynolds did not see a break of over 30 points in the first three frames from either player." > "In a low-scoring match ... Reynolds, neither player scored a break of over 30 points in the first three frames."
  • "who eventually won 10–4" > "who eventually won the match 10–4"
  • "Johnson 10–8 and scored a 143 break" > "Johnson 10–8, scoring a 143 break"
  • "break at the championship to date" > "break of the championship up to that date" ?
  • "reportedly by Silvino Francisco" > "reportedly provided by Silvino Francisco"
  • World Snooker chairman Rex Williams??? (I thought he was one of the players!) Did you mean Rodney Walker by any chance!?
Williams was Chair of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) at the time, as well as being a player. His statement at the press conference was in his role as Chair rather than as a player. I'm not sure whether "World Snooker" was used as a name for the organisation at that time, I'd keep it as WPBSA. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and said that the statements" > "and admitted that the statements"
  • The Silvino Francisco paragraph could do with re-ordering. I'd mention the match outcome first (the important bit), then go into the controversy afterwards. E.g. "Francisco trailed 1–8 after ... and lost the match 2–10.[31] A Daily Star series of articles about drug abuse from within the championships was based on statements reportedly provided by Silvino Francisco,[36] who held a press conference with World Snooker chairman [RW?] after the match. [W?] said ... in the sport; Francisco apologised ... and admitted that the statements..."
  • Put something at start of last sentence like: "Four more seeded players won their first round matches against event qualifiers:"
  • You forgot to mention the Jimmy White / Wayne Jones match, so the above sentence would be: "Five more seeded players won their first round matches against event qualifiers:"
Second round (suggested wording changes)
  • "and eleventh" > "and 11th" (I understood your explanation in previous reply, where you said that we keep the style consistent within a sentence, but I don't think we were careful to do that in the 2019 article!)
  • "scoring century breaks in the eighth (100) and eleventh (105) frames" (sure there must be a clearer way of phrasing this?)
  • John Parrott has double 't' at end!
  • Welshman Terry Griffiths? — why are we singling him out as a Welshman? We haven't said "Welshman Ray Reardon" anywhere!
  • "the final black ball of frame 13" > "the final black ball in frame 13" ?

---My next set of comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(intervening): I can't help noticing the great number of (mainly minor) prose/style points being raised here with, likely, many more still to come since the above review is only at the second round! The points are themselves valid and useful, but surely this work should have been done at a peer review or some other pre-FAC forum? This article does not seem to have had any prior review attention; bringing articles here for their first review seems to me to be bad policy, and the volume of points being raised is indicative that the article is underprepared. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: thank you, you do have a point. I did have a quick skim through the article before Lee nominated it for FA, and I declined his offer of being co-nominator as I thought I could add more value as a reviewer. But maybe we should work on it together offline a bit more before bringing it to FA. Lee is currently on holiday (but still watching!) so we'll wait to see what he thinks about this. And you're right, I do still have a bunch of comments to make about the rest of the article, including a lot of problems with the References section. Maybe FA nom was premature? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In view of what you say, I'd strongly recommend a temporary withdrawal and resubmission when you and Lee have worked through your outstanding points. Passage through FAC should then be much speedier. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's entirely fair, it has been looked at by quite a few different eyes before nomination. The official peer review system gets next to no eyes in my opinion, and this FAC has been nominated similarly to others that I have done and passed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lee. Please understand that I am not trying to undermine your nomination, but I am concerned to protect the FAC process. According to the nomination rubric: "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria". You can't say you've done this, and then proceed to treat FAC as a substitute for peer review. If, as you say, the article was looked at by "quite a few" eyes before this nomination, given the number of points being raised here, their involvement was obviously superficial and pretty well worthless. Rodney Baggins, your chief interlocutor here, has said he is willing to deal with his substantial number of remaining points away from this process, and that seems a sensible way forward. That is what I am recommending; I am concerned about creating bad precedents for future nominations, and what you say you've got away with in the past is not relevant. In the end, though, it's up to the coordinators as to how far they wish to indulge you, and I'm happy to go along with whatever they decide.  Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if anything, its bad timing on my part. If coordinators feel this is too much commentary for an FAC, I will be happy to pull it. Usually I'd go through the GAN process before nominating, but I was hoping to claim the points for the wikicup. I appreciate your concern for the process though. If you have any additional comments yourself for the article, feel free to let me know. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I'm wincing as I read this because we've had longstanding issues with unprepared nominations at FAC in pursuit of Wikicup points. I think the point, though, is that FAC seems to have been used as a substitute for a peer review/preparation process in this instance. I'm going to archive this nomination and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [4].

Hassium edit

Nominator(s): Double sharp, R8R 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We return with another superheavy element exposé after nihonium (me) and dubnium (R8R) to provide some retrospectives while the current march to the end of the periodic table has stalled! ^_^ After a copyedit by Baffle gab1978, I believe we're ready now! Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some paragraphs end with unsourced statements. I'd fix these first. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Fixed all. Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bohrium_hassium_meitnerium_ceremony.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've expanded the FUR; is my added text OK? Double sharp (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but could still be improved. The last sentence of "purpose" really belongs under "replaceable", with additional commentary about you not having found a free version and what you've done to try. Also, "portion used" would benefit from a brief explanation of why it's necessary to use the whole thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the explanation. A free version seems possible only if the GSI donates the image; I admit I have not tried to contact them to ask if it would be possible (would be useful for the picture at Darmstadtium too, come to think of it). Should we try? Or is the picture not quite needed because it refers to simply a single-sentence statement that there was a naming ceremony held before IUPAC made its first decision on the names? (Pinging co-nom R8R as well.) Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My supposition is that while it would most certainly be nice, that's not strictly required. It seems like there is no existing picture that fulfills the purpose right now (this picture has been around for many years now for a good reason), and if I recall correctly, this has to do with strict copyright law in Germany, which does not automatically give away media freely created by state organizations and public officials like in the U.S. I certainly believe that the picture is highly relevant here, which justifies the fair use claim. This is an event which must not have had many attendances (for instance, a similar ceremony for celebrating final recognition of element 118 does not even have photos from the hosting organization; in fact, their own website has pictures labeled "Photos are courtesy of the Press Service of the RF Ministry of Education and Science," which says a lot about how many photos were taken there), so it is highly unlikely someone has taken a photo. There was no reason whatsoever to make the event accessible for outsiders. Over the Internet, I've found a few similar photos, but all come from GSI.
To sum up, there is no photo from alternative source of origin that I could find over the Internet, and any such source is highly unlikely to exist in the first place. I hope this satisfies the requirements.--R8R (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a dumb question but why haven't we made the isotopes with a long life yet (given the article discusses predicted isontopes) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Casliber: Well, we don't know what they are. The article discusses predictions indeed, but they're a bit speculative, and those long-lived isomers may not actually exist. As for the missing isotopes – the ones in the middle of the list will probably require finding new alpha-decay branches in predominantly spontaneously fissioning isotopes. The ones beyond the end will need a sure observation of an even-Z nucleus with a higher neutron excess than the current record-holders of 293Lv and its daughters. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we source or explain this somehow? It is interesting that there are predicted isotopes with such a lengthy halflife Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this comment. I always appreciate it when people write a down-to-earth comment because it's these things that people are likely to take away from an article that are often overlooked.
I'd formulate it like this: As the atomic number increases, the amount of neutrons per proton in the most stable nuclei grows, and this trend is likely to continue into the superheavy elements. Currently, all superheavy elements are created by bombarding one lighter element with another, and both have lower neutron--proton ratios than the planned most stable isotope, hence the difficulty of synthesizing the most stable isotopes. Hassium can be synthesized either directly or from decay of heavier elements. Those heavier elements have a little higher ratios of both starting nuclei, which means a little higher total neutron excess, which will be carried over after the consecutive alpha decays that will bring us to hassium. This means that we are likely to get heavier isotopes from alpha decay, given that those original nuclei and their decay path will continue to hassium and an intermediate nucleus will not fission instead. For aforementioned reasons, these heavier isotopes that are within our reach are still lighter than the most stable ones. The beta-stability line (in our case, the beta-stable isotopes) has not been approached, either.
This is close to what I'd want to have. I'll add that soon enough, or maybe Double sharp will beat me to it.--R8R (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@R8R and Double sharp: This is indeed the general trend predicting the region where one might likely find the most stable isotopes, but it is practically impossible to give a set of likely candidates for longest-lived. It is very important to note the inconsistent predictions given in different models, as well as predictions of a region of quickly fissioning nuclei near the beta-stability line. For example, ref Zagrebaev 2013 (#37) shows the dominance of fission in the Z = 108 region below the island of stability, and this (not cited) shows some β-stable nuclides with predicted millisecond half-lives and the longest half-life of a few days for 283Hs. Additionally, some of the heavier isotopes such as 292Hs are predicted to have 184 neutrons (a magic number) in some publications, though the role of β decay is also not agreed upon. This is superficially illustrated in part in a paragraph I initially contributed months ago pertaining to natural occurrence.
I'll try to write more tomorrow or Wednesday and recheck some sources by then. I'd also say that a detailed description is not necessary as long as we highlight the absence of consensus for which isotopes are longest-lived and estimates of the longest half-life. It's important, though, to keep these questions in mind (questions like these motivate me to do more research). ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

(Incomplete)

I've started this review, but there are major issues which need attending to before I can proceed much further. I don't think there's a problem with the sources themselves, which appear to be appropriately scholarly and in accordance with the FA quality criteria. My concerns have to do, mainly, with verification and formatting.

  • Unreferenced notes: the notes (a) to (d) need generally better referencing. For example, note (a) is attached to the statement "...claimed to have discovered element 108—specifically the 267Hs isotope, which supposedly had a half-life of 400 to 500 million years—in natural molybdenite and suggested the provisional name sergenium (symbol Sg);" Note (a) only refers to the use of the symbol Sg, not to the substance of the ststement.
    • This one should be referenced by the next cite [25], as I have clarified (R8R should be able to confirm it, as I don't speak Russian). Double sharp (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note (b) tells us that, in the table, "the most recently published values are listed", but doesn't tell us by whom, or when, they were published.
What do you exactly want cited for note a? It is a suggestion from 1970, as the date of ref 25 will tell, and the name "seaborgium" only appeared at all in the 1990s. I doubt there's any source that mentions both at all, but comparing dates is fairly trivial. I don't quite understand the precise problem with notes b through d. In each case (notes c and d) and for all cases collectively (note b), the statements are supplemented by the references in the table. There's a Ref column in there and I'm failing to see how it is not enough. Am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of references:
  • Ref 2: There are 26 citations to this book source, but no page references provided. In the absence of an online link, page refs are essential for verification.
  • Ref 3: The link goes to an abstract, and no page refs are given for the citations to the article
  • Ref 4: The page range needs proper formatting, per MoS, thus "pp. 215–217"
  • Ref 5: range given is 56 pages. Too wide for verification purposes
Condensed the range.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6: This is returning a 404 error – "File or Directory not found". Please check the link
Thank you, the link has been rescued.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: Page ref. required.
  • Ref 21: Lacks publisher details; looks like someone's private blog
Added.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: A more precise page ref would be helpful
Well, this whole article, its main thesis is the source of the claim, not just a part of article, so the present range seems appropriate, doesn't it?--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29: The page range given, "1250013–1–1250013–20", is pretty well indecipherable for verification purposes.
  • Ref 30: Page range R165–R242 (77 pages) too wide for verification
Done.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: As for 29 above, indecipherable range
  • Ref 32: As for 31
    • These (29, 31, and 32) are because the page numbers in the sources already have hyphens/dashes in them: the first one has pages numbered from 1250013–1 through 1250013–20. Is there a better way to write down a specific page range in this confusing-looking situation? Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      And it seems like this cannot be helped, either: I tried changing the first and last dashes to hyphens, but this had no effect on how the range is displayed.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find that it displays okay when an em dash (—) separates the pages. Ref 32 already was formatted this way; I tweaked refs 29 and 31. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 33: p. range too wide.

That's just the first column of references looked at. As you can see, the main issue is with page references, which are often too wide, unclear or, in some cases, non-existent. These are all verification concerns. I'll leave it with you for the present, and I'll look again when you've had a chance to deal with these, and perhaps to apply the same principles to the second column. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. We'll improve on it.--R8R (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While there are a few refs left that I have not been able to resolve quickly, I'd like to mention that most of them have been fixed and that I have gone through the remained of the ref list and tried to improve on it as well. I hope we will be able to complete the list in a few days.--R8R (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from The Huhsz edit

  • The article seems to have once been in UK English ("tunnelling"). Which spelling is it supposed to have now? I see "homologue" but also "thermalized" and "honoring". Needs to be clarified.
    • There was a discussion about this at Talk:Hassium#ENGVAR applied. I admit that "tunnelling" seems not to have been noticed, so it looks like this article should be in en-OED after all; I'll change it. Double sharp (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • UK-English was/is ruled out (even by then), but it might be en-OED. See talk link. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
       Done with this refinement: article is consistently en-OED not en-UK. See ENGVAR applied [5]. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, most scientists in the field ignored the recommendations..." is not just a very poor sentence, but seems to be present in a lot of Wikipedia articles on transuranic elements. There's nothing wrong with using a similar form of words in multiple articles, but it should be a better form of words than this. What or who were widely used, the scientists or the recommendations?
    • I have tried to rephrase this. Currently it reads: 'Although these recommendations were widely followed in the chemical community, most scientists in the field ignored them.[15] They either called it "element 108", with the symbols E108, (108) or 108, or used the proposed name "hassium"'; if that's all right, I'll change it in the other superheavy element articles. Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in general looks clunky; it's a difficult area already for most readers and it needs to be better written than this. Sorry, but it isn't there yet. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you give us some specific examples? Baffle gab1978 has done a copyedit for us already, but I'm eager to implement improvements that you suggest. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

Having read some of these chemical element related FACs previously, this one has benefited from a copy edit by User:Baffle gab1978. Only a few small items stood out for me; I read it a second time and made the associated nine edits. Reads smoothly to me. Sandbh (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - We're creeping up on the one-month mark with open opposition and substantial commentary indicating that the article was not completely prepared before nomination. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [6].

Dundalk F.C. edit

Nominator(s): Daniel Sexton (talk 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a leading Irish association football club - Dundalk F.C., the current League of Ireland champions. It's quite a long read covering the origins of the club and its subsequent highs and lows up to and including its recent highly successful period. While the club itself is not of the stature of leading European clubs, I believe the article is worthy of interest. It has already received 'Good Article' status, and has, I believe, been improved since. I have been working on it for a number of months trying to ensure its neutrality, its accuracy and that there's a nice pace to the prose. I am keen to make the article as good as possible and will make any suggested improvements asap. Thank you very much in advance to anyone who spends time on this nomination.

Comments by Kosack edit

  • I don't think there's a need to repeat links for the history, European football and records pages at the bottom of the lead. I wouldn't include them in a see also section either, they're already included in relevant sections and in the club template at the bottom of the page.
    • Removed
  • There seems to be quite a few seemingly unreferenced parts. A paragraph shouldn't really end without a source.
    • Fixed, for many references are there just sentence structure used had them mid sentence. Inserted more citations where necessary.
  • Not sure about the heading "As you were".
    • Came from a referenced match report, have modified sections to remove.
  • The personnel section appears to be unsourced.
    • Added source from club website
  • What does the star indicate in the honours table?
    • A tenth title. This is explained in the "Colours and Crest" section, which links to appropriate Wiki article. Have removed the star anyway to avoid confusion.
  • There are a very large amount of references with no accessdates. I can also see a bare url (ref 194).
    • Fixed bare url. All access-dates inserted.

I think there's a decent bit of work to do to get this up to FA, a peer review may have been more appropriate before bringing it here. These are the obvious big issues I noted during a very quick read so there's something to get started on. Kosack (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably hubris on my part to go straight to FA, but I tried to follow the Cardiff City F.C. article style and thought it was pretty close. Thank you for your time! Daniel Sexton (talk 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work doing the fixes so quick, I'll try and provide a few more points to keep the general improvements going:

  • Link UEFA club coefficients to UEFA coefficient.
    • done
  • "After reaching a Leinster Junior Cup final, and dominating the local scene for three seasons, Dundalk G.N.R. were elected to the Leinster Senior League for 1922–23 to replace sides promoted to the nascent Free State League", the ref included at the end of this sentence (5) only supports them being elected to the league, no mention of a cup final or dominating the local scene?
    • citations added
  • Ref 6 only appears as a headline for me? "Dundalk get in on the ballot" but no article?
    • The newspaper archive engine can do that - splits articles from their headings. I've added a second citation for the body
  • "On 21 August 1926 the team, still known as Dundalk G.N.R.", if the team's name hasn't changed I don't think we need to be pointing it out.
    • edited
  • "that season's Leinster Cup final", is this now the Leinster Senior Cup (association football)? Could do with a link if so.
    • yes, done.
  • In the second paragraph of "First successes", Dublin City Cup is linked twice in two sentences. No need for the repeat link in such close proximity, per WP:OVERLINK.
    • done
  • You use First World War earlier but World War 2 later on. Use one format for consistency.
    • done
  • Does public limited company need to be capitalised?
    • fixed
  • Bradford > Bradford City.
    • done
  • Top Four Cup is mentioned in the paragraph before it is linked, move the link to the first use.
    • done
  • "Oriel Park tasted", a little journalistic. How about simply "hosted"?
    • done
  • "The town swelled with pride at what its club was achieving", doesn't seem much like a WP:NPOV and the closest ref (40) doesn't do much to support this either.
    • edited
  • Dublin City Cup linked two more times in this paragraph.
    • edited
  • "an ageing team was getting less competitive", getting less is a little clunky. Was struggling to compete, perhaps?
    • better! done
  • "Dundalk Football Club", do we need to suddenly use the full name here?
    • edited - "club's board"
  • The "Decline and Upheaval" section features some rather dramatic wording for an encyclopedia. Phrases such as "facing into severe headwinds", "the long-feared financial crisis came to a crunch" and "the reality of life in the lower tier kicked in" are an example of this.
    • have hopefully edited appropriately.
  • It seems a little odd for the European competition section to be added on to, an otherwise chronogically ordered history section. Perhaps it is better suited for the records section?
    • agreed moved
  • No obvious ref for the European competition record table.
    • citation added
  • Do we need the enforced line break after the table? Seems to be adding whitespace for no obvious reason.
    • did that because of how it looked on a mobile device, but have removed.
  • "racked up while wearing them", informal wording.
    • edited
  • Developer doesn't need the capital letter.
    • done
  • "is approx", I'd spell out the full word rather than leave use approx in a sentence.
    • done
  • There are a lot of red links in the first team squad. If they don't have an article, I would be inclined to unlink them.
    • unlinked
  • Youth Teams and Women's Teams headings, drop the capital letter from teams.
    • done
  • There are some odd uses of capital letters throughout. For example, sentences such as "top of the League table" and "team to a ninth League title", I don't think league would need to be capitalised as you're referring to a league table or league title rather than any specific entity.
    • Have tried to tidy up - left 'the League' or equivalent as is when referring to the entity, lower case for the rest.
  • The last book in the bibliography doesn't have an isbn.
    • It was a limited print by subscription book. It has no isbn. Does that mean I can't reference it?

There's another few to look at from myself. I think you'll need a strong copy editor to have a run through to iron out the prose a little. If you can get someone like that to go through with a review, I think we'll be in much better shape moving forward. Kosack (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • thank you for your time - genuinely appreciate your efforts! I’m not sure where to find a copy editor tbh Daniel Sexton (talk 12:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be worth asking TRM, he's reviewing a lot of stuff right now although you may have to wait for the GA backlog drive to finish at the end of the month. Kosack (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by RetiredDuke edit

  • I did a cursory read of the article and spotted several uncited paragraphs. As a (very rough) rule-of-thumb, each paragraph should end with a reference.
    • Fixed, for many references are there just sentence structure used had them mid sentence. Inserted more citations where necessary.
  • This club is 134 years old (if we start counting in 1885). The article has large, detailed sections about "managerial eras" that last 5-8 years, isn't that a bit unbalanced in terms of coverage? I would recommend thinking on the bigger picture when naming the subsections, take a look at Cardiff City F.C. for instance.
    • Have reviewed. It's dictated by the number of trophies and amount of activity, e.g. a lot more happened in the 1964-74 and 2013-present time frames than in the Forties and Fifties. But have tried to rebalance to address. Had been trying to follow the general style of Cardiff City as it happens. Mustn't have done as good a job as I thought! Lol.
  • In that vein, I don't think the "As you were" section is needed, it's a summary.
    • Have incorporated into a 2013-Present section
  • There are two sections about European football.
    • One is in the context of performance history, one is in the context about home grounds having to be moved for European matches. Have removed sub-heading and modified slightly to avoid the error.
  • The social media section is not needed, every club has Instagram and Twitter accounts.
    • Removed
  • Some sentences seem out of place an should be removed, like "See also History of Dundalk F.C., Dundalk F.C. in European football and List of Dundalk F.C. records and statistics" in the lead and "McLaughlin's trophy haul while at Dundalk: three League titles, three FAI Cups, two League of Ireland Cups and two Leinster Senior Cups.".
    • All such sentences removed.

Some food for thought. (I also think it needs some work before hitting FA status). RetiredDuke (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Dundalk_FC_2015_Crest.png: should complete the FUR
    • Done
  • File:DDT_1903_09_26_13.png: what is the author's date of death?
    • Author used a pseudonym, this is a scan from a newspaper published in 1903. Does it fall under public domain (pre-1924)?
      • In the US, yes, but to be on Commons it has to be in the public domain in both the US and its source country. This image has a tag stating it's PD in countries with a term of author life + 70 - as the author is unknown and the publication is recent enough that the author could have survived longer, this tag should be replaced.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:DundalkGNR.jpg: when/where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
    • Photograph is on display at Dundalk F.C. Image is a photo of the displayed photo. Photographer is unknown. As was taken at start of season in 1923. Does it fall under public domain (pre-1924)?
      • Depends - just because it was taken in 1923, doesn't mean it was published at that time. Is there any indication of it having been published before the more recent display?Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The photo on display appears to be an original. It is not reproduced in the Irish newspaper archives and the 2003 Jim Murphy book referenced in the bibliography, which is the guidance for the article, uses a photo of the photo without attribution. Murphy's book was the first published about the club, so I believe it is not published elsewhere. If it's safer to remove the image I will.Daniel Sexton (talk 01:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately without more information it's more likely than not that it's not free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dundalk_Seal.jpg: according to the given source, while this is derived from a 1300s design, the current design is from the 1960s
    • Have made appropriate edits to prose and have removed image.
  • File:Dundalk_Coat_of_Arms.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    • Assumed fell under public domain (pre-1924). Don't know author so have removed.
  • File:Dundalk_FC.svg: don't feel a non-free image is justified in this case.Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [7].

Go Vacation edit

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time I've nominated this article. The FAC immediately prior to this one failed mostly because of the need for a second copyedit, which the article has now gone through. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Resolved comments
  • Is there any particular reason for the citations in the infobox? I would imagine that all of the information regarding these release dates for different geographical areas and game systems should be included in the prose in the body of the article and cited there accordingly. Is there a reason why the body of the article does not address the game's release at all? I would also image the genre would be mentioned and sourced in the body of the article.
    • Working on it- so far I've added the genre to body. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now added a section on the release of the game. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would recommend looking at featured articles on video games to see how they handle putting information on the game's release in the body of the article. It really does not make any sense to have it be a subsection of the "Reception" section. See examples like Knuckles' Chaotix and Sabre Wulf to see how they do it. It would make more sense for this article to combine the release information into the "Development" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would see if there is a way that you could more seamlessly incorporate that information into the section. The years in which the Wii and Switch versions were released should also be added, and I would clarify in the prose that the Switch version is a port. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Go Vacation[b] is a party video game that was developed and released by Namco Bandai Games for the Wii games console.), I would drop "that was" and "games console".
  • I think it may be better to just revise the lead sentence to say "a 2011 party video game" and remove this part (It was first released in North America on 11 October 2011) entirely.
  • For this part (Vehicles such as trolleys and bicycles can be piloted to access resorts), I would put "the" in front of "resorts".
  • For this part (Players can also customize their avatars and their virtual villas.), I am uncertain if "virtual" is needed since I would assume that it is clear from the context. I would also change it to "customize their avatars and villas".
  • This sentence (The game's Marine Resort was partly inspired by Hawaii, but it was not directly based on any real-world location.) seems slightly contradictory. The same goes for the sentence (No areas in the game were based on any real-world locations but parts of Marine Resort were inspired by Hawaii.) in the body of the article. It seems odd that it says a part of the game was based on Hawaii only to later say that none of the areas were based on any real-life locations.
    • I'm pretty sure what they mean is that it's only partly inspired by Hawaii but I just worded that badly. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A part of this sentence (The player first visits the Marine Resort, which contains many coves and beaches.) seems to repeat information from this earlier sentence (Players start the game in the Marine Resort and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.). It was already established that player start in Marine Resort so I do not think it needs to be repeated.
  • This part (The City Resort, which centers around extreme and leisure sports, the City Resort is the second and smallest resort) does not make sense. Maybe something was removed?
  • For this part (After playing twenty minigames, players gains access to their own virtual houses, called villas,), I would spell out "twenty" as "20" since the previous numbers are represented in numerals. The same comment applies for "ninety" in this part (Furniture is gained in sets, of which there are ninety.).
  • This image caption (A split screen view of four players having a water gun fight.) should not have a period because it is not a full sentence.
  • I do not understand why the "complete sense" quote is used twice.
    • I'm not sure why it wouldn't be? It lets the reader know those two sentences are connected. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no reason to repeat the quote as it does not help the reader's understanding and it is very repetitive, particularly since the phrase (a "complete sense" of winter) with the quote is used twice as well. There are ways to make a cohesive section without repeating quotes. Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence ( To decide which activities to include in the game, the developers surveyed players in America, Europe, and Japan to ask them what they wanted in the game.) seems rather clunky. I would streamline it to (The developers conducted surveys in America, Europe, and Japan to determine what activities to include in the game.).
  • In the third paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would avoid starting two sentences in a row with (In his review of the X version).
  • I would wikilink "villas" in the body of the article if it is going to be linked in the lead.
  • These two sentences (Sterling criticized the NPCs for their design, calling them "faux anime characters" and "completely charmless". Reece also criticized the NPCs, writing, "even if you hop onto an ATV and plough into someone at full speed, they'll have very little to say for themselves when they get back on their feet".) are rather repetitive as they use a similar structure by repeating "criticized the NPCs".

I have only done a quick read-through of the article, but I have noticed several areas that need improvement. The biggest issue is how the body of the article does not address the game's release at all (either the original Wii release or the Switch port). I am also uncertain about the quality of the prose, but I will provide more commentary on that once the above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a short break now, I will continue addressing these concerns either later tonight or tomorrow. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back- I will try to continue working on this now. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my second absence. I will definitely try to finish this tomorrow. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eek! Apologies again, I did not mean to start this late. Nevertheless, I intend to finish this tonight. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello, goodbye! I'm late! I'm late! I'm late!" TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, and apologies for all the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​You're fine- I think I've finished replying to all your comments now. The only thing left is I don't understand what you mean when you said you didn't understand that one sentence. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I have collapsed the comments that have been resolved and brought down the one remaining. I will look through the article again sometime in the near future. I have concerns about the quality of the prose, but hopefully, that can be ironed out during this FAC. 04:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not really sure I understand what this sentence (Producer Kenya Kobayashi opted for the name Go Vacation to convey activity.) means. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you don't understand about it. Could you please elaborate? TheAwesomeHwyh 04:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the source, I have a better understanding of what is meant. However, I do not think it is clear at all when looking at the sentence (Producer Kenya Kobayashi opted for the name Go Vacation to convey activity.) in isolation. I do not understand what is meant by "activity". Maybe something like the following would be better, (After realizing the word "vacation" is frequently associated with relaxation, producer Kenya Kobayashi named the game Go Vacation to clarify that it was more active.), or something to that effect.
  • The part in the lead still needs to be revised. Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also change these sentences, (The game's title was intended to convey that players would want to "stay [in] for a long time". According to producer Kenya Kobayashi, the production team believed the word "vacation" has no connotations of activity outside Japan, so the team added "Go" to the beginning of the name.), to something like, (The game was originally titled Vacation before being changed to Go Vacation since people outside Japan associated the word "vacation" with leisure and relaxation. Producer Kenya Kobayashi said "Go" was added to the title to clarify that the game was more active), or something along those lines. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it was ever called Vacation, but rather that they decided on the name Go Vacation because of the connotations of activity. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I do not understand what is meant by the "contemporaries" part though. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, that might have actually been a bit of unintentional WP:OR by me. Removed. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these two sentences (Vehicles such as trolleys and bicycles can be piloted to access the resorts. Players can also customize their avatars and their villas.) can be combined to something like (Players can pilot vehicles, such as trolley and bicycles, to access different resorts, and customize their avatars and virtual houses known villas.).
  • For this sentence (The included minigames are based on surveys taken in America, Europe, and Japan; players voted on which sports or activities should be included.), I do not believe the first “included” is needed.
  • I looked at the reference for the Hawaii inspiration, and Masaya Kobayashi said the Marine Resort might be inspired by Hawaii. Here is the sentence from the source: (There’s no place in particular that we used as a reference, but for example the Marine Resort might be inspired by things you find in Hawaii). I do not believe this statement is strong enough to support the information in the article about the Hawaii/Marine Resort link. If it is kept, it should be qualified that Kobayashi said that player might associate the resort with Hawaii to avoid a misinterpretation that this was a conscious part of the game's development.
    • I think you're misinterpreting that. I don't think Kobayashi would just say something like that without it actually being inspired by it. It just sounds to me like they're using "might" as a substitute for "is". TheAwesomeHwyh 05:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can only go by what the source says, and might is very different from is. I cannot assume that they would use might as a substitute because it is completely different from is. It is a very weird statement though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure where you're from, but here in California I've heard people use "might" as a substitute for "is". TheAwesomeHwyh 05:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am from Florida and I have never heard of might and is being used as substitutes because they mean completely different things. Might is used to represent a hypothetical or indicate a possibility while is is just used to say a direct fact. I think this is important because I do not think saying (The game's Marine Resort was partly inspired by Hawaii) is completely accurate to the source. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have reworded it. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am still uncertain about it, but I will think about it further. I do not mean to sound harsh or overly critical with my comments. You have done a lot of great work with this article, and I am just trying to help as much as I can. Hopefully, more people will review this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, can you please stop pinging me in the edit summaries? Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about that. I wasn't sure if you had the page watchlisted. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh wait, I get what you mean. I wasn't aware that linking to your userpage would ping you. Sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think “Upon release” is necessary in the lead.
  • For this part (praised its multiplayer aspects and its creativity), I do not believe the second “its” is needed.
  • Can you point me to where this part (corrected problems with the original version of the game) is covered in the article? I cannot see where the Switch corrections is discussed, but I am probably just reading/looking over it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weird. It looks like it was never mentioned in the article. I have added that now. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few comments for this sentence (Players start the game in the Marine Resort and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.). I would replace “players” with they” to avoid repetition from the previous sentence. I would add a link to “minigames”, and a putt a comma after “Resort”. I would also remove “in the previous resorts” part as I do not believe it is necessary.
    • I've removed the bit about the previous resorts but have not linked to minigames- I am under the assumption that things in articles are only supposed to be linked to once. Not sure what you mean about the comma. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see where minigames is linked in the body of the article, and this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only recommended the comma because the sentence has two different ideas/thoughts so it would clearly separate them (Players start the game in the Marine Resort, and other locations are unlocked by completing a set number of minigames in the previous resorts.) Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (The island can be navigated at leisure by walking or by riding on vehicles, the type of which depends on the resort.), I would say “at the player’s leisure”. Would it also be fair to replace “the type of which depends on the resort” with something like “which are unique to each resort”? I have not played the game so if the same vehicle type is used for multiple resorts, then my suggestion would not work. Saying “which varies depending on the resort” may be a good option as well.
    • I think that the vehicles are exclusive but I can't check right now- I had a problem with my Switch a few months back and had to erase all my save data. I haven't bothered to replay the game and I think I only have the Marine and maybe City resorts unlocked on this save. I have changed it to "at the players leisure". TheAwesomeHwyh 05:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these two sentences (The Snow Resort is the third resort the player visits; it focuses on winter sports, hosting games such as ski jumping, snow tubing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and snowball fighting.) can be combined into something like this: (The third resort, Snow Resort, focuses on winter sports like ski jumping, snow tubing, snowboarding, snowmobiling, and snowball fighting.)
  • I have two comments for this part (which may be decorated with furniture or photographs that were taken during the game). I think “can” is a better fit than “may” and I would remove “that were” to just say “photographs taken during the game”.
  • For this part (Furniture can be found in the game's world or may be unlocked using "silver keys”), I would remove “may be”.
  • I would avoid starting two sentences in a row with “Furniture” if possible. If there is not a way to avoid this, then it is not a major issue.
  • I would move this sentence (Treasure chests containing outfits for the players' avatars are scattered around the resorts) to the preceding paragraph. The current one is all about the villas so the sentence does not really fit there, while the one directly before has information about the avatars so it seems like a more likely fit there. Aoba47 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I'm not sure why it was in that paragraph in the first place, though. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's almost 11pm here and I really ought to get to bed. Hopefully tomorrow I won't spend my day watching old Star Trek reruns and actually get something productive done, heh. Night. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "Go Vacation was revealed at the 2011 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3)", I would use "announced" rather than "revealed".
  • I have a question about this part (Part of the game's development was outsourced to other companies). Doe we know what these other companies were or what parts of the game's development were outsourced?
    • Nope. And we might not ever- this game is so obscure that I'm pretty sure that the information on this page is literally all of the information known about the game, so I'm not hopeful in terms of finding a source that says what companies it is. I could check the game's credits, but I'm pretty sure that would run afoul of our WP:OR rule as a synthesis of sources. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove this sentence (The game's title was intended to convey that players would want to "stay [in] for a long time".) since the same information is already present in the following sentence. I would also avoid using quotes that are from translated articles. I do not know if there is a Wikipedia policy about it, but unless you are a language expert (in Japanese in this case), I am uncertain if a translated quote would be appropriate.
    • I have been using the officially translated version of the article so the quote is probably fine. The reason why I didn't cite that was because the Internet Archive has trouble archiving the translated version, and I want to avoid dead links if I can. I have removed the sentence. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this sentence (While not meant to be a direct copy of Hawaii, Kobayashi has stated that parts of the Marine Resort "might be" inspired by it.) to something like (The resorts were not directly based on any real-life locations, although Kobayashi said the Marine Resort "might be inspired by things you find in Hawaii".). I think putting the quote in full would be a better compromise between our interpretations of the text.
  • I would revise this sentence (Kobayashi has suggested that parts of the game "might be" inspired by Hawaii, but is not intended to be a direct copy of it.) to something like (Although the resorts were not directly based on real-life locations, Kobayashi said Hawaii was a possible influence for the Marine Resort.).
  • I would remove the "Hawaii" wikilink in the lead.
  • "Port" is wikilinked in the lead, but I would also do the same in the "Development" section.
  • I would put the paragraph on the game's release prior to the one on the soundtrack.
  • For these part (It released on 11 October) and (where it released on 27 December), it should be "it was released".

That should cover everything up to the "Reception" section. Let me know if you have any questions. Apologies again for all of the comments. Just trying to help as much as possible. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I completely forgot to log on yesterday! It's getting pretty late here so I'm not sure if I can finish all of this today, but I'll try. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One moment- I'm having some issues with the visual editor. It wont let me replace text. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is happening. I'm probably not going to be able to work on this for now but I am going to troubleshoot this and will inform you once I figure this out. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take as much time as you need. The visual editor was acting up for me a few days. I am not sure if there is an issue with the system, but it somehow got better for me after a day. Hopefully, it works out for you on your end. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my visual editor is still acting very strangely too. I wonder what is causing it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm just going to use the source editor for now. Will continue in a bit. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost done, but do you think you could put all of your next comments in a separate heading? It's getting a bit hard to read and edit this page. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do no think it is encouraged to have subsections/separate headings for an FAC, but I am not entirely sure tbh. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add a wikilink for “multiplayer”.
  • I would revise this part (There are over 50 activities available on the island,) to (50 activities are available on the island,)
    • I wrote that bit a while back, but I think it was worded that way since I couldn't find a source which gave the exact amount of minigames. I am almost positive that there is more than 50. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my mistake. I read over the more part. I would say than (Over 50 activities are available on the island,) or (More than 50 activities are available on the island,). Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine these two sentences (The Marine Resort contains many coves and beaches. It is largely themed around watersports such as beach volleyball, surfing, water gun battles, and Marine bike races.) to something like (The Marine Resort, which contains coves and beaches, is themed around watersports, including beach volleyball, surfing, water gun battles, and Marine bike races.).
  • The following parts "shortly after We Ski & Snowboard was released because the developers felt they had not given players a "complete sense" of winter in the previous game." and "When discussing ways to address this, the developers decided winter alone was not enough; they wanted to depict other seasons" to be somewhat awkwardly phrased. I would revisit the prose here, and try to think of different ways of phrasing these parts.
    • I agree. However, I spent over 30 minutes trying to address this and honestly couldn't figure out how. I tried tons of different ways to structure the sentence but each time it just ended up being just as bad, or worse than it was before. Sorry, but I don't think I can fix this one. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (it was the first time for Namco Bandai Games, whose staff had worked on the Ridge Racer series.), I am confused on what "the first time" is referencing. Could you clarify this for me?
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (The Switch version also included some new features; the ability to take photographs of animals, fish, and find boxes with rewards in them.). A part of this is already mentioned in the "Gameplay" section, so I would move any of the new information (i.e. "and find boxes with rewards in them") to there instead and remove the sentence from here.
  • The lead mentions that problems were fixed in the Switch port, but the body of the article only discusses the features that were added for the Switch port.
    • I don't believe anything was fixed with it, removed; though, not that the game has very many problems mind you- In all my hours with it I don't think I've come across a single bug! TheAwesomeHwyh 03:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved down the comments that have not been addressed yet, and put the ones that have been resolved in the collapsible box to hopefully make this easier to navigate. Apologies for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a little confused on why an IGN citation is added on to this sentence "Mark Reece of Nintendo Life said the minigames were not fun to play due to "a poorly conceived or unintuitive control scheme".".
  • Something about "the game's roller skates" sounds odd in this sentence "Reviewing the Switch version, Alessandra Borgonovo of IGN Italia praised the game's roller skates, saying that they were fun to use.". I would look it over again. Also, I would make it clearer how this fits in a paragraph about the controls.
    • I've made it more clear why it's there. I agree that it sounds super weird but I'm honestly not sure how to reword it. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember to italicize IGN for each instance.
    • I could only find one instance where it wasn't. Where there any others? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move this sentence "Daan Koopman of Nintendo World Report noted that the controls are one of the "biggest improvements over the original"." before the IGN one as it is a more natural transition into talking about the Switch port.
  • I have a few comments about this part "Others also criticized the minigames for an apparent lack of quality,". It should be a separate sentence so that comma at the end should be a period.←I am also a little uncertain if this sentence is needed at all as it does introduce several issues like who is being referenced with "Others" and there should be a citation with this part to avoid people thinking it is original research.
    • I see your point. I've just replaced that sentence with the word "conversely". TheAwesomeHwyh 03:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "In reviewing the game's soundtrack album", I do not think "album" is needed.
  • For this part "Craddock, in his review of the Switch version, compared them to the house customization mechanics of the Animal Crossing series.", I am confused on why the IGN España is used.
  • I do not think the "According to Drake" sentence structure works for this: "According to Drake, the game's island is "where everyone but yourself is actually a robot", referring to a lack of interaction with NPCs.". Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry this took me so long, I will address these today. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't get to finish it that day but I'm hoping I'll be able to do it tonight. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost done. I think I'll be able to finish this tomorrow. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Alright, everything has been done. I couldn't find a solution to a few of them, but I think I've adequately addressed the bulk of your concerns. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I missed one, but I've done it now. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. I have a few suggestions, which I will leave below:

  • I do not believe this part, "Some reviewers, however, praised the customizable villas", is supported by a citation. The specific mention of multiple reviewers praising the villas does not appear to cited as there is only a single citation (for the Nintendo Life).
  • I am uncertain about the use of the Nintendo Life citation in the paragraph about the villas. The following is the quote from the source on the villas: "This, in turn, presents you with cosmetic rewards such as different clothing styles for your Mii, or even keys that can be used to unlock furniture for your own little villa that can be accessorised Animal Crossing-style." I do not believe this type of information belongs in the reception section as the source is not really providing critical commentary on the villas. From my understanding, the citation is providing a comparison to help readers better understand the basic concept of the villas. It may be better to move this Animal Crossing comparison to the villa-focused paragraph in the "Gameplay" section instead.
  • It may be helpful to add a topic sentence to the final paragraph of the reception section and the paragraph on the critical response to the soundtrack/music. I am not saying you have to, but it is a point to think about in the future.
  • I am uncertain about this part, "Reviewing the Wii version, Chris Watters, a writer for GameSpot, was mostly positive about the minigames, saying that "most are decent", but that some had succumbed to "an awkward camera" or "unresponsive controls". because I do not GameSpot has a "mostly positive" response to the minigames given these quotes from the review being cited: "most of the minigames are too shallow and simplistic to inspire repeat play" and "it becomes clear that it's all very shallow and simplistic because Go Vacation's minigames don't reach the enjoyable heights of their forebears". If anything, I think GameSpot had a mostly negative reaction to the minigames.
  • The word "conversely" does not make sense in this part: "Conversely, Nintendo Life's Ryan Craddock felt that they are "an undercooked version of things we've seen countless times before." "Conversely" is typically used to suggestion a juxtaposition of a previous idea, and that does not appear to be the case here.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence "Critics were mixed on the game's minigames." because a majority of the reviews cited in the paragraph are more negative than positive from what I can see.
  • I would encourage you to revisit the paragraph on the reception to the controls. It kind of jumps around a lot, and I would try seeing if the information could flow more into a cohesive narrative. For instance, it may be helpful to move this part: "Alessandra Borgonovo of IGN Italia praised the controls for the roller skates, saying that they were fun to use." behind the Audrey Drake review as they are both praising the controls for traveling around the resorts.

Unfortunately, I am currently taking a short wikibreak (for at least a month) to focus on some off-Wikipedia work. I am in the process of applying for jobs and debating on going back to school so I will not have the time or energy to adequately complete this review.

I hope that my comments have helped, and apologies for not seeing this through until completion. Good luck with the nomination, and I hope that it attracts more reviewers. It may be helpful to reach out to the WikiProjects or to editors experienced in video game FACs. I would recommend pinging some of the past reviewers from the previous FACs as a start. Apologies again, but if I am unable to put my full attention on the review, then I feel like I would be doing you (and all of the work you have put into this article) a real disservice. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for everything! Your comments have helped immensely! TheAwesomeHwyh 05:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. I have enjoyed working with you, and I look forward to your future projects on here. Hopefully, we can work together again in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone who participated in previous GAC's and FAC's: @J Milburn:, @SchroCat:, @JDC808:, @Lee Vilenski:, @Nikkimaria:, and @Namcokid47:. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

I'm sorry you've not had much of a response at this (or the previous) FAC. I'll only speak for myself: I wasn't going to comment, as I worry that this is still not really where I'd expect a video game article to be for FA status. I didn't want to turn up and "sink" the nomination. In case you're interested, an excellent FA about a video game, in my view, is Limbo (video game) - a nice example, too, as that's far from a triple-A. Infinity Blade is also good, and perhaps of a more comparable length to this article.

  • I'm not convinced that the lead really summarises the article. It doesn't really have enough about the gameplay; I know about resorts, but I only know about minigames (which are basically the whole game, no?) because of a mention of surveys. Meanwhile, there's some relatively unimportant material - the reason for the name, Hawaii as an influence...
  • The writing is better, but things perhaps aren't structured as well as they could be. For example: "More than 50 activities are available on the island, including bungee jumping, ice fishing, scuba diving, miniature golf, tennis, off-road racing, and snowman building.[3] Winning some minigames unlocks more challenging modes.[5]" I know the "activities" are the minigames, but it feels like you're telling me about a relatively minor issue (difficulties unlocked by completing minigames) before you've told me what the minigames are, what their role in the game is, how you play them, even what it means to "win" them. Another example: Para 2 of development feels like bullet points... It just doesn't really flow. (And: "At one point in its development, Go Vacation had over 10,000 bugs.[19]" Is this significant?)
  • The development section feels very light. It's only really the first two paragraphs that contain (underdeveloped!) production information; the announcement and release details belong in the article (and perhaps the section) but they're not really the same thing. The music discussion, on the other hand, is a little mystifying. The first sentence ("The soundtrack of Go Vacation consists of instrumental and vocal tracks from composers, musicians, and vocal artists, including Taku Inoue, Norihiko Hibino, Aubrey Ashburn, and Jody Whitesides.") is very vague. The rest of it seems to be basically irrelevant. Even if the album contains tracks from Go Vacation (which isn't explictly mentioned) it probably doesn't warrant extensive discussion in this article. Compare it to development sections in other video gaming FAs, like the ones I mentioned above.
    • This is my second time writing this response. The first time around, I had a massive wall of text going over why I didn't think I could possibly get any more info out of the existing interviews, but I honestly think I wasn't being optimistic enough. I'm going to try to re-read both interviews within a few days and see what extra information I can find in them. I'll also try to make the music section less vague. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There may be more sources to find (there are lots of video game magazines out there...), or it may be that there just isn't much content in the public domain. If the latter, then I worry that this might be an article that it's going to be very difficult to get to FA level. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be the voice of doom and gloom. This makes a decent GA, but I'm worried that it's going to take a push to get to FA, which may be very tricky. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for over a month, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [8].

Peter van Geersdaele edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter van Geersdaele was, as a colleague remembered him, "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; finally retiring after a last move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums.

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It has been expanded to include a more broader take on his life with the obituaries that followed his death last year, and is the most comprehensive take on his life available. Recently reviewed by The Rambling Man, it is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: a few nitpicks:
  • Gooderham: You've repeated a typo ("Counil") from the source – I don't think you have to do that.
  • Good catch; I probably just copied and pasted originally, and didn't notice. I've added a "[sic]" in the title.
  • I think the "Family Notices" source needs a publisher. This notice originally appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times which is evidently the publisher of this website.
  • Added East Anglian Daily Times as the publisher. I'd cite directly to the newspaper (and include the link as a courtesy link), but I haven't (yet) been able to find a copy as it appeared in print.
  • The Painter source seems to be out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography.
  • Fixed.
  • Quality/reliability: no issues, sources meet the necessary FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

As noted in the nomination comments, I reviewed it at GAN and applied my usual "slightly more like FAC criteria than GAN criteria" approach which I knew the nominator wouldn't object to. I can't see any good reason right now why this shouldn't be passed as FA, I've gone over it one more time for comprehensiveness, MOS compliance, etc, and can't see anything which stands out. Good work, I hope the dying FAC process will provide some other input from content reviewers to stop this failing through lack of interest. Good work and good luck. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Minimal (if valuable) commentary after a month -- pls seek some more reviews or I'm afraid we'll have to close as no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - As Ian noted, this has received minimal review and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [9].

Dryomyza anilis edit

Nominator(s): AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a particular fly species, Dryomyza anilis. The article thoroughly covers information on the fly's distribution, appearance, mating behaviors, life stages, and a variety of other information. The information is sourced from scientific papers, and incorporates most of the existing research that is present on the fly. This fly is especially noteworthy because it has some interesting mating behaviors that have been under study for quite some time now. Moreover, the page has undergone numerous peer reviews and the original editor has incorporated these in order to continually improve the page. AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a first-time FAC nom from a fairly inexperienced WP editor. It looks well researched and uses appropriate academic sources, but in terms of its presentation it falls short of the required FA criteria in a number of respects. For example:

  • Inappropriate citations in lead. The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the essential points in the article; it should not contain material that's not in the article itself, and the information should be cited in the main text, not in the lead.
  • Uncited material, e.g. in section "Contests over females", also, further on: "Large females are at an advantage as they often participate in fewer matings" and "the interactions between salmon and the fly species can be used as a mechanism to measure ecosystem health".
  • Inappropriate use of bullet points rather than prose.
  • Too many very short sections
  • A little too much specialized language, e.g. "Pharyngeal sclerites have progressed to display narrow windows posteroventrally and posterodorsally, on the dorsal and ventral cornua, respectively". I accept that in scientific articles, some such description is inevitable, but it's important that, on the whole, the article should be broadly comprehensive to the general reader - Wikipedia is not a science journal.
  • Minor MoS infractions which I won't bother to highlight, as they're pretty unimportant and can be adjusted later.

There is much good work here, and I'd like to see this article brought to featured status, but would strongly advise you to seek a mentor to help you bring the article up to the required standard of presentation. Mentoring is fairly common practice for first-time nominations - you can leave a request on WT:FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - As this appears to require substantial further preparation before it meets WP:WIAFA, I am archiving it. @AnuBalasubramanian: Please work to address the points raised here, and I strong suggest you work with a mentor as suggested above. The article may be re-nominated after a minimum two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2019 [10].

Crusades edit

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the wide ranging subject of the Crusades—religious wars fought by the Catholic church, often but not always sanctioned by various Popes. There sheer scope of the subject makes it difficult to cover successfully and comprehensively. Indeed @Adam Bishop: thinks it may be impossible. However, this is the third attempt—each attempt improving the article so now it is the best, in my opinion, it has ever been and probably the best Wikipedia article amongst the many on the related subjects . At attempt two the prose was criticised but this has now had a full copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors thanks to @Twofingered Typist:. Also pinging @Richard Nevell:, @Jens Lallensack: and @Lord0fHats: who were very helpful the last time

Considering the challenge this subject presents it is worth reminding reviewers of how it meets the criteria.

It is:

  • well-written: GOCE copyedited;
  • comprehensive: for a summary article it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • well-researched;
  • neutral: with difficulty for a contentious subject, it presents views fairly and without bias
  • stable: with few recent edits apart from mine.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

  • a lead;
  • appropriate structure
  • consistent citations.

The Media haas recently been checked at FAC (appart from two new images).

Length—considering the bredth, it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and acts as a summary article for the subject area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of today and after a long slog I believe all comments have been addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please link to the previous noms! Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) edit

Ok, thanks - but not on the main page. Is that usual? And #2 is very incomplete, with a template error. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Johnbod—you can get to the content of #2 through the history.... Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ergo Sum edit

  • Though certainly not a review of the article, if my two cents are good currency here, I think it would be preferable for a reader to first be introduced to the article by one of the nice Medieval or Renaissance paintings of some battle of the Crusades, rather than by the {{Campaignbox Crusades}} template. Especially since the article has a substantial lede section, it can afford to be supplemented by an image as well as a few templates. Ergo Sum 00:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The base {{Military navigation}} template allows for an image, so perhaps a graphic could be incorporated via that route? Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried, and failed to do this neatly, so added an image in the normal way Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. Only thing is, that image is now used twice in the article. Ergo Sum 03:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

More comments to follow, but initial impressions are not good so far as the prose is concerned. In the first paragraph the comma before "however" is inadequate and ought to be a semicolon or full stop.

And mention of the word "however" brings me to its absurdly excessive use throughout the article. It occurs three times in the lead and twenty-two times in the main text, and at first glance is superfluous in every case.

There is the question of commas after introductory time periods: "In 1095, Pope Urban called" (AmE style) but "Following the First Crusade there were" (BrE style) and then "After the last Catholic outposts fell in 1291, there were" (AmE style again). The "they" in the penultimate (63-word!) sentence of the lead is presumably meant to refer to the Crusades but the last plural before them is "Genoa and Venice".

Further comments to follow after a thorough perusal. Tim riley talk 09:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:—@Auntieruth55:—@Sturmvogel 66:—@Hawkeye7:— Guys, back in the day you all did sterling work reviewing this at ACR, is there any chance you can do the same at FAR, please? signature added after Dudley pointed out it was missing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish I assume that you sent this ping? I think I did not receive it because you have to sign it for the ping to work. I will try to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jens Lallensack edit

  • The Albigensian Crusade taught the Papacy that – But this crusade was not introduced previously. I think we need a sentence stating the basic information of this Crusade. It seems to be an important one as it is even mentioned in the lead.
  • Green tickY—Restructured to introduce and bring the details together Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the lack of priority given to the campaign against the Cathers in southern France – That Campaign maybe should also be introduced. I think the article gives an interpretation of the crusading against heretics in Europe, but without providing the historical facts first. Consider that the reader of this very basic article might not have heard about these specific Crusades before.
  • heterodoxy, Inquisition. Both need to be linked at first mention. "Medieval Inquisition" is linked later though.
  • mass conversion was implausible and destruction of the pagans counterproductive – counterproductive in which regard? This requires some explanation imo.
  • Green tickY—because the local economy relied on pagan labour, added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack:—anything else on this one? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 edit

A level-3 vital article is hard to get to FA, good on you for having a crack at it. I have quite a few comments, so I'll approach this in a few tranches:

  • the indentation and semi-dot pointing of the last para of the lead doesn't work. Just IAR and make this a fifth para starting with "The Crusades had a profound impact...", and roll the dot points up into running prose. A fifth lead para is acceptable on such a large subject IMHO.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology edit
  • put a translation in "" after negotium crucis, crux transmarina and crux cismarina as you have done with iter
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • move "The modern spelling crusade dates to c. 1760" to the end of the para to put it chronological order
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greeks'
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in general, use "" for emphasis (ie Franks, Saracen, Muslim etc, not italics
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Causes edit
  • suggest (later Roger I of Sicily) is that is correct
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire of Constantinople seems a mouthful. Which Orthodox was it? Greek? Is a link to Byzantine Empire appropriate?
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pope for papacy? and be consistent with the initial caps
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link penitential
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article says that the Fatimids had captured Jerusalem, then starts talking about the Seljuq hold on the city?
Green tickY—Expanded and explainedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Mohammad
Green tickY—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the deaths of the Sultan, Malikshah,"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are referring to Carole Hillenbrand, fix typo and link
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Iron Curtain
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the para beginning "Through military successes under Emperor Basil II," contains a partial repetition of the content of the last para of the Background section, this also relates to my earlier point about the Seljuqs and Jerusalem. Suggest putting this into the appropriate chronological point of the narrative
Green tickY— when I removed the duplication there remained nothing of note, even the sources were duplicated. So I have removed the entire para Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serbians→Serbs
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the Seljuqs", but wouldn't the Seljuqs have been to the south of Constantinople?
Green tickY—no, east but amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent with Seljuk and Seljuq
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a map would be really useful in the Causes section
Green tickY—added @Peacemaker67:— what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "that providedposed the threat"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overall health of the Empire at the time"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the Easter Med edit

Down to the In the eastern Mediterranean section. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "migrating Turks" Seljuq?
  • "the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV"
  • Germany links to the modern country, is there a better link?
  • "led by: Robert Curthose; Stephen, Count of Blois; and Robert II, Count of Flanders." otherwise the commas are confusing
  • link Byzantium
  • "Malik Shah, the Sultan of the Seljuq Empire" as he has already been introduced
  • "The three-month Crusader march"
  • for Edessa link County of Edessa, and add "which became one of the Crusader states"
  • "The Crusaders besieged the cityAntioch"
  • comma after "Despite superior numbers"
  • "taken Jerusalem from the Seljuq Turks" if that is right?
  • is there a link for Genoese?
  • who is Al-Afdal?
12th century edit
  • the initial capital for Crusade/Crusades and Crusader/Crusaders should only be used when it forms part of a proper name, like First Crusade, but not when describing the nature of a series of crusades, like political crusades, or when just referring to crusaders. No doubt you will get other queries about this, it is very important that you have a close look at MOS:CAPS in this regard
Green tickY—phew, all decapped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "political crusades"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the Siege of Edessa link, pipe "loss of Edessa" rather than just Edessa
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Pope Eugenius III link Pope Eugene III
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • state that Bernard of Clairvaux was an abbot and link abbot
Green tickY— also added he was a french Benedictine Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "monk called Rudolf initiated further massacres of Jews" as this is the second lot of them
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "King Louis VII of France"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who were "their traditional allies in Damascus"?
Green tickY— branch of the Seljuks expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Caliph of Baghdad, link List of Abbasid caliphs
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • if Saladin was subservient to As-Salih Ismail al-Malik what was he doing seizing Damascus and most of Syria?
Green tickY— did it while claiming to be his regent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "onafter hearing of the defeat" to avoid the repetition of "on"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Acre, Israel for Acre
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for "by surrounding the strategic city", pipe the link to "surrounding the strategic city" rather just surrounding
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for "his fiancée", link Berengaria of Navarre
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Angevin link Angevin kings of England
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emperor Henry VI→Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 13th century, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13th century edit
  • suggest "In 1200, Pope Innocent III began preaching in favour of what became the Fourth Crusade, his exhortations primarily focussed on France but also on England and Germany." if that is consistent with the intent?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "This crusade was diverted by Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, and by King Philip of Swabia, to further their aggressive territorial objectives."
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Dandolo aimed to expand Venice's power in the eastern Mediterranean, and Philip intended to restore his exiled nephew"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The latter would require the overthrow of Alexios III Angelos, the uncle of Alexios IV."
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Innocent III was appalled"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Excommunication (Catholic Church)
Green tickY— done, edited out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "After the crusaders had taken Constantinople for a first time, the original purpose of the campaign was thwarted by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos." Also, I assume they installed the latter then left? Could this be included?
Green tickY— done, wording didn't quite match events so I have redrafted this and added sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papacy→papacy, there are other examples of this and papal as well
Green tickY— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • decap the "Crusading Orders and Western Aid"
Green tickY— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • it isn't clear whether "seemingly of their own volition" refers to their travel to Egypt or their capture of Jerusalem
Green tickY— rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma after "king of France"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII" for clarity, as there seems to have been a succession of Michael's
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was proclaimed king"→"was proclaimed king of Sicily"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma after "In 1285 Charles died"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jihadi and Jihad should be decapped
Green tickY— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "the crusades continued to be conducted by short-lived armies led by independently minded potentates, rather than with centralised leadership."
  • "to use the logistical advantages fromof proximity"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest dispensing with "Outremer", or properly introduce it when it is first mentioned
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Middle Ages
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Europe edit

Down to In Europe. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Popes'→popes'
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Latin Empire
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islamic World→Islamic world
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calixtus II→Pope Calixtus II, and in general, suggest always prefixing popes with Pope to avoid confusion with kings and nobles
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull→bull
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that it was placed"→"that the Reconquista was placed"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Bernard of Clairvaux
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although, mMany of these deserted"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • decap Fourteenth century
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • compaigning
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Papacypapal territorial conflicts
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further cases included the threatening Milan? also link Milan
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Languedoc
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the confiscation the lands of lords? of?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Norman Housley
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The initial indication the papacy would begin to regard the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans indigenous to the Baltic coastal region as Northern Crusades came in 1147. In that year, Bernard of Clairvaux persuaded Pope Eugenius III...
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The order's strong links"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imperium→imperium
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Livonia
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other orders redated the Knights" redated? and which Knights?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Robert Bartlett (historian)
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to During the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period edit
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a ten-week siege" of what city?
Green tickY— Mahdia done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after their victory"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest piping the link to "Sigismund of Luxemburg" to include all of "Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary and Croatia"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikopol, Bulgaria→Nicopolis
Green tickY— changed to Nicopolis done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Diet of Regensburg (1541) for Ratsibon if that is the right one, otherwise link Diet of Regensburg, same for Diet of Frankfurt
Green tickY— did some digging and this info seems superfluous so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Crusader states. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader state edit
  • Crusader Kingdoms→crusader kingdoms, but really, aren't they a kingdom, a principality and a county? Hardly "kingdoms" Perhaps "crusader states"
Green tickY — done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the kingdom amounting to" which kingdom? Jerusalem?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AlthoughHowever, some historians"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the military force of the Kingdom of Jerusalem"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This indicates conquest was possible but ephemeral because of a lack of the numbers to maintain military domination" is unclear. What conquest was possible? They had already conquered and established the states. Further conquest?
Green tickY— done, rephrased for clarity, what do you think @Peacemaker67:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "adopted delaying tactics"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destruction of the walled cities"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced the Crusaders into their ultimately unsuccessful strategyattempt(s) of destroying Egypt" haven't checked how many attempts were made, so adjust as needed
Green tickY— done, rephrased, again what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Kkingdom's demographic"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crusader States"→"Crusader states"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "little difference into the conditions"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the Muslim poll tax"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The territorial gains followed distinct ethnic and linguistic entitieslines"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for Provençal link Provence at first mention, drop later link
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crown→crown
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Miltary Orders edit

Down to Military orders. More to come.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "developed from the culture ofin the crusader states"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The Hospitallers (Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem)"→"Knights Hospitaller, formally the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem," then drop the link later
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The Poor Knights of Christ (Templars)"→the Templars, formally the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon,"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • across the Outremer→in the Crusader states
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In time, this developed into autonomous power in the region"→"In time, they developed into autonomous powers in the region"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for "continue in existence to the present day" link Sovereign Military Order of Malta
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Art and architecture. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art & architecture edit
  • link Joshua Prawer
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would organise this section into a couple of paras about art and then a couple of paras about architecture, and not mix them up
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provencal→ Provençal for consistency
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast, monumental..."
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adopted an indigenous style"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "created by multiple hands in a workshop attached to the Holy Sepulchre"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icons→icons
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Legacy. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy edit
  • "Europe and the Outremer"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to identify the specific sources"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Outremer"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imperialism→ Western imperialism
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jihad→jihad
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • even if for only →even if only for
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, got there in the end. In general, the above is almost entirely about the prose, MOS concerns or wikification. Great job on this so far. Ping me when you're done and I'll have a final read through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you @Peacemaker67:—I'll work through these and ping you when done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just going through it now, making minor c/es, linking etc as I go.

I have a few additional comments: edit
  • "in fact they lost the city to the Egyptians while the crusaders were besieging Antioch" is really out of place, we are talking about the causes of the crusades, not what happened during them, so I suggest dropping this bit, it is enough at this point to say that their hold on Jerusalem was weak, it could be re-inserted in the appropriate place in the narrative
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • move the link to the List of Byzantine Emperors to first mention
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the main article links, where they are mentioned in the body, link them there and get rid of them from the main templates, they are very busy, and links in the body are much more useful to readers.
Green tickY—done, where in the body I have removed and if not moved to See Also Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent with italicisation of Reconquista
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pope Eugenius III is linked twice, but to different redirects
Green tickY—Pope Eugene III used, duplicate removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • same for Pope Innocent III
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German commercial interests foreshadowed the Knights" I don't understand what you mean here.
Green tickY— rephrased for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem is a redirect for a link previous used
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • title case for History of the crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land and History of the crusades
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all my points have been addressed. Supporting, well done on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC) edit
  • the eastern and western branches of Christendom Unlink Christendom because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased, particularly with Jews and those considered Unlink Jews because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crusades in the Holy Land are traditionally Link Holy Land.
Green tickY— already linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II may be Link Holy Roman Emperor.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first use of "Muslim' is dated to the 17th-century Unlink Muslim because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eighth Crusades led by King Louis IX Add "of France".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frank" and "Latin" were used during Unlink Latin because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the foundation of the Islamic religion by Muhammad Unlink Islamic religion because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • migrated into Iran to seek their fortunes Unlink Iran because current countries should be unlinked.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muslim Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate captured unlink Arabs because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardise we have Mohammad v. Muhammad and Mohammad is overlinked.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • divided between the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq Unlink Sunnis and link the first "Sunni".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard conquered Cyprus in 1191 Unlink current country.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Venice to the Republic of Venice.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • swept west from Mongolia through Unlink the current country.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the crusading orders and western aid. [88] Remove the extra space.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian expansion—Castile and León, Aragon and Portugal Unlink the current country.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • seized from the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Shishman Same as above.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was burned at the stake in 1415 American burned.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • over the city, Thrace, Greece, the extreme north Unlink the current country.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin Empire is overlinked.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ruled Rhodes (1309–1522) and Malta (1530–1798) Unlink the current country.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • states of Genoa and Venice flourished Unlink Venice.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levantines or Franco-Levantines.[B][151] Switch the note and the ref.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel Unlink the current country and the UN.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catholic Church shouldn't be linked due to common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the Protestant viewpoint was they Unlink Protestant because of common term.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • crusades to the Christian campaigns in the Holy Land Unlink Holy Land.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • definition includes attacks on paganism and heresy Unlink paganism and link the first mentioned paganism.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some crusades are overlinked.
  • French Levantins, Italian Levantini, Greek Φραγκολεβαντίνοι, and Turkish Levantenler or Tatlısu Frenk leri. Later European visitors pejoratively used the term "Levantine" for inhabitants of mixed Arab and European descent and for Europeans who adopted local dress and customs Unlink the languages and Arabs.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come edit
  • recover the Holy Land ended in failure Replace "ended in failure" with "failed".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egyptians while the crusaders were besieging Antioch Typo of besieging.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the thinking of 3rd and 4th century theologian Augustine of Hippo You mean "4th-century"?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately this led to the East–West Schism, the name now given to the split You mean "was now given"?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • authority but still faced a number of foreign enemies Replace "a number of" with "several".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was part of wide-ranging anti-Jewish activity --> "This was part of the wide-ranging anti-Jewish activity".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Germany, the Low countries, and Italy led their own military contingents Remove "own" here.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Byzantines provided no assistance to the crusaders' Replace "provided no assistance to" with "did not assist in".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debate ended when news arrived that the Fatimid Egyptians --> "The debate ended when news arrived that the Fatimid Egyptians".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the ambition to gain his own princedom Remove "own" here.
  • Not sure that works—the point is that he wanted to win his own princedom, a domain in which he was ruler Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • crusaders attacked their lond standing Seljuk allies in Damascus You mean "long"?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the File:Temple mount.JPG image "The present day Temple Mount in Jerusalem" --> "The present-day Temple Mount in Jerusalem".

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • focussed on France but also on England Replace the "on" before England with "in".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crusaders then proceded to seize the Christian city You mean "proceeded"?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although he condemed the attack, he was unsuccessful Typo of condemned.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was unable or unwilling to fulfill American fulfill.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his comittments and the original Typo of "committments"?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • killing many of the greek orthodox citizenry You mean citizenries?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • now lacked both the will or the Byzantine logistical support Remove "or" with "of".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the papacy were in conflict Replace "were in conflict" with "conflicted".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that of the Kingdom prior to the disaster Replace "prior to" with "before".
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This action was seemingly of their own You mean seeming?
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another truce was agreed upon for a ten-year period Replace "ten-year" with "ten years". Cheers.
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come 2 edit
  • The Christian powers—León, Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia Maybe pipe the kingdoms or duchies or I don't care of that time instead of current Spanish regions?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were essentially geo-political constructs with no history based Remove the hyphen.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further cases included pressure exerted on the commune of Milan on the grounds that the city tolerated Catharism and in Languedoc the confiscation the lands of feudal lords who failed in its suppression Really long sentence it needs to be split or at least a comma.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • an Ottoman admiral, and the Sultan's north African vassals North African vassals.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godfrey of Bouillon found himself left with only 300 knights and 2,000 infantry Remove the extra space here.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • only Tancred remained with the aim of establishing his own lordship Change "with the aim of establishing" to "intending to establish".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • then came Acre and the capital itself was the smallest of the three numbering between 20,000 and 30,000 You mean numberings?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • holding territory, including Jersualem Typo of Jerusalem.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed --> "However, the muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One example saw the Venetians receiving one third of Tyre --> "One third" needs an hyphen.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon Remove the second "of" here.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the output often provided encouragement to journey on pilgrimage Replace "provided encouragement" with "encouraged".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • either reflected or influenced the taste of artistic patrons You mean art?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Italian city states of Genoa and Venice "City states" needs an hyphen.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the United Nations mandated foundation "Nations mandated" needs an hyphen.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • considering Christianity to be under an Islamic religious Remove the extra space between "be under".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • derives from the 19th century novels of You mean "19th-century"?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin Empire is overlinked.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oof that's anything damn that took ages to finish. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 edit

  • Sup NBF. Just an FYI, but a couple of your bibliographic entries are of works too early to have received ISBNs, so either give them their OCLCs or identify what (later) edition you're using. There's a couple of p/pp errors too. Bloody nice article. Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—thank you @Serial Number 54129:—should have picked up the isbn point in the sources review section (see below) and fixed the p/pp issues. All good at this end, hope all's well with you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • General re page ranges: MoS now recommends the format you have adopted in refs 108 and 112, rather than the shorter form that you have otherwise used. Thus, for example, ref 46 should become 146–153, ref 48 becomes 104–106, and so on. It's a bit of a chore, I know, but...
Green tickY—yes a chore, particularly as some other editor went through and did this. Still all done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 requires dash not hyphen
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56 requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 77: dash not hyphen
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 81: no page ref?
  • did this to get the book in the bibliography at the request of another reviewer. Source is for the entire crusade rather than a particular fact as there is debate on the significance and accuracy of info on this one Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 144: dash not hyphen
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise 145, 146, 147
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jotischky is out of alphabetical sequence in bibliography
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author details missing from "The Crusades: Idea and Reality"
Green tickY—not used, so I have removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why retrieval dates for Chazan, Constable, and Tyerman 2007, but not otherwise?
Green tickY— removed for consistency Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN checks
  • Is Brundage the author of Medieval Italy? WorldCat gives this
Green tickY— not required, so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cantor 1958: I suspect the ISBN relates to the 2016 edition
Green tickY— duplicate sourcing so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constable: Publisher should be "Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection", not "Dumbarton Oaks"
Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hillenbrand: ISBN goes to this - different publisher and year
Green tickY—done, corrected isbn Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housley: WorldCat gives year as 2008
Green tickY—cross checked with publisher, 2006 is correct Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krey: check publisher: (WorldCat [11])
Green tickY— not required, so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: sources appear to be comprehensive and to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend not to record "support" when I've not read the article, only checked the sources, but I can confirm that the sources now meet all the necessary criteria for quality, reliability and formats. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Srnec edit

My comments mainly have to do with structure, because I have not read the whole article.

  • Given the size and scope, I think we could have more headings (and thus a longer table of contents). Generally, I think there should only be one main article link atop a section. I think Main articles: Fourth Crusade, Latin Empire, Frankokratia, Siege of Constantinople (1203), Sack of Constantinople (1204), Battle of Adrianople (1205), Siege of Zara, Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, Siege of Jerusalem (1244), Seventh Crusade, War of Saint Sabas, Eighth Crusade, Ninth Crusade, Sicilian Vespers, Fall of Tripoli (1289), and Siege of Acre (1291) is totally unhelpful.
Green tickY—added extra headings and removed Main articles, some to body, some to see Also Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably have a section on each of the numbered crusades. Yes it's merely conventional and things like Theobald of Navarre's crusade don't fit well, but it facilities readers learning what the numbered crusades were easily in one article. Headings could be broader, e.g., "First Crusade to 1147", "Second Crusade to 1190", etc.
  • The numbering of the crusades is both arbitary and old, from 1820. The article refers to them all by name and links. The numbering is very questionable: 5th & 6th could be considered the same, as could the 8th & 9th, the 4th ended up a fight between christian powers and 2nd & 6th involved very little campaigning at all. Historians tend now to look at it thematically to avoid the assymetry in importance, size and time scale e.g. Settlement to 1118>>establishment to 1187>>recovery to 1216>>decline to 1274>>end and later crusades or Coming>>Response>>Conflict of major actors>>Survival>>Islamic victory as Asbridge structures it. None of this accounts for political, pagan or heresy based crusade and those after the 13th-century Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking of the reader approaching this article because he has heard or read something about the Crusades and wants to know more. Is s/he going to click on a section titled "12th century" (§4.2)? Srnec (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY— point take @Srnec:—how do these look now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the European section, I would break it down into (a) Reconquista, (b) crusades against pagans, i.e., in the North and (c) crusades against heretics and schismatics.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—fixed, page exists but link doesn't work due to capitalisation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of narrative, but an overview article like this seems like the wrong place for this level of depth at times. Maybe others disagree. The 49,000-word article on the Crusades in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, which I don't have access to, would be a good thing to look at, just to see how an academic writing a long encyclopedia article on this topic handles it.
  • I don't have access either, although the article currently strikes a balance between editors who want more narrative and those who want more analysis. Seems to suit Wikipedia practice as well. Unless there is something specific that needs addressing I suggest it does a difficult job pretty well? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't dispute it does a difficult job well. I can only say I find it uninviting. I really think the table of contents in an article almost 100 kB long ought to be more detailed. Srnec (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I can see a way to a compromise that makes this more inviting but at the same time doesn't over emphasise the oudated thinking on numbering—will do this Monday Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—changes made Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few new comments: edit
  • Lusatia is mentioned twice, including the lead. The source, Europe – A History, is not the greatest. Nothing in the article Lusatia links it to the 12th-century crusades and it isn't in Christiansen's Northern Crusades, as you would expect given its geographical position. Is Lusatia being confused with the Liutizi?
  • Isn't this the geographic space that the Liutizi inhabited? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY—Although to avoid confusion I have rephrased to remove and resourced to Jotischky Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were essentially geopolitical constructs with no history based on tribe or ethnicity. This seems weird to say. What does Jotischky say exactly?
They were essentially geopolitical structures, with no basis in tribal or ethnic distinctions between Christian peoples under their rule Norfolkbigfish (talk)
I guess I don't like "geopolitical structure" because I don't understand how any other state in the article is not a geopolitical structure. How about: "With no tribal or ethnic historical basis, they were united and divided several times in the 11th and 12th centuries." That seems to me the gist of what he is saying. They lacked "deep" historical identity as kingdoms, i.e., Navarre gobbled up Castile and Aragon and then was divided between them; Castile and León were united then divided then united again. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—I have taken your comments on board, removed geoplotical and rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed it was Spanish religious and national destiny to defeat Islam. Why should either modern historians or an earlier generation of Spanish scholars be considered experts on Spain's religious and national destiny?
  • Isn't this what historians and scholars do, become experts and give opinions. This is not only in Jotischky but also in Fletcher Reconquest and Crusade in Spain and Linehan History and Historians of Medieval Spain. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think destiny falls within a historian's area of expertise. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—destiny>>inevitable?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Spanish, the Reconquista was a war of domination rather than extinction. As opposed to what war of extinction?
Green tickY— yes, reworded to match Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't clear: why would it be supposed that the war was a war of extinction? No other wars of extinction are mentioned on the page. It seems an odd distinction to make. Also, note that I will never ask you to make small tweaks to the wording. If I think it needs a tweak, I'll just do it. I'll only bring things up when the change required isn't obvious or requires a reference. Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the only war of extinction in the article, not only did the Crusaders routinely exterminate the Muslim urban populations in the major cities of the Outremer (mentioned), Baibers simularly exterminated the Latin population in order to ensure permanent supremacy. It is also notable in the contrast between Spain at the time and Spain at the end of the 15th century when the Muslims were expelled. It is reputably sourced as well Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Reconquista was continued to attract crusaders and crusader privileges until al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) was suppressed in the fourteenth century. But Granada didn't fall until 1492, as the next sentence states. What does this mean? The Bull of the Crusade certainly continued to grant privileges in Spain.
Green tickY—True, reworded to correct Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may yet read the whole article. Srnec (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More: edit
  • Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status, legal rights and legal protection. Should probably be said that dhimmi status wasn't free.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Western chronicles present the First Crusade as a surprising and unexpected event, but historical analysis has demonstrated it was enabled by earlier developments in the 11th century. This seems like a non sequitur. Surely it was pretty surprising and unexpected regardless of whether or not we can talk intelligently about its causes and antecedents?
Green tickY— reordered, I think this removes your concern? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As often in articles that cover this period, it is probably necessary to add a paragraph to the background to explain how we go from Roman to Byzantine. I notice that there is very little on the Byzantine background as it stands. (Unless I haven't yet found it.)
Green tickY—short paragraph added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of {{nbsp}} for centuries is inconsistent.
Green tickY—standardised on hyphen Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the Western Schism had split the papacy seems irrelevant where it is placed.
Green tickY—agreed, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • § "Crusader states" could perhaps use some subdividing.

Srnec (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More edit
  • This movement established an assertive, reformist papacy eager to increase its power and influence over secular Europe. A struggle for power developed between Church and state in medieval Europe from around 1075 and continued through the period of the First Crusade. This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy,[31] was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics. To gather military resources for his conflict with the Emperor, Pope Alexander II developed a system of recruitment via oaths that Pope Gregory VII extended into a network across Europe.
    This came up on the article talk page. The problem here is that the "struggle for power between church and state in medieval Europe" cannot be linked solely to the issue of investiture between pope and emperor because the emperor was not claiming a right to invest bishops in Scotland or Spain or anywhere but the empire. There is a confusion here between the wider Investiture Controversy (Europe-wide) and the narrower one (Empire-wide). Srnec (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

Just checking in here at the one-month mark. We have lots of commentary but no support for promotion at this time. I'm afraid the nomination will be heading for the archive soon, in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I have addressed all outstanding comments, even some that look a bit driveby and one who said they hadn't read the article. Not sure where that leaves this one—unless @CPA-5: and @Peacemaker67: respond. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now at one support and another that looks like it might be support. Also, has Brians support on sourcing. What more does it need? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, in additional passing image and source reviews, we need to see substantial support from multiple people who have demonstrably evaluated the text against the other criteria. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both major reviewers who expended significant effort reviewing are now supporting Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain:, Hi, three major reviews have now resulted with Support, there are no Opposers, and this page is longer than the actual article - do you have further guidance please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A FAC isn't finished before all reviews have been addressed (three supports is just the minimum requirement, there is no maximum). I have an unanswered section below. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if this was inappropriate, and that would be my mistake @Serial Number 54129:—I took your sup as meaning support and didn't want it to be missed if that was the case, amongst a very large number of comments. As it stands Peacemaker67 and CPA-5 both support after in depth feedback. There are no outstanding comments from other reviewers, some of whom admit not fully reading the article. Source review has been undertaken as well, although Brian doesn't normally support on this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Norfolkbigfish: I appreciate your efforts to clarify the page, although general it's bad form to modify anyone else's comments. This has a ways to go and at this rate is unlikely to be promoted. Just having addressed outstanding comments isn't sufficient—as I mentioned above, we need to see substantial support from those who have evaluated the text, sources, and images. We will also need a thorough spot-check of the text against cited sources for any verifiability and plagiarism/copyvio issues (this is normal procedure). --Laser brain (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point @Laser brain:—learn something new everyday. Please be patient with this one, both @Srnec: and @Dudley Miles: seem to be giving this a thorough and active going over. It would be a shame to curtail this mid-flow. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain:—how do we get someone to thorough spot-check of the text against cited sources for any verifiability and plagiarism/copyvio issues? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, I'm continuing to work on the review. You don't have to ping us every two days after not receiving any comments, especially since it took you 3.5 days to get back to me after I posted my original remarks. I'll get back to you with more later in today. Display name 99 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity it is worth noting that this article now has four reviewers who support after giving in depth comments Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "The most commonly known crusades". This sounds to me a bit odd. Maybe "The best known crusades".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term crusade is also applied to other church-sanctioned campaigns." This is far too narrow. The word is often used in non-reigious contexts.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crusaders often pillaged as they travelled, and their leaders generally retained control of captured territory instead of returning it to the Byzantines." This is far too general. Many territories had never belonged to the Byzantines.
Green tickY—agreed Dudley, in fact it was so general I thought the best thing was to edit it out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But all of the eastern Mediterranean lands were ex-Byzantine. Srnec (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the article also covers areas which were never Byzantine, such as Spain. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italian city-states established colonies which endured during the Ottoman period. Where?
Butting in: "which endured sieges, massacres and attacks before eventual conquest during the Ottoman period" might be more accurate! Category:Ottoman–Venetian_Wars, and others. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—thanks both, I have expanded the sebtence to include both location and the conflict and fall to the Ottomans. I hope you think this does the job. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medieval romance, philosophy and literature were galvanised by the wellspring of accounts of crusading heroism, chivalry and piety." Do you mean that medieval romance etc had their origin in crusader stories? It is an obscure way of putting it.
Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terminology - what was the crusader term for Byzantine Christians?
Green tickY—Greeks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the relocation of the political and economic centre of the Islamic world to Iran and Iraq and away from Palestine." Why Palestine? The Umayyad capital was Damascus.
Green tickY— removed from Palestine, even though it is in the source it seems strange Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the normative devotional and penitential practises of the aristocracy" I am not sure what normative means here.
Green tickY—replaced with developing which would seem not to impact the meaning. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eastern Mediterranean saw the disruption..." I find this paragraph confusing. 1. The Seljuks in Iran were in conflict with the Fatimids in Egypt? Where did this conflict take place? 2. "The conquered indigenous Arabs had lived under the Seljuks" Where? Iran is not Arab. 3. "death of the vizier and effective ruler, Nizam al-Mulk" Ruler of where and on whose behalf?
Green tickY—done. 1 Palestine & Syria 2 Near East 3 Seljuk Empire and Malikshah Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through military successes under Emperor Basil II, the Byzantine Empire reached a zenith in 1025." A zenith? Surely it never recovered its losses following the rise of Islam.
Green tickY—true not a zenith, rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. PS I think your ping still may not have worked. You may have to do the ping and signature at the same time, not the ping and then the signature later. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More comments edit
  • "Yet recent scholarship has identified encouragingly positive signs of the overall health of the Empire at the time." I would delete "encouragingly"as POV and vague.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Urban raised the issue of military support again and preached for a crusade." You say "again" but you have not said that he had raised the issue previously. Also, was Urban urging both military aid to Byzantium and a crusade to Jerusalem?
Green tickY—added Council of Piacenza where it was first raised—Urban's motives are debatable, it started with military aid and quickly expanded to something much larger. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Turkish ambush at Civetot left only 3,000 survivors". Out of how many?
Green tickY—on checking a couple of sources the numbers are vague so I have reworded to annilated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Factionalism amongst the Turks after the death of Malik Shah" Who?
Green tickY— Sultan of the Seljuk Empire, was introduced earlier but expanded to make clear here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a delay of nearly two years, the loss of Edessa in 1144 to Imad ad-Din Zengi, governor of Mosul, prompted preaching" This is unclear. Do you mean that the preaching was 2 years after the loss. I would suggest "In 1144, Imad ad-Din Zengi, governor of Mosul, captured Edessa..."
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bernard of Clairvaux spread the message that the loss was the result of sinfulness, and redemption was the reward for crusading" Surely this was nothing new but the message all along?
  • Yes, true—the point is here that Bernard was preaching specifically that the loss of Edessa was God's punishement and therefore further crusading was required for redemption. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simultaneously, the anti-Semitic preaching of a Cistercian monk called Rudolf initiated further massacres of Jews in the Rhineland.[53] This formed part of a general increase in crusading activity" You are saying that massacres of Jews were a part of crusading?
Green tickY—partially yes, the general religious fervor that the crusades formed apart reduced the tolerance for difference—not only for Jews but heretics and orthodox christians too Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the crusaders attacked their long-standing Seljuk allies in Damascus" You have not said previously that they were allies unless I have missed it.
Green tickY—no you didn't miss it but I have rephrased a bit to make it jar and this the first point where Jerusalem/Damascus relations are discussed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historians recognise that morale fell, distrust developed between the settlers and the crusaders" "Historians recognise" is superfluous and you have not previously mentioned settlers.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More comments edit
  • "encouraged King Baldwin III of Jerusalem to plan an invasion" When?
Green tickY— 1160 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1163 Shawar visited Zengi's son and successor Nur ad-Din in Damascus, seeking political and military support. Some historians have considered Nur ad-Din's support a visionary attempt to surround the crusaders, but in practice he prevaricated, only responding when it became clear that the crusaders might gain an unassailable foothold on the Nile." This is too cryptic. Support presumably for restoration, but you should say so. Then you should say that that he prevaricated, not that Nur ad-Din supported restoration - no he didn't. An "unassailable foothold" sounds strange, and how were the crusaders getting the foothold when they had accepted ransom to go away?
Green tickY—this was three years later, reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first Muslim to unite Aleppo and Damascus" This is another example of a quirk I find irritating, that you frequently refer to things as if they have been previously mentioned. So far as I can find, you have not said that Nur ad-Dinn united Aleppo and Damascus.
Green tickY—sentence added for this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Politics in England as well as illness forced Richard's departure" DNB on Richard says that illness delayed not caused Richard's departure.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The insufficient number of crusaders arriving in Venice meant that they were unable to pay the Venetians for the fleet for which they had contracted." Ability to pay depends on money not manpower.
  • Not entirely, crusaders were expected to fund their own passage and that of their entourages. Fewer crusaders meant less funds Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alexios III fled and the crusaders easily took control of Constantinople, but not the wider Byzantine Empire, for the first time." "for the first time" does not make sense here.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifth and sixth crusades shoulld be in separate paragraphs.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The conflict between Holy Roman Empire and the papacy left the responsibility for campaigning to secular leaders." What does this mean - that the military religious orders did not take part in campaigning because they sided with the pope?
Green tickY—secular rather than papal leadership Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nobility rejected the Emperor's son in the succession to the throne which left the Kingdom dependent on Ayyubid division, the crusading orders and western aid." This is unclear. Do you mean that Frederick II offered help if his son was accepted as king of Jerusalem and the offer was rejected?
Green tickY—or rather the kingdom had been de facto part of the Holy Roman Empire, with this the Emperor's support ended. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More comments edit
  • "Charles seized Sicily and Byzantine territory. He used more peaceful means to expand his influence through the marriage of his daughters to the Latin claimants to Byzantium. In addition, he executed one rival and purchased the rights to the city from another to create his own claim to the throne of Jerusalem." When did Charles seize Byzantine territory, which territory and why is it relevant? Why is marriage to claimants to Byzantium relevant? The reference to "the city" appears to refer to Byzantium (which was then generally known as Constantinople) but it appears you mean Jerusalem.
Green tickY—removed this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to cause dissension between the Mongols (particularly between the Golden Horde and the Persian Ilkhanate)" I think "among the Mongols" would be clearer.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this, he supported King Manfred of Sicily's failed resistance to the attack of Charles and the papacy. "In this" does not sound right to me. I would delete as not important.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Venice drove the Genoese from Acre to Tyre where they continued to trade happily with Baibars' Egypt." I would delete "happily" as POV.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Spain had the largest population of Latin Christians subjugated to an Islamic power." "subjugated to an Islamic power" is POV. Maybe "living under Moslem rule"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time of the Second Crusade three kingdoms had developed enough to represent Christian expansion". "developed enough to represent Christian expansion" does not seem right to me. Maybe "had become powerful enough to embark on the conquest of Islamic territory".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of these deserted because of the tolerance the Spanish demonstrated for the defeated Muslims." "Many of the foreigners deserted because they objected to the tolerance the Spanish demonstrated for the defeated Muslims" seems clearer.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the native Christians, the Mozarabs" for clarity I would add "who were regarded as heretics".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pope Innocent III set a different precedent". Different to what?
Green tickY—removed different Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this he encouraged those who defended Christendom against heretics. This is very POV. Maybe "those who suppressed sects considered heretical".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "easier to attack those who provided a home for heresy rather than to identify and eradicate the heresy itself. This is unclear. I suggest "those who tolerated heresy rather than"
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The initial indication the papacy would begin to regard the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans indigenous to the Baltic coastal region as crusades came in 1147." This is not easy to follow. How about " In 1147, the papacy began to describe the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans in the Baltic coastal region as crusades."
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In that year, Bernard of Clairvaux persuaded Pope Eugenius III that the conflict with the Wends was a holy war analogous to the Reconquista. This was recognition of the fact that the Germans were more motivated by wars of territorial conquest than events in the east." This is a non-sequitur. Description of the conflict as a holy war recognised that the Germans were motivated by territorial expansion?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a justification mass conversion was implausible and destruction of the pagans counterproductive" This seems dubious. Mass forced conversion was common, so why was it implausible?
Green tickY—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More comments edit
  • " A year later Pope Boniface IX proclaimed a new crusade against the Turks." Does this crusade have a name and is there an article about it to link to?
Green tickY—it was hidden in the link, more obvious now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Hunyadi, a Hungarian general, and the Franciscan friar Giovanni da Capistrano organised a 1456 crusade to oppose the Ottoman Empire and lift the siege of Belgrade." You should say who won.
Green tickY—rather I have edited this out, struggling for space and this didn't add value Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Of the crusader princes, only Tancred remained intending to establish his own lordship." I suggest " Of the crusader princes, only Tancred remained and he intended to establish his own lordship."
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jerusalem remained economically sterile despite the advantages of being the centre of administration of church and state and benefiting from streams of pilgrims." "Sterile" must be an exaggeration in view of the advantages you state. Maybe "weak".
Green tickY—went for underdeveloped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern research based on historical geography techniques indicates that the spatial distribution of Muslims and indigenous Christians was more sharply delineated than previously thought." This sounds like meaningless jargon. I would just say that they lived in separate areas.
Green tickY—changed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The territorial gains followed distinct ethnic and linguistic lines." This is also unclear.
Green tickY—reworded for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2019 (
  • "Largely based in the ports of Acre and Tyre, Italian, Provençal and Spanish communes provided a significant characteristic of crusader social stratification and political organisation." More unclear jargon.
Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, the communes competed with the crown and each other to maintain economic advantage." "Jerusalem" would be clearer than "the crown".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This strategic change forced the crusaders away from the objective of gaining and holding territory, including Jerusalem, to the ultimately unsuccessful aim of first gaining the necessary time to improve the kingdom's demographic weakness through the destruction of Egypt." Presumably this was because Egypt was the only Moslem power strong enough to threaten the crusaders, but this should be spelled out.
Green tickY—more to stop the constant attrition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Latin Greece" This section heading is confusing. Maybe "Byzantine empire".
Green tickY—changed to Latin rulee Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although they did not practice what they preached" You do not say what they preached.
Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The behaviour of the crusaders in the eastern Mediterranean area appalled the Greeks and Muslims. It created a lasting barrier between the Latin world and both the Islamic and Orthodox religions. It became an obstacle to the reunification of the Christian church and fostered a perception of Westerners as defeated aggressors.[84] Alternatively, many historians argue that the interaction between the western Christian and Islamic cultures played a significant, ultimately positive, part in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance." Why alternatively? Both could be true.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article but sometimes difficult to follow due to unclear language. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments edit
  • Looking at this article again confirms my impression that it is reads strangely due to the use of lower case for Crusade - which I think I read is a result of criticism by another reviewer. Capitalisation is useful to help the reader distinguish between a specific use of a word or phrase - in this case Crusades sanctioned by the Pope - from a generic use as, for instance, 'crusade against poverty'. A sentence such as "The term crusade used in modern historiography at first referred to the wars in the Holy Land beginning in 1095." only makes sense as referring to one specific use distinguished by capitalisation.
  • yes @Dudley Miles: other reviewers have objected to captilisation, and it seems a constant debate across the subject. I am loath to change it, as I know some other reviewer will then object to the revised style. I really don't know what to do with it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed as I do not have relevant sources, but I am doubtful of the claim that the Crusades increased intolerance. Most of my reading is on the earlier medieval period and I have never come across examples of tolerance of unorthodoxy and Judaism.
  • Across the Levant, Sicily, Languedoc and Iberia there was greater tolreance prior to the Crusades. Crusades prompted the inquisition and the systematic suppression by the Catholic Church of "others" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is stated too broadly if it only applies to specific areas. Also it is in the lead and I do not see where it is covered in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—fair point @Dudley Miles:, I have removed from the Lead, it is not supported in the body and would probably amount to an entire article on its own if discussed! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The centre of power moved to Baghdad and Mesopotamia the Islamic state gradually fragmentated." This is ungrammatical and unclear.
Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In the two decades following their arrival in the they conquered Iran" Ungrammatical.
Green tickY—removed the the Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the other princes, only Tancred remained, with the ambition to gain his own princedom." I queried this before and it still reads oddly.
Green tickY—reworded, how does it look now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bohemond seized Christian cities in Cilicia, refused to return Antioch and in 1008 organised a Crusade" 1108?
Green tickY—yes, fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third decade" Of the twelfth century?
Green tickY—yes, fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most parishes remained Christian throughout the Middle Ages" Most parishes of where until when?
Green tickY—throughout the region until 16th century Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the crusader princes, only Tancred remained intending to establish his own lordship." Repetition and badly worded.
Green tickY—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Christians lived more disparately than previously thought" "disparately" does not make sense here.
Green tickY—less integrated? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Central areas appear to be Muslim from the point of the destruction of the Samarian communities in the 6th century." This does not make sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Filelakeshoe edit

I just went through and copyedited the article again, there were still a few small things that needed fixing. I also added some hatnotes to individual crusades to the top of sections which I feel are appropriate - some of the crusades were not even linked in prose at all.

I don't think I will express an opinion on whether the article should be promoted; I feel like I would need access to the sources for that. Some parts are quite sparsely cited, and look at first glance like they might contain OR (e.g. the first paragraph of the section "Decline and fall of the Crusader States", sentences like "What the crusader states needed were large standing armies" - is that still Asbridge talking?) But regardless, it was a very good read.

I also wonder if the lead really needs to be five large paragraphs long. Could some detail maybe be removed or compressed? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you @Filelakeshoe:, the large standing armies was indeed from Ashbridge. I will leave reducing the lead to see if it is mentioned by other reviewers as well, some of those to date have requested greater detail added to it! If you care to point out where you think further sourcing is required I think it will be fairly easy to source from Ashbridge, Prawar and Jotischky. There isn't really anything contentious in the article that isn't agreed by the historians working in the area. It is an overview article afterall. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—Reduced the Lead @Filelakeshoe:, what do you think now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Norfolkbigfish: Looks a lot better now, I made a couple more small edits to it. I am not sure if this sentence is entirely clear:

Urban aimed to guarantee pilgrim access to the eastern Mediterranean holy sites under Muslim control. Scholars disagree over whether this was his primary motive, or the motive for those who responded.

If "Urban aimed to guarantee..." then surely this was the pope's motive, even if it wasn't his "primary motive". "Or the motive for (of?) those who responded" - are "those who responded" the Crusaders? Did they not share this motive, even if the Pope might have had other plans as well? I also can't find anything explicitly about this "disagreement" in the text (assuming it should be in the "first Crusade" section) - I might advise just removing the sentence altogether. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Display name 99 edit

Hello. I did a full review for one of the previous nominations and intend to do the same here. Here are some initial comments. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit
  • The lead is much too long in my opinion. MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends no more than four paragraphs. This has five, and two of them are quite long. I recommend that the size of the lead section be shortened. Mainly, the last three paragraphs have a lot of information that could be abbreviated. Do we really need to be talking about a war that took place in the early 18th century? I think not. That's very well past the end of the Crusading time period. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also feel that proper weight is not given in the lead to the different events which took place. You have several sentences on the First Crusade and almost a full paragraph on the post-1291 Crusading movement, but almost nothing about the numerous and important crusades in between. I think that you should cut down significantly on the last three paragraphs and add about a few sentences summarizing the Crusades after 1099 and before 1291, noting mainly the loss of Jerusalem and the various largely unsuccessful campaigns aimed at retaking it while holding on to a strip of territory on the coast. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's technically incorrect to say that the last Catholic outposts fell in 1291. The Templars and a number of other groups held on to some small fortresses in the Outremer for a few years after 1291. Rather, you should say that 1291 was when the Crusaders lost their last city. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology edit
  • Frederick II did not lead the Fifth Crusade. He never even went. In addition, I do not understand how the Fifth and Sixth crusades can be considered one campaign when there was a seven year gap between the end of one and the beginning of the other. Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thinking is that fighting started, there was a seven year truce before a negotiated settlement. Will reword Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you say who the terms "Franks" and "Latins" were used by? Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background edit
  • The article seems to imply that the fragmentation of the Islamic world began shortly after the coup of 750. In reality, the Abbasid Caliphate ruled over a mostly-united Muslim world until over a century and a half until the rise of the Fatimids in Egypt and, over a century later, the Seljuks. Shouldn't you mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More. edit
  • Under Background, shouldn't you mention something about the Peace and Truce of God movements, and how these were connected the Crusades by trying to limit violence amongst Christians and instead turn to fighting enemies of the faith? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was the thinking, but they are now largely considered to have ended before the Crusades started, will try and hook something out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First Crusade edit
  • In the list of places which supplied Crusaders, I think you should mention the Languedoc, which was not formally part of France at that time. The nobles there considered themselves independent and indeed were at times more powerful than the French king. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the over-confident sultan"-Shouldn't you mention his name? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should mention the fact that Alexios, who was on his way to rescue the garrison at Antioch, turned around and did not do so. This formed an important part of the justification for holding onto the city rather than returning it to him. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no explanation of how Godfrey came to be leader of the Crusaders. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph, Al-Afdal should be linked. There's some information in the fourth paragraph that is repeated in the last, the fact that Damascus and Aleppo had competing rulers being an example. I think you may want to consider getting rid of the last paragraph altogether and sprinkling the content elsewhere. The information in the last paragraph is relevant to the narrative and should be interspersed throughout in order to help the reader understand what is happening, rather than thrown in on the end. For example, doesn't it make more sense to talk about Al-Afdal's original view of the Crusaders BEFORE they entered Fatimid territory, when he tried to negotiate with them (which wouldn't hurt to mention, BTW) than it does after they had already taken Jerusalem and defeated him at Ascalon, by which point their aim was much clearer? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—doneAl-Afdal linked, duplication edited out of fourth paragraph in order to reduce the clutter in the narrative. The last paragraph serves two purposes. 1) a summary of the the sitaution in the Muslim world after the Crusade & an explanation of how the Crusade was successful Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend using "Crusaders" instead of Franks in the last sentence. Franks is technically incorrect because the word officially refers only to people from present-day Germany. If I am not mistaken, the only people who called the Crusaders Franks were the Muslims. Crusaders is a more neutral term. We don't call Muslims Saracens in the article, do we? Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now.

Here's a little more:

Islamic recovery of Edessa and the Second Crusade edit
  • Seeing as you mention the founding of the Knights Templar here, shouldn't you also mention the establishment of the Knights Hospitaller in 1099? Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't fit the narrative here, being c1099, but it is covered in the Military Orders section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you could say more about what was happening in the Levant before the Second Crusade. You can talk about tensions between Edessa and Antioch, the rise of Zengi, the alliances with Damascus, or all of the above. I just think that there isn't enough about what has happening during the interregnum between the First and Second crusades. Due to length concerns, you will have to take something out in order to make room for it. I advise removing the William of Tyre sentence. There isn't much in that sentence which isn't obvious from everywhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rise of Saladin and the Third Crusade edit
  • I'm away from home now and don't have access to my sources, but I think that Shawar did not become vizier for the first time until 1162, so any conflict between Egypt and the K of J before that would have been without him at the head. I think that you will need to revise the first sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you say something briefly about Saladin's role in the expedition against Egypt, or the fact that he is said to have personally beheaded Shawar? Again, I'd also look for things to cut. You probably don't need to say that Saladin succeeded Shirkuh after hardly two months. The remainder of this section looks good. Display name 99 (talk)
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople edit
  • The narrative of what took place during the Fourth Crusade is muddled and not well-organized. I think that you should re-arrange the first two paragraphs so that they flow chronologically. The attack on Zara was made I think more because the Venetians would forgive the Crusaders' debts (which you don't mention) than because of supplies, although that may have played a role. Innocent's role is also not discussed clearly enough. He opposed the Crusade by excommunicating it, but his role was ambivalent because he lifted the excommunication before threatening to employ it again. Please be as specific as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section doesn't mention that a Latin empire in Constantinople was established. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—sentence added. This is covered in more depth in the Latin Greece section but it hardly amounted to an Empire by most measures. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued...

  • Going back to the section on the Second Crusade, I see that you failed to mention Zengi's death before the Second Crusade or anything about Nur al-Din. I think you should fix that. You should also link to some things in that section, like the destruction of Edessa or Siege of Damascus. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—links added and death mentioned Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should replace Christendom with Catholicism at the end of the Fourth Crusade section. The Byzantines were also Christians. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—went for papacy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades edit
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you say something about who Saladin's Ayyubid successors were and how they ruled prior to and during the Fifth Crusade? A sentence or do would do. It's important not just to talk about Crusader leaders but to describe how Muslim rulers governed as well. For instance, I think you should mention that there was a period of peace in the Outremer between the Third and Fifth Crusades, in which Saladin's brother al-Adil, seeking to stabilize his kingdom and build up his depleted treasury, sought good relations with the Outremer States. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickYGreen tickYGreen tickY marvellous :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and fall of the Crusader States edit
  • In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I think you should add "and others." There were certainly other important Muslim leaders where able to weaken the Catholic possessions in the Outremer. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pagans in the North edit
  • The Teutonic Knights were "founded after the Siege of Acre..." Which Siege of Acre? The article on the Teutonic Knights says that they were established in c. 1190, which would be in the middle of the Siege of Acre during the Third Crusade. But the city was besieged other times as well. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—Siege of Acre (1189–1191)—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Late medieval and early modern Crusades edit
  • I would say something about the failed attempts to organize a crusade after the Fall of Constantinople as well as Leo X's designs for a crusade which never worked out. Display name 99 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check the sources and see what I can come up with. Not sure the agnostic Leo with his political and financial constraints is really going to add much though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—added note on sumbolism after the fall of Constantinople Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY{—thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Art and architecture edit
  • "Castles were a tangible symbol of the dominance of a Christian minority over a largely hostile majority population." There were many places in the Outremer with large numbers of Christians, especially after Europeans began to permanently settle there. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—tweaked a little, but this is direct from the source. While urban centres were majority Christian under Crusader control (because the Christians prevented the indigenous population entering) the majority population of the region was not Latin Christian. This led to the requirement of fortification against a largely hostile native population and is the point here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy edit
  • I feel like this section is unduly slanted towards Muslim views of the Crusades, especially from the mid to late 20th century. There are almost two full paragraphs discussing critical views of the Crusades. The opposing view-that the Crusades were justified-is mentioned as a brief aside in only one sentence, and even then it is identified solely as coming from "Right-wing circles in the Western world." You single out three people, all Muslim or Arab, and all living at the same time as each other, and do not take note of the views of any specific Eastern Christians or Europeans. It is your task to represent as many significant viewpoints as you can, held by as many different types of people as you can find, over a broad period of time. This section doesn't do that. You should expand a little bit, even if in just a sentence or two, about the perception that the Crusades were a justified defensive response to Islamic aggression. Also, maybe note some perceived benefits. I'm aware that there is a view that the Crusades likely preserved the existence of the Byzantine Empire for an additional couple of centuries at least. If you can find a source, I think that should be mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't find anything on extending the survival of Byzantium, sources seem to go the other way e.g. fatally weakening. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only real argument for a defensive war seems to come from Thomas F. Madden and he seems such an outlier that it would be wrong to give weight to his argument Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—Alternative view, sourced to Madden added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also content you can cut down on. There are too many dates related to Nasser in parenthesis. Just keep the dates for his presidency of Egypt and forget the UAR, which aside from only three years only consisted of Egypt anyway. "French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the mandate the United Nations gave for the foundation of the state of Israel" can be cut down to "mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the establishment of Israel." You can also look for others. The content on art in this section seems like it might be a little bit long, especially because we just had an entire section devoted to it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—edited Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ideas of jihad and a long struggle have developed some currency." This seems a little vague. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some general notes after looking things over: edit
  • The article highlights several Crusader massacres and atrocities but none by the Muslims, although they did happen. The Seljuks were known to treat Christians in the Levant very poorly in the late 11th century; this was one of the immediate causes of the First Crusade. I suggest going back and adding that. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—add a bit on the aftermath of Mansurah & it is already included in the decline and fall section. The 11th century cause seems to be Urban's propaganda. If you have any examples of note you feel should be added let me know Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—added sentences in Conflict in Egypt section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Display name 99 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, here is my response to your comments: edit

If it were true that Madden was the only modern historian of any prominence who held the Crusades to be a defensive war, I might be forced to agree with you that any mention of them being considered as such should be excluded. But it is not. Here is an article by historian Paul F. Crawford arguing that the Crusades were a defensive war. Here is a link to an article about a conference between four Crusades historians. Three of the four historians agreed that the Crusades were a defensive war or at least had a defensive element. Laurence Marvin was the only one who dissented, and his primary focus has been on the Albigensian Crusade rather than the ones in the east. The article also, by the way, mentions persecution in the Levant by the Seljuks. For more on that subject, see Madden 2006 p. 5, who writes that the Seljuks "destroyed some churches, murdered clergy, and seized pilgrims."

The article still has nothing about the perceptions of the Crusades by the West or East prior to the late 20th century. For the West, you should discuss the late Medieval and Renaissance view of the Crusades followed by the Enlightenment pushback. You should also mention that some consider the Crusades to have been a defensive war, as it is clear that this opinion holds sway with more than just one notable historian. We've identified five total. All of this can be done in about two sentences. It wouldn't hurt to include the famous Runciman quote about the Crusades either. I'd also like to know whether the first sentence in Historiography should be moved into Legacy. That seems like a more appropriate section to discuss historians giving their opinions on the Crusades.

For the Muslim and Arab worlds, I don't understand how you chose the three people to mention. Osama bin Laden has referred to Americans as Crusaders. ISIS and other jihadists groups use the same rhetoric. I see no reason why Nasser, Qutb, and some other obscure figure should be mentioned and these examples, all more recognizable to the contemporary reader, excluded. I think that explanations of the Islamic views of the Crusades from the 20th century until now can be summarized in one or two sentences without mentioning any specific names. Display name 99 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Crawford article says “verdict [that it was an offensive war] seems unanimous”, suggesting that his own view is fringe. His article is replete with strawman arguments (myths numbers 2, 3 and 4 are grossly exaggerated). It is also full of nonsense. The suggestion that leaders make decisions with 300-year historical views. And the claim that “the crusades actually represent the first great western Christian counterattack” – perhaps he is unfamiliar with Nikephoros II Phokas or Pelagius of Asturias, among many others.
The Holt blog is non-RS. Note that one of the scholars stated “I’d like to emphasize that the below remarks are made informally, rather than as a definitive scholarly argument hewing closely to the source material and secondary literature. I present them in the spirit of free-flowing discussion, which is what the roundtable was, and is supposed to be.”
The right way to source and weight this debate is using Tyerman’s “The Debate on the Crusades, 1099-2010”.
Finally, your last sentence, that modern Islamic views of the crusades should take up just one sentence in an article about an article where the Islamic world is half the story, cannot be right. Mainstream Islamic scholarly views should have their fair share of representation throughout (we already have a number of sources in the bibliography which summarize these perspectives).
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Crawford's statement about the "verdict" on the Crusades is in reference to popular, not academic, perceptions. This is made clear by his reference to "presidential speeches" and "role-playing games" immediately after. It doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not. Choosing not to have his opinion represented simply because you find it misguided would be a failure to comply with WP:NPOV. Specialists in a field often come up with different arguments, and our task is to represent all of those that have garnered mainstream attention, no matter what we think of their merits. This is a fundamental tenant that all Wikipedia editors should know.
Even an informal discussion among scholars helps demonstrate where scholarly opinion leans. I'm not saying that we have to use that particular blog as a source. However, the blog makes it clear that Madden and Crawford are not alone and that the perception of the Crusades as a defensive war has appreciable support in the modern scholarly community.
I said that the sentences on Islamic views should take up possibly about "one or two" sentences. It may not seem like a lot, but it's about as much given to Christian views of the Crusades. I wouldn't mind a third sentence either. The section that we do have devoted to Western views of the Crusades isn't entirely impartial. Take this sentence: "Crusader symbols and anti-Islamic rhetoric are presented as an appropriate response, even if only for propaganda purposes." There is no mention of anti-Western or anti-Christian rhetoric among Muslims, and the part about it being "only for propaganda purposes" comes across as both vague and dismissive. Display name 99 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll pick up the Tyerman book and use that to attempt to resolve this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have managed to get it and found the relevant part. It’s right at the end of the book, at the end of the final chapter (pages 239-241). Tyerman juxtaposes the two sides of the various attempts to extrapolate the Crusades in today’s politics:
(1) He first critiques Amin Maalouf: ”The commentary on the First Crusade focuses on Arab humiliation and the sense of violation by the barbaric western invaders encapsulated in the experience of Palestinian refugees ‘determined never to return until the occupiers had departed for ever and ... resolved to awaken the consciences of their brothers in all the lands of Islam’. The modern parallel needs no pointing. Nor does the argument that the jihadist revival of the twelfth century came not from the political elites but from ‘a ground swell’ beginning in the streets and mosques... Either way the modern west appeared an enemy, with the crusades the obvious precursor, the legitimate resistance of Saladin or Baibars against one seeming to validate supposed vengeance against the other. Maalouf concluded that ‘there can be no doubt that the schism between these two worlds dates from the Crusades, deeply felt by the Arabs, even today, as an act of rape’“
(2) He then comments on the matter we are debating above: “Yet the refashioning of the crusades into a modern jihadist banner of hate is not without western parallels. Any visit to the world wide web can reveal apparently serious western historians arguing over the intrinsic violence of Islam and consequently that the crusades were a necessary defensive measure against Turco-Islamic barbarism, a debate joined enthusiastically by a motley coalition of right-wing secularists, conservative libertarians, biblical fundamentalists, evangelists and Christian bigots.”
(3) He hits this point home in his epilogue: “In 2006 I published a long book covering the crusades as a whole. It appeared on both sides of the Atlantic. The reaction revealed patterns of engagement and partisanship to rival the most extreme earlier examples of distortion. In general terms, academic commentators and writers in print tended to assess the work –positively and negatively –on its own terms of intellectual and historical merit. Elsewhere, mainly but not exclusively in North America (and not excluding some professional scholars), and especially on the internet, the work was more frequently judged according to what readers perceived as its stance in the great contest of cultures. It was simultaneously praised for depicting Islam as a threatening creed that justified violent opposition to it and condemned for minimising the Islamic threat in the middle ages and, by no leap of imagination, today. Either way, the litmus test was the crudest form of the already crude ‘clash of civilisation’ theory, itself a heated-up version of Cold War propaganda. The debate formed a cocktail of debased Enlightenment positivism, ignorant cultural supremacism and historical illiteracy. The past was imagined as providing a parallel commentary and guide to the present and therefore, in a sense, not past at all. Past and present were being collapsed into each other, the consequent rubble providing the material for convenient tendentious polemic in ways similar to certain strands in contemporary Muslim historiography. Such obsessive First World judgementalism depends on an absence of historic perspective constituting a severe form of cultural solipsism. Given its potential to cause actual present harm, this inspires profound unease. If nothing else, this book has sought to demonstrate that history, the critical study of the evidence that remains from the past, is not fixed. Ultimately, its truth lies in the eye of the beholder. The vision can be shared and agreed widely, it must be directed by evidence, but it is neither absolute nor unchanging. History cannot, therefore, be used as a given certainty, universal fact, immutable interpretation or timeless moral lesson. As the great F. W. Maitland wrote: ‘if history is to do its liberating work, it must be as true to fact as it can possibly make itself; and true to fact it will not be if it begins to think what lessons it can teach’.”
I suggest we heed his warning and take great care with this area of the subject. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, do you intend to address any of the concerns that I have raised above? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC) @Display name 99:—I've got hold of the Tyerman source and working my way through it to beef up the historiography section. Will pick up the legacy at the same time Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, thank you for adding the content on Madden and defensive war. I would have preferred however that you said "Some historians", "Some historians such as Thomas F. Madden," or something to that effect instead of what we have now. This is because the current way that the article is phrased implies that Madden is the only person of any note to make the argument for the Crusades as a defensive war, which is untrue and if it were true would mean that the view should not be represented. I'm moving closer to support but would still like you to briefly address the Enlightenment view of the Crusades and slightly revise your discussion of the Muslim view of them. Display name 99 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—Madden amendment done, Enlightenment view on its way but @Display name 99: can you give a little clarity on what you are looking for on the Muslim view? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—Enlightenment view para added to historiography section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, thank you for making the Madden revision. The addition of Enlightenment views to Historiography seems a little bit confusing. Check the first sentence. What was condemned as hostile and ignorant, the Crusades or the Enlightenment view of them? If we're talking about the Enlightenment, stick to that and get into the 19th century somewhere else. Concerning the Muslim view of the Crusades, I already stated what I thought should be revised, but I'll repeat it. The selection of the three people singled out-Nasser, Qutb, and Ashour-seems arbitrary and limited. It's arbitrary because numerous other people and groups, including bin Laden and ISIS, who are more well-known to contemporary audiences than the three people we have now, have also referred to Westerners in their own time as Crusaders, and there is no reason to make specific note of Nasser, Qutb, and some other even more obscure guy while leaving out these more recognizable examples. Not only that, but all three of these people lived at more or less the exact same time and place. They're all 20th century Egyptians. The goal is supposed to be to provide as complete a picture as possible of the Muslim or Arab views of the Crusades, and that cannot be done by singling out three people who lived in the exact same country at more or less the exact same time. You could just talk about how Muslims have viewed Zionism and Western imperialism as crusading movements without mentioning any specific names. That may be the best thing to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—thanks. I've taken your advice and edited out the three Egyptians. Also rewritten the first para of the Enlightement in the Historiography and section it. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-It's a little bit long now at 107 kB, and I hope that future edits will result in the article being trimmed down a bit, but going a little bit over 100 kB I suppose is excusable for an article dealing with such a broad and complex topic. Future improvements are always possible but I believe that the article now meets FA criteria and I see no reason to delay promotion any longer. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Onceinawhile edit

Excellent article, and hugely impressive efforts to get it to this point. My comments are going to be content focused (1 b and c), since others have focused on the other criteria.

  • I don’t understand the delineation between the “background” and “causes” sections. I think it would read better if they were merged and ordered chronologically. For example, in a paragraph about the end of the 11th century the article says “The territory around Jerusalem had been under Arab Muslim control for more than four centuries”, which is confusing given the Seljuks took over in the middle of the century. In the next paragraph it says “The Seljuk hold on the holy city was weak”, but the Seljuks have not been introduced previously - that comes three paragraphs later. There are other examples of this, hence streamlining would help.
Green tickY—This came from previous feedback, the separation of the what the situation was and why what followed happened. I have made a stab at making this clearer. What do you think @Onceinawhile: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More on this point: the description of Turkic migration (currently describing only the Seljuks) should be broadened in the background and the "Arab Muslim control" sentence should be amended. The Turkic migration had changed the picture in the Middle East before the arrival Seljuks - Jerusalem had previously been controlled by both two Arabized Turkic tribes, the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids. Introducing the topic of Turkic migration and the wide variation in Turkic dynasties early on will make it easier for readers to digest the numerous different types of Turkic (and later Mongol) peoples mentioned throughout the article.
Green tickY— added more Turkish context Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The background is missing the common juxtaposition of the relative stages of economic / cultural development of the two sides, East and West, prior to the Crusades. The legacy section at the end of the article explains that “interaction between the western Christian and Islamic cultures played a significant, ultimately positive, part in the development of European civilisation and the Renaissance”, but a reader will struggle to understand why without prior explanation of the scholarly and artistic heritages of Western Europe / Byzantine Empire / Islamic empires etc which preceded all this. The background provided in Transmission of the Greek Classics is a good start.
Green tickY—does this do it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The causes section mentions the East-West Schism without explaining its impact directly (since the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, all Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox church)
  • Is this right? Sources, and article, have the Patriachs as equal, with only Jersusalem and Alexandria disadvantaged by being in Muslim territory. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn’t explain it well. The point is that before 1054 church-wide matters would normally be dealt with in a united manner. After the final split, they were in partial competition. So the First Crusade played out differently than the prior Christian-Islamic holy wars, which were always led by the geographically-closest Christian leader. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got you. When I have sources to hand I should be able to address this one. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mamluks are not introduced. There is just one sentence: “Between 1265 and 1271, the Mamluk sultan Baibars drove the Franks to a few small coastal outposts.” What is missing is that it was the Crusader Battle of Fariskur which created the Mamluks (Turanshah was killed by his Mamluk soldiers a month after the battle and his stepmother Shajar al-Durr became Sultana of Egypt with the Mamluk Aybak as Atabeg. Although the Ayyubids relocated to Damascus, where they continued to control the rump of their empire including Jerusalem for a further ten years, the Mamluks were to take over the whole region and hold on to it for 300 years.)
Green tickY—Mamluk's introduced and expanded on Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to the Mongols mentions them only as a threat, but is missing context around the attempted Franco-Mongol alliance (only obliquely mentioned re Baibars), particularly the pseudo-alliance in the Ninth Crusade
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences “In 1244 a band of Khwarazmian mercenaries travelling to Egypt to serve As-Salih Ismail, Emir of Damascus captured Jerusalem en route. This action was apparently of their own volition and neither planned or directed by the Emir.” Numerous scholars say the opposite - that they were “invited” to retake the city from a breakaway Ayyubid faction. It should also explain who the Khwarazmians were - i.e. mercanaries with time on their hands following the destruction of Khwarazmia by the Mongols.
Green tickY—done, revised and expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The demography section gives the Latin population without context – how large was the rest of the population? The colonization section says “The new territories were based on shared language...” and talks about various French/Venetian customs, but does not explicitly say what the primary language of the states were (both for the ruling classes and for the masses, which was different in many of the cities).
  • Struggling with a source for this. I seem to remember reading 1.5 million inhabitants but can't remember where. Jotischky and the article says the indigenous Christian/Muslim split was 50/50 but not the absolute numbers. Have you any ideas? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done, followed Kingdom_of_Jerusalem#Population back to source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Historiography section does not come close to a thorough overview here. It should start with the major contemporary chroniclers of the Crusades, on both the European and Middle Eastern sides, on which all our histories are based. Then move on to early modern content that is there, before setting out the headline positions of the most significant modern scholars (Runciman etc). The Islamic perspectives section should not finish in the 19th century. Much of this is already in the Historiography of the Crusades, but we need a better summary. I would strongly suggest Tyerman, Christopher (2011). The Debate on the Crusades, 1099-2010. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7320-5. as a main source for this section.
  • I'll get hold of the Tyerman book early next week. Thanks for the heads up, hopefully thst does the trick. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can’t precisely put my finger on it, but the article feels overweighted towards the Crusaders. A good comparator article is the Norman conquest of England - both are about invaders coming from outside, but this article is focused more on the invaders themselves whereas the Norman conquest of England article is focused more on the place being invaded. It comes across in the relative weightings of description of the various protagonists and their armies and institutions, the legacy of the Crusades in Western Europe vs the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East. I realize this comment is vaguer than the others, but it is arguably the most important one to get right given WP:WORLDVIEW.
  • Possibly, perhaps even probably, I see your point. The proper weight of the crusaders oponents has been raised before and improved on (although maybe not enough). I'll take this into account as I work through your other points and return to it when done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Onceinawhile:—can you have another look over this point, I think it is better now than it was? Thinking on this the challenge is that this is very different to Norman conquest of England in terms of scale and duration. It is also very assymetrical in terms of philosophy and impact. For the Muslim world it was largely a military conflict that they won. In Western Europe there was, and is, the development of an entire paradigm and a varied historiography. I think the main characters are all there: Zengi, Nur al-Din, Saladin and Baibers as well as some lower order players? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Given the vast scope of this article, and the long nomination history, I think it wouldn't hurt from more reviews (despite the many supports it now received), since it is an extremely important article. I also think we should let it hang on the FAC page for as long as possible, for the same reasons. I'll review soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some unnecessary duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[12]
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any photos of surviving weaponry that could be shown?
  • I certainly don't have any, the sources used don't touch on this and we are strubbling for space—probably warrants an article of its own Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this note, I don't see much discussion of the weaponry and equipment used in these wars, and whatever military tedchnology developments there were during this long period. Not a requirement, but maybe something that could be looked into.
Green tickY—as above Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Land and other terms linked in the intro should also be linked at first mention in the article body. You also link Arab at second instead of first mention.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names, places, and other terms could be linked at first mention in the image captions.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and not all who fought had taken the cross" The meaning of this phrase may not be clear to all readers, anything to link or other way to explain?
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was derived from a name used by the later Greeks and Romans" What is meant by "later"?
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Saracen" was a common term for an Arab Muslim." You should specify among who.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Franks" and "Latins" were used by" Were terms used by (to make it clear).
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1911 map showing the political situation on the eve of the First Crusade in 1097. Map by William Robert Shepherd." Looks a bit jarring that the date the map was made comes first, when it could logically come by the end where the author of it is mentioned. For example: "Map showing the political situation on the eve of the First Crusade in 1097. 1911 map by William Robert Shepherd."
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "founded the great city of Constantinople" Great city is a bit hyperbolic.
Green tickY—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Mohammad", when Muhammad seems to be the more common English spelling?
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "captured... and Iberia" This makes it seem like all of Iberia was captured, could say "most of", since the northern part remained unconquered.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Sicily and other such regions would be significant enough to list among the above. Malta is also significant, since this is the only European country with an offshoot of Arabic as its main language, a direct result of these conquests.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "and the Islamic state's centre of power moved to Baghdad" You could mention where it moved from.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "Baghdad. [14]" Unnecessary space.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "Examples include the Tulanid dynasty in Egypt and Syria (868–905) and the Ikhshidids" These could be linked.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Sunni-Shia rift intensified over the decades" Id add "Sunni-Shia Muslim rift" just so all readers follow. Also, I might call it "Sunni-Shia Muslim rift over caliphal succession" or some such for context.
Green tickY—not sure what you meant here but have rephrased. At this point it was much wider than caliphal succession. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In the two decades following their arrival in they conquered" Seems either "in" should be remove,d or a word is missing.
Green tickY—removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followers were from the Sunni Islamic tradition" Sunni should be linked earlier, at first mention.
Green tickY—linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the Abbasids and Fatamids" Fatimids is the standard spelling, which you also mainly use, but you say Fatamids twice..
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but for Western chroniclers it seems to have been a surprising and unexpected event." It is unclear what you mean by "Western chroniclers". Contemporary Western chroniclers?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Iraqi general Kerbogha" In what way was he Iraqi? I'm not sure it's appropriate to use modern nationalities retroactively like this: a Turkish person from Mesopotamia would hardly have been referred to as Iraqi back then, if anyone was at all.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several mentions of Crusaders massacring Muslims and Christians alike when conquering areas. Any explanation for why they massacred Christian inhabitants?
This one is still unanswered? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "title Defender of the Holy Sepulchre." Holy Sepulchre could be linked.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and attempted to block the return from his captivity, after the battle, of Count Baldwin—later king of Jerusalem." This is a rather clunky and confusing sentence. How about "and attempted to block the return of Count Baldwin (later king of Jerusalem) from his captivity after the battle"?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "organised a Crusade against the Byzantine Empire. The Crusade ended in failure" Does this crusade have a name or an article? Or is it not really counted because it failed before it began?
Green tickY—linked it to Siege of Dyrrhachium (1107–1108). Crusade naming and numbering is completely arbitary with numerous campaigns without. I suspect it is anonymous because the crusaders lost Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the anti-Semitic element of the crusade preaching of a Cistercian monk" Hard to understand this sentence. Is "element of the crusade" Needed?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good, and the article looks pretty close overall. I'll review the rest soon (I was waiting for the above issues to be solved before continuing). FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC) edit
  • "threat to the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Mongols" Since you frame it religiously, how about stating the religion of the Mongols?
Green tickY—added a bit on the religious jumble of the Mongols around paganism & Nestorianism Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The result was he left the kingdom of Jerusalem in peace between 1194 and 1217 prompting a revival of the kingdom." This seems unclear. Previously it is stated Jerusalem had come under Muslim control, so how exactly was the kingdom (which I assume is the crusader state) continued?
Green tickY—added remainder—the kingdom of Jersualem often existed witout control of the city Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attention given to the conflict between Holy Roman Empire" The Holy Roman Empire?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A combined Egyptian Khwarazmian then defeated" Missing word, army?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then defeated an army of Christians and Syrians" Christian and Syrian are not mutually exclusive terms. What is meant, Muslims or Christian Syrians?
Green tickY—Damascene Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "templars, 26 out of 351 Hospitallers and 3 out 0f 400 Teutonic knights" The latter two have not been linked until this point, where they are first mentioned.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thirteenth-century politics in the eastern Mediterranean was complex" Were?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeking an Franco-Mongol alliance." A?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the 2008 exhibition at the Ritterhaus Bubikon, Switzerland ("The Crusades – A Search for Clues: The Orders of Chivalry in Switzerland"." Is this elaborate source info really needed/relevant in an image caption?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Duke Phillip of Burgundy's promotion of a crusade that never materialised at the Feast of the Pheasant" You should give year here, as it's important for the context.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the Samarian communities were destroyed" Who are the Samarians meant here?
Green tickY—done, linked to Samaritans Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These communities are now thought to be of nearly equal size, perhaps even in a 50:50 proportion" Why present tense?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My way of context" By?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eqypt 1.5m and Nprth Arica" Typos.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He estimates by 1200" That by, otherwise it sounds like he did the estimate in 1200...
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " while the crusaders home countries" Crusader's?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12.5 million in 1000—Anatolia 8m, Syria 2m, Eqypt 1.5m and Nprth Arica 1m— with the European areas that provided crusaders having a population of 23.7 million. He estimates by 1200 that these figures had risen to 35.6 million in Islamic territory—Anatolia 7 million, Syria 2.7m, Egypt 2.5m and North Africa 1.5 million— while the crusaders home countries population was 35.6 million" It seems very inconsistent and abritrry when you abreviate million or not within this passage. Spell it out every time or only the first time.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12th-century Knights Hospitaller castle of Krak des Chevaliers" Perhaps name the country it is in.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For him the crusades are a purely medieval phenomenon that can only be understood in the terms that the crusaders were engaged in acts of love and charity in a purely defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists." This quote seems strangely specific compared to the much more generalsied nature of the rest of the text, especially considering the somewhat bizarre opinion of the writer. Seems like WP:undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would agree, however it is used to resolve a query raised by another reviewer. I concede that it is a view that was represented and is held though Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—I have edited this back Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more interesting issue which the legacy section ignores is the consequences for the relationship between Western and Eastern Christianity, and the distrust the sack of Constantinople created, which continues to this day. Not to mention that the weakening of the Byzantine Empire by the west made the Muslim conquest of Anatolia and other areas much easier. This is much more important than the fact that some modern right wingers use Crusader symbolism and other rather trivial related issues. So if it's a matter of space, I'd certainly cut stuff like that out, as well as the lengthy Madden paragraph, to give more space to this much more historically important issue, as its absence seems like an oversight.
  • The behaviour of the crusaders in the eastern Mediterranean area appalled the Greeks and Muslims. It created a lasting barrier between the Latin world and both the Islamic and Orthodox religions. It became an obstacle to the reunification of the Christian church and fostered a perception of Westerners as defeated aggressors. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Butting in - "the Muslim conquest of Anatolia" had mostly already happened well before the 1st Crusade, which is why the crusaders kept running into large Muslim armies whenever they tried to cross Anatolia! Most of the interior fell after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. There also wasn't much left of other parts of the BE by 1099, which is why they were initially keen on the Crusades. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how important it actually was to the Muslim conquest of all Anatolia (I don't think there is doubt it had a role, and Eastern Christians certainly make the connection), the sack of Constantinople itself is still a source of animosity between the churches today, leading the pope to apologise for it as recently as 2001.[13][14] So my point is still, this is a more long-lasting consequence of the crusades than that some fringe right-wingers use crusader terminology today. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In academic circles the phrase “Holy War” was the main descriptor, but the more neutral terms kreuzzug from German and the French croisade became established. English followed in the 18th century with a hybrid from Spanish, French and Latin—crusade" Wasn't/shouldn't this ground be covered under terminology?
  • It is located here because it is more about the historiography rather than the current terminolgy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the titles "Contemporary Debate" and "Muslim Opinion" capitalised?
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under legacy and Muslim opinion, you don't mention that modern Islamist militants refer to Western military powers invading the Middle East as "Crusaders" (one example out of many:[15]). But I wouldn't suggest adding this if it wasn't for the fact that the article goes into some detail about modern right wingers using crusader terminology. I think either one should be toned down due to undue weight issues, or both should be mentioned.
  • There are still a good deal of duplinks.
Green tickY—well 10, but I think I have found them all now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it only became the leading descriptive term in English around the year 1760." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info, but is simply a summary of the article body.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Urban's strategy may have been to establish himself as head of the unified Church, uniting the eastern and western branches that had been divided by the East–West Schism" Only stated in intro.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the Moors twice in the intro, but not once in the article body.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Second Crusade achieved little beyond the capture of Lisbon from the Moors by the English" The article body doesn't state their nationality, only "a mixed bag".
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sixth regained Jerusalem by negotiation for a period of fifteen years." I can't find this stated clearly in the article body.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the focus of western European interest moved to the New World." Only stated in intro.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Teutonic Order created a crusader state in Prussia in the early 13th century" Only stated clearly in the intro.
Green tickY—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good so far, there are still a few unanswered points above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Borsoka OpposeComments by Borsoka edit

I think this is an excellent article, summarizing most important aspects of the crusades. My principal concern is that the article fails to mention the crusaders' privileges (absolution of their sins, protection of their property, ...). Many crusaders was willing to wage war in faraway territories primarily because they received absolution from the popes and they knew that their European domains were under the protection of the Church. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY—this is been resolved by our friend @Lingzhi2: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10
13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Indulgences are mentioned 7 times, linked and explained: The plenary indulgence was defined as forgiveness of the sins confessed to a priest for those who fought in, or even provided funding for crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another missing point: the political crusades against the popes' enemies are not mentioned in the article, although most works dedicated this subject write of them.Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are covered very briefly under §5.2 Campaigns against heretics and schismatics. I agree there needs to be more. Srnec (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—more added, space permitting Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not mentioned at all. There were a number of crusades against Holy Roman Emperors, the kings of Aragon and Sicily and other Italian powers in the 13th and 14th century. I did not find references to them. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Aragonese Crusade is mentioned. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see, it is mentioned under an other title (quite strangely together with Saint Louis's crusades). Nevertheless, there were dozens of crusades against Catholic powers during the two centuries. I think they should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—moved to a political crusade section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so strange really as the Crusade was in support of Louis's brother Charles. Space means it is impossible to list every Crusade, many of which failed to amount to anything and many more just merged into the politics of Western Europe of the time. That said the fact you have raised this point would seem to indicate that the article is light in emphasis in this area. How about, when I have access to sources, I add some wider context to §5.2 Campaigns against heretics and schismatics? It remains impossible to incorporate more detail on every crusade—perhaps another article is warranted, something like Chronology of the Crusades or List of the Crusades? Your criticism would also apply to the Infobox as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is really strange: my wife and my brother's wife could hardly be mentioned as my brother's wifes. Furthermore, Louis IX's two military campaigns were classical crusades, aimed at the protection of the Holy Land, but the Aragonese Crusade was a political crusade, with no connection with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. ' The argument made by the Pope at the time was that the Aragonese crusade was required to enable the Angevins to raise a crusade to Jerusalem—so there is a connection.' Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC) The political crusades were not campaigns against heretics or schismatics, so they could hardly be mentioned under that title. Sorry, I do not understand your remark about the impossibility of the incorporation more detail on every crusade. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—I really don't understand what you mean by this but I have added a section on political crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding the article. Yes, it is quite obvious that you do not understand what I am trying to suggest. I make a new effort.
  • Yes, the article contains the term "indulgences" several times. For instance, it is first mentioned in the lead in the context of the First Crusade - but the main text of the article does not refer to it under the title "First crusade and aftermath". I think we should mention that Pope Urban II promised the remission of the crusaders' all sins at the Council of Clermont, because this was the main (actually the sole) reward promised by the Pope to those who departed for the lengthy armed pilgrimage.
Green tickY— handled by Lingzhi2 (see above) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, now there is a section dedicated to the political crusades, but we do not know what was the difference between a classical crusade and a political crusade. Furthermore, the section ends with the Aragon Crusades, although there were dozens of political crusades in support of the Popes in Central Italy in the 14th century. I emphasize that I have never suggested that each crusade should be mentioned or described, but the article should provide a full picture.
  • I compared some sentences from section "3 Causes" with the reliable source referred to in the next citation, because they contradicted all my previous knowledge about the subject. I realized that they are actually not verified.
  • 'This is untrue'—see article talk, all your failed verifications were in fact verified Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Your claim is untrue. (1) When I wrote this sentence none of the claims were verified. (2) One of the claims remained unverified, but it was deleted. (3) Yes, now the second claim seems to be verified by a work specialized at the history of whole Europe. I will comment this issue on the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For instance, the Investiture Controversy is interpreted in a quite unusual way in the article. ("This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics.")
Green tickY—supported by sources Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This is untrue'—it remained unverified and it was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec:@Borsoka: Can we just delete the bit about the Investiture Controversy? It was very important, and it was related to the papacy, and it was directly related to German civil war, but to the crusades..... was the link a bit tenuous? I'm gonna be bold and make it so. Howls of protest may be registered here at a later time. ♦ 

Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best approach, I think. Borsoka (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—Lingzhi2 has now done this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, the section contains sentences about the Investiture Controversy and about Pope Leo IX's intent on abolishing symony and clerical marriage (although these are only tangentially connected to the crusades), but the section does not write of Pope Leo IX's most relevant innovation in the contex of the article: he was the first Pope to promise absolution of sins to his soldiers fighting against the Normans.
    • The section also mentions that the idea of holy war emerged in Christian Europe in the 11th century without referring to the fact that the possibility of a holy war was sharply criticized by many Catholic theologians in the period.
    • It is likewise unusual, that the article suggests that Pope Gregory VII's lust for power caused the Great Schism of 1054. Especially because Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. (And the allegedly cited source does not verify this claim.)
  • Where does the article say this? Srnec (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not say it. It suggests it: "Gregory's doctrine of papal primacy led to conflict with eastern Christians whose traditional view was that the pope was only one of the five patriarchs of the church alongside the Patriarchates of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. In 1054 Leo IX sent a legation to the Patriarch of Constantinople demanded that his supremacy be recognised. The Patriarch responded with an alternative manifesto so the legation excommunicated him. A Synod of the Greek church in turn excommuinicated the legation while condemning the Latin church as heretics in creed and practice. This created an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism." Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Borsoka, I re-arranged the bit about Gregory, papal primacy, and the schism. Is it better now? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, because it suggests that the doctrine of papal primacy was the principal reason of the Great Schism. If you read the cited source (Jotischky) it does not verify a similar claim ([16]). Consequently, the sentence contains OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source suggests it, at least as I read it. I am away from my computer at the moment. I can change more things later tonight. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: You put a "failed verification" tag on "...but all these controversies became far less tractable because of an essentially political issue – the more fundamental question of papal supremacy." It is cited to Jotischky, p=29 where we have the same assertion: "The problem was that debates between Roman and Orthodox representatives rarely took place in a context that was free of political overtones, and all such debates seemed to founder on the more fundamental question of authority in the Church." Same meaning, different words. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also read section "2 Background" and I was again surprised.
    • For instance, we can read the following two sentences: "Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes attempted to confront the Seljuks to suppress sporadic raiding; this led to the 1071 defeat of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. Once considered a pivotal event by historians, Manzikert is now regarded as only one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia." However, we know that this "one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia" was followed by further steps and the Seljuks conquered almost all Byzantine territories in Anatolia within a decade. Actually, the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the massacre of masses of Christians during the war was (or at least was claimed to be) the principal reason of the declaration of the First Crusade.
  • Accept that is 'not what current academic thinking believes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you refer to reliable sources which say that Pope Urban II did not speak of the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the massacre of the local Christians? Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can read further interesting sentences: "During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon." As far as I can remember all books dedicated to the crusades mention the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre by Al-Hakim in 1009 among the events leading to the First Crusade. Similarly, most specialized works write of the Seljuk invasions of Syria and Palestina during the last decades of the 11th century. Interestingly, the Armenians, Jacobites and Maronites initially received the first crusaders with joy and supported them. (Actually, this fact is ignored in section 4.1 First Crusade and aftermath", but the massacre of local Christians during the siege of Jerusalem is mentioned.)
  • "As far as I can remember all books"—I don't know what you are reading but the destruction of the Sepulchre 90 years before the crusades is generally only referred to in giving an idea of Christian/Muslim relations, not as a event leading to crsusade. Decades later, I am sure you are aware, the Muslims allowed its rebuilding Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above quote from the article describes Christian-Muslim relations, suggesting that those were peaceful. On the other hand, for instance, Andrew Jotischky mentions the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the persecution of the local Christians (page 147). Borsoka (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Background section the Muslims' holy war, the jihad, is not mentioned. This term appears for the first time in section 4.2. Islamic recovery of Edessa and the Second Crusade where we can learn of Zengi's attempt to "restore" jihad. (By the way, why should we write of "Islamic recovery of Edessa"? Edessa was ruled by Christian Armenians when Baldwin of Boulogne captured it in 1098.)

Sorry, but after carefully reading the two sections, I think the article should be reviewed by experts of the crusades. It is not an FA. Borsoka (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, do you have any experts in mind? Any experts on Wikipedia? Are you an expert? Thanks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not an expert. As far as I know there is a Crusades-task-force within WikiProject Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And do you know of any experts within that task force? Perhaps not. May I suggest a working compromise? You seem to have a keen interest in this topic. Please bear in mind meta:Eventualism.A topic this size is never really finished; it is always an ongoing project. So for today, work with the nominator to address the concerns you have raised. Let your Oppose become an agreement to work with the nominator even after this FAC is complete. It could be a fruitful partnership.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above issues show that the article fails to summarize basic information about the topic. An article dedicated to the crusades which does not emphasize the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the conquest of Anatolia by the Seljuqs, or which fails to describe the development of the Christian idea of crusades could hardly be a FAC. As I demonstrated above, the article contains unverified content. As far as I can remember, articles containing unverified claims are rarely regarded GAs. We are discussing a FAC. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) What I am suggesting is that this topic is so large and has such multifarious, multifaceted subtopics that the work must remain ongoing... Rather than looking at what is there now, penalizing its deficiencies, and declaring the day's work done, decide instead to fix whatever deficiencies seem most urgent and pressing – what a final exam for a college freshman ""Introduction to the Crusades" absolutely must include, for example – and form an ongoing collaboration with Norfolkbigfish to make ongoing improvements. Is that an unreasonable goal? It seems reasonable to me, but then again, I am as I said an extremely firm believer in meta:Eventualism. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really suggest that we should approve this FAC because it is a large article or because we are to cooperate? I reviewed two small sections of this large article and I found several problems. These are not minor problems, because basic information is not or not properly mentioned in the article and it also contains OR. I must say it can hardly be regarded as a GA. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you think that further copyediting or minor edits may be necessary, but the article as a whole meets FA criteria. Let me explain through examples what are my concerns (my examples are from section 2 Background). Please remember that the article is dedicated the "holy" wars that Christians waged against Muslims and their fellow Christians, not the history of Europe or the Mediterranean.
  • @Borsoka:— You admit that you are not an expert and you admit that you haven't read the entire article}}. Four other reviewers have supported after reading the article completely. Are you suggessting that you know better than they do? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that this is an answer to my concerns? Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section mentions that "The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, founded the city of Constantinople in 324." Actually, the foundation of Constantinople is not relevant in the context of the article. What would be relevant that Constantine the Great was the first ruler to be claimed to fight under the sign of the Cross. The section also fails to mention that the idea of warring had initially been alien to Christian ideology and the transformation of the Roman Empire into a Christian states required the transformation of Christian theology.
  • The foundation of Constantinople is fundamental to the Crusades. It enabled the campaigns and without it is unlikely they would have happened. What else Constantine did in the 4th-century was of secondary importance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR? Would you please explain this interesting idea? Should we also mention the fall of the Hunnic Empire and the Avars and the Christianization of Hungary? Do you say that the first "holy war" in the history of Christianity and its theological background are not important. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not original research because it is not in the article. I was attempting to explain in simple terms to help you understand. Constantinople was a major geo-political feature of politics in the Levant prior, during and after. Other reviewers requested more background on the region to help understanding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If my understanding is correct, we now agree that the foundation of Constantinople is not fundamental to the Crusades. Than we do not need to mention it. Why do you think that an event happening hundreds of years before the crusades helps anyobody to understand the region? There is no information about the foundation of Jerusalem or Venice in the article either. Maps usually helps us to understand a region. Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section contains the following sentence: "Following the foundation of the Islamic religion by Muhammad in the 7th century, and continuing through the 8th century, Muslim Arabs under the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates captured Syria, Egypt, and North Africa from the Roman Empire, Sicily and Malta from the Byzantine Empire, Iran from the Sasanian Empire and the majority of Iberia from the Visigothic Kingdom." However, there is no reference to the jihad.
  • I think you are struggling with maintaining a NPOV, the conquests are there as background but academic opinion is they had largely died out by the time of the Crusades. What would refering to Jihad add? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am not struggling. As I mentioned above, the jihad appears suddenly in the article as a reaction to the crusades. Have you read of the Almoravids and their fight against the Spanish kingdoms in the second half of the 11th century? Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section mentions that the Fatimids "were a Shi'ite faction named after Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad." Is this relevant in the context of the article?
  • If you had read the article you would know. It was Isalamic factionalism that enabled much of the crusading success Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you make a connection between Islamic factionalism and the name of Muhammad's daughter? As far as I know it was not her name gave rise to factionalism, but the question who should lead the Islam community: a properly elected man or a descendant of the Prophet. This piece of information is not mentioned in the article. (I do not say that we should mention it, but if we fail to mention the principal reason of the rift within the Islamic community, we should not write of the Prophet's daughter. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section/article fails to explain the development of crusader ideology/theology. I emphasize that we should not provide a full picture, but if we are discussing an article about religious wars, we should mention the development of this idea in 3-4 sentences. Especially, because the article still contains irrelevant details.
  • This article does cover the development of crusader ideology in depth, throughout. What you consider irrelevent details other reviewers have requested adding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned two other problematic parts above (the Seljuq conquest of Anatolia and the allegedly undisturbed life of local Christians under Muslim rule).
This is only one single section.
Please also remember that I already demonstrated that the article contains unverified or misinterpreted sentences. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borsoka: please withdraw the statement the article contains unverified or misinterpreted sentences. As has been shown in Talk:Crusades this is demonstrably untrue. I would be happy to work with you on any errors and ommissions in the article as our friend @Lingzhi2: suggests, as I have done with other reviewers, but this would require you to list them again in a methodical manner. This article is a struggle with WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV and I think some of your comments reflect this. I think this article is now in the best state it has ever been and four other reviewers consider this at FA stand. Please reconsider your opposition. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that when I wrote this sentence, the article contained at least two unverified sentences. One of them was deleted. The other is now verified by a work dedicated to the general history of Europe. I will comment this issue on the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish:, I continued to review the article and I found the following interesting text about "the migrating Turks, in particular the Seljuks and their followers, who had colonised the sparsely populated areas of Anatolia". Could you quote Asbridge's text to verify this sentence? I did not find it on the allegedly cited page. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY—the Ashbridge citation covered the majority of the paragraph. Rephrased the sentence in question and sourced to Findley Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If my understanding is correct no source wrote of the colonization of sparsely populated areas. Are you sure that the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia can be described as an immigration? Asbridge writes of "military pressure" (page 27), Malcolm Barber writes of Turks invading Anatolia and occupying "all but three small areas" (page 9), and Jotischky refers to Muslim armies reaching "the Bosporus" (page 42) after the Battle of Manzikert. I started to review the article only a couple of hours ago. I have just reached the section dedicated to the First Crusade, but I have already found 3 unverified sentences in the text of the article. Yes, I know that the first of them was deleted, the second one was verified (by a non-specialized work) and the third one was modified. However, the second sentence contains a claim which is not verified by specialized works and the third one still contradicts most specialized modern works (many of them cited in the article). I think FA review is not the proper venue for securing the compliance of the article with WP:NOR and WP:Due, because these are basic policies. Do you still think, this is a FA? I suggest you should withdraw the nomination and seek assistance from experts. Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Borsoka:—I do think this is a FA. Is it perfect, no; does it cover a wide ranging subject and reflect current academic thinking, yes it does. Not only that so do four other reviewers. These reviewers have gone through the article line by line and given notes that I have actioned. I must admit I find your comments difficult to understand. They seem sweeping, not NPOV and at risk of contravening WP:WORLDVIEW. There is no need to withdraw this FAC, although the co-ordinators may have a different opinion due to the length of the review. @Lingzhi2: did suggest to you that you work with me to get this over the line on the basis of meta:Eventualism. To do this you would need to follow the example of other reviewers and reade the entire article and provide notes line by line. I will work with you, but you must reciprocate. But remember 4 reviewers approve, there are other watchers who are knowledgable commenting but it is only you who opposes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as you know, I am not an expert of the crusades. Yes, it is only me who oppose, but I am convinced that an FA review is not the proper venue for achieving the compliance of the article with basic WP policies. I do not want to be rude, but your remarks above and your edit summaries suggests me that you should read some more literature on the crusades, because even an amateur like me can find unverified sentences without much difficulty. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to help. I think this arguing is counterproductive and more than a little confusing, however. ...Borsoka's argument is, "I have found a sample of three errors without difficulty. By logical extension, the article must be riddled with more errors." You have to balance that argument against the fact that we are only talking about three errors out of an estimated 78 kB (12539 words) "readable prose size". Instead of arguing, read the whole article top to bottom (or bottom to top, as I often do) and find all errors. List not only the errors but why they are wrong (i.e., the correct answer, as you see it). You should also mention whether this is a major or minor point, whether it can safely be deleted, or easily rephrased, etc. That is the straightforward way to critique. It would also provide very valuable input into the process. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Actually, I have so far found at least five errors. These were not only "errors", but evidence of original research. We are not only talking of five errors out of an estimated 78kB (12539), but we are talking of five errors in two or three sections. Both conversations on the article's talk page and on my talk page, and edits ([17]) suggest me that the nominator is unwilling to modify or delete unverified sentences. I still think that the article should have been comprehensively reviewed before its FA nomination, because it contains too many errors, but let's have a try. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology edit
  • define the term "crusade" (The first sentence of the article - "The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period." - defines the term, but this statement is not verified in the main text.)
  • The range of events to which the term has been applied has been greatly extended, so its use can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early crusades. Extended to what?
  • not all armed pilgrims fought and not all who fought had taken religious vows Close paraphrasing?
  • It was not until the late 12th and early 13th centuries that a more specific "language of crusading" emerged. OR? The cited source does not write of the development of a specific crusading vocabulary, but about the fusion "the language and practice" of armed and unarmed pilgrimages. Actually, it writes that both armed and unarmed pilgrimages (that is, both crusaders and traditinal pilgrims) were confusingly mentioned as peregrini.
  • The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s. The term used in modern Arabic, ḥamalāt ṣalībiyya حملات صليبية‎, lit. "campaigns of the cross", is a loan translation of the term "crusade" as used in western historiography. Why was this terminology adopted? The practise of "taking the cross" is first mentioned in section Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades, without any previous explanation, although this was the principal element of the crusaders' oath and that is why we call them crusaders.
  • The crusades in the Holy Land are traditionally counted as nine distinct campaigns, numbered from the First Crusade of 1095–99 to the Ninth Crusade of 1271–72. This convention was used in 1820 by historian Charles Mills in his History of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land. It is often retained for convenience even though it is a somewhat arbitrary system OR?
  • "Saracen" was a common Greek and Roman term for an Arab Muslim. Why is this relevant in the context of the article? I know that the Muslims were mentioned as Saracens in the age of the crusades, but the sentence does not say this, because it covers Antiquity.
  • [The term Saracen] "was derived from a name used for the nomadic peoples of the Syro-Arabian desert who raided the Syrian region of the Roman Empire." Delete. It is not relevant.
  • change the order of the sentences (The term Saracen comes out of nowhere, especially because we have not been informed that the crusaders primarily fought against Muslim Arabs. I suggest that the last paragraph should be introduced by the terms "Franks" and "Latins", because the previous paragraphs were dedicated to the crusaders themselves.)
Background edit
  • The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, founded the city of Constantinople in 324. Delete. The article is too long.
  • In this city the Roman Empire continued until 1453, while the Empire in the west collapsed at the end of the 4th century. Rephrase. No scholar says that the Roman Empire continued in Constantiople, because the empire survived in its eastern territories. We should not close the sentence with the fall of the Western Roman Empire because it is not directly connected to the crusades. I suggest: "In the west, the Empire collapsed at the end of the 5th century, but it continued in the east until 1453."
  • The city and the Eastern Roman Empire are more generally known as Byzantium, the name of the older Greek colony it replaced. Delete "The city and" - the article (hopefully) never refers to Constantinople as Byzantium. I suggest: "The Eastern Roman Empire is more generally known as Byzantium after the ancient Greek name of its capital, Constantinople."
  • I am missing an introduction to the development of the Christian ideology of holy wars/just wars (2 or 3 sentences). I suggest to use the following books:
    • Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Routledge. ISBN 9-78-0-415-39312-6. (pages 298-299)
    • Richard, Jean (2001) [1996]. The Crusades, C. 1071-c. 1291. Cambridge medieval textbooks. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780521625661. (pages 1-3).
I second the suggestion of Lock. I was thinking the other day when we were discussion the political crusades that it has a very good structure for working on an article like this. Srnec (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention "jihad (or holy war)" in connection with the Muslim expansion. The text of the article about Muslim expansion is verified by a section titled "Islam and Holy War" from Tyerman's book. Asbridge also dedicates pages to the idea of jihad in his book about the Crusades, cited in the article.

...More to be come...

  • Muslim Iberia (modern Portugal and Spain) Change to "Muslim Iberia (large parts of modern Portugal and Spain)".
  • If we have to define Iberia, maybe we shouldn't be using the word? Historians are comfortable with "Spain". Srnec (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because modern Portuguese would not be confortable. :) Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recovery of territory by the Byzantine Empire reached its furthest extent in 1025, through the military successes of Emperor Basil II. Its frontiers stretched as far east as Iran. It controlled Bulgaria as well as much of southern Italy and piracy had been suppressed in the Mediterranean Sea. From this point, the arrival of new enemies on all frontiers placed intolerable strains on the resources of the state. In Italy they were confronted by the Normans; to the north, the Pechenegs, the Serbs and the Cumans, as well as the Seljuks to the east. Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes attempted to confront the Seljuks to suppress sporadic raiding; this led to the 1071 defeat of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. OR?
  • Mention the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia. The Seljuk conquest was the principal cause of or the only pretext for the declaration of the First Crusade. The conquest is mentioned in the sources cited in the article [Asbridge (2012), page 27., Tyermann (2006), page 11., Jotischky (2004), pages 42, 44].
  • This situation was probably the cause of instability in the Byzantine hierarchy rather than the result. Delete. The article is too long and the sentence is a PoV. (I emphasize I do not debate its reliability, but it is irrelevant in the context of the article.)
  • Yet positive signs of the overall health of the Empire at this time have been identified by recent scholarship. Delete. The article is too long and the sentence does not say anything: "positive signs" (what?) "overall health" (what?) "recent scholarship" (who). We can enjoy the article without understanding the meaning of this PoV sentence.
  • By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone. OR?
  • However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries. During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon. OR?
  • Mention the sporadic persecution of pilgrimes and local Christians.

Lingzhi edit

Ah, my heart goes out to you. What a huge FAC! Looks like an ordeal... I remember I did some copy editing way, way back in 2016. Ah.

  • Muslim opinion section doesn't tell the Muslim opinion. it just kinda lists when some such were written.. Do we have an article on the Muslim opinion of the Crusades? If not, then crap, to me it looks like the article might fail due to WP:WIAFA 1b. I mean, shouldn't we give some good space to the Muslim view, since they were the ones being attacked and all? Right here is your chance to persuade me that I should not !vote Fail based on this omission alone. I am very sorry....
  • Contemporary debate section doesn't seem to include any Contemporary debates. it just lists.. some...

categorization? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the good wishes @Lingzhi2:, I remember your ce. Actually, although long this FAC has gone better than previous FACs, thanks to the efforts of some very positive proactive reviewers. I wonder if the issue here is the headings rather than the content, both Contemporary debate and Muslim opinion are sub-sections within Historiography. As such they weren't intended to reflect debate and opinion but rather historiography. We do have an article for this, Historiography of the Crusades, although it is only C-Class. As far as WP:WIAFA actual contemporary debate is covered across the entire article at a number of points. Modern muslim opinion is also picked up in the Legacy section, although an editor asked me to edit it back due to undue weight. My question is whether this is a lack of comprehensiveness or misnamed sections? If it is the former the challenge is space but I could add a para on modern debate and one on Muslim opinion, if it is the latter I will rename. This seems close (4 supports to date) so rather than opposing please feedback you opinion and I will action. It would be a shame to have to start a FAC like this from scratch Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that sounds right. You might want to re-word those two headers tho. they are a bit confusing, to me at least, as they stand. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—renamed Muslim opinion to Muslim historiography and Contemporary debate to Contemporary historiography. Does that work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod edit

I'm loathe to add many points to this page - the quality of comments seems to be deteriorating down the page, not that I have read all. But:

  • we're not linking Lisbon?
  • "In the 15th century the pivotal events in Christian–Islamic relations were marked by two events: " - stop at "were"?
  • "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the crusaders" - "views" better?
  • "By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone.[23] However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries." - Hmm - importantly for the 1st Crusade, Antioch was only taken in 1084, and in the Balkans expansionary efforts continued for centuries. Never mind Central Asia, Russia etc.
  • "There were several key doctrinal divisions between east and west" - were there? Really only Filioque was "doctrinal", and it is hard to call that "key".
  • I did this. The source refers to theological disputes plural, but names only unleavened bread and filioque as main ones. [filouque = "one of the main points at issue"; It also says these were matters of custom rather than fundamental doctrinal differences, but the politics made the issue worse... It goes on to make the point I quoted above.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " This was a turning point in an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism" - hmm, not so much a turning-point as the culmination of several centuries of increasing detachment on both sides. And I expect both sides would have been astonished to find it still unrepaired 930 years later.
  • ENGVAR - "centre" but "This account has fallen out of favor".
  • "a thirst for adventure and a general liking for warfare" - some of your sources must say that the acquiring of fame as a warrior was an extremely powerful motive for all kinds of medieval elite foolishness, just as in ancient and later times.
  • "Finally, one motivating factor may have been spiritual – a desire to gain penance through warfare" - seems grudging, and not well-expressed; most historians think spiritual benefit was key for many crusader leaders, and grace better expresses what they were after rather than "penance". I find myself querying lots of points cited to Jotischky.
  • "the Norman community of southern Italy" seems an odd way to refer to this tiny piratical band.
  • Nicaea - no link
  • "the Muslim city of Antioch" - it had only been Muslim-ruled for a few years, and the civilian population was still very largely Christian
  • "raised by the general Kerbogha" - he was effectively independent as ruler of Mosul.
  • "The original ideas that Jerusalem would become an ecclesiastical domain and the claims of Raymond were discounted in the face of the contingent of troops from Lorraine" - "idea". The end is unclear.
  • "forced Bohemond to acknowledge Alexius feudal as his lord"
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

Okay, we've left this open two-and-a-half months, way more than we generally do, because it was a big article that needed lot of commentary, and not so long ago it looked like we were on track for consensus for promotion. That's not the case now, issues being raised by new reviewers and the prospect of the nom dragging on still longer. I hope that the Borsoka, Johnbod and Lingzhi with continue to work with the nominator on the outstanding points via article talk, after which you could ping previous reviewers for another look, and renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 October 2019 [18].

Userkaf edit

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Userkaf, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th Century BC. This article failed FAC last February owing to my being unexpectedly absent from wikipedia at the time. I have now addressed all remarks received by the article in its first FAC round. I hope it can pass FA this time. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Seal_Userkaf.png: what is the author's date of death?
Petrie died in 1942, 77 years ago. Should I write this somewhere? Iry-Hor (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Userkaf_Kythera.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Userkaf_fragment_Berlin_ÄM_19774.jpg
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Userkaf_SolarTemple_and_ValleyTemple_Abusir.svg: what's the source of the data presented in this diagram? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the scale, orientation and style of the image, I suspect it's based on Miroslav Verner's The Pyramids: The mystery, culture, and science of Egypt's great monuments (2001), p. 267 (or more likely the 1998 German version of the work). The labels and room layouts are probably based Mark Lehner's The Complete Pyramids, p. 150 (or, again, more likely Geheimnis der Pyramiden 1999). Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done A ref to Verner and Zemina was already in the caption to show the origin of the map. I added one more for the labels, which indeed come from Lehner's book.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Aoba47 edit

I have a quick question about this nomination. Iry-Hor already has an active FAC. According to the FAC instructions: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." I have seen plenty of instances in which a second FAC is permitted if the first one is far enough along in the process and permission is received from an FAC coordinator. The first FAC still seems to be in the beginning stages as it has only received a prose review from Mr rnddude. Would this nomination be considered invalid because of this? Pinging the FAC coordinators (@WP:FAC coordinators: ) to ask about it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct Aoba -- normally I would simply remove this as out-of-process but because of Nikki's image review (even though it's actioned) I'm going to archive it. Iry, pls just focus your attentions on one FAC at a time, at least until the current one is closer to promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose argh ok but then will I be able to put it up at FAC again as soon as my other article has been archived or promoted ?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or if it's clearly getting close to promotion (i.e. it's had its source review, and several reviewers have indicated support for promotion) then you can ask a coord for leave to nominate another article, which is usually granted though not always immediately -- it's all in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 October 2019 [19].

...Baby One More Time (song) edit

Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 05:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... Johhnyfrankie13 05:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Cmt Noting that Johhnyfrankie13 has four edits to the article. ——SerialNumber54129 07:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite being a malformed nomination (no statement and, as SN points out, not enough input to the article), this isn't up to scratch for FAC. There's a tag on the page and a string of several (6? 7?) citations to support one claim, and the text is a little lumpy in places. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are Harv errors in citations 19 and 22 and in the main sources. That wouldn't be a serious issue for a serious nomination but I think that in this case, it is...Iry-Hor (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Drive-by malformed nomination. Quite a few issues with the article which I wouldn't support even if a normal nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above. There are several issues pointed out in the article itself and the nominator has not done significant work in the article or the best of my knowledge contacted any of the article's primary contributors. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/October_2019&oldid=922803190"