| Revision as of 22:48, 26 March 2024 editAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,098 edits →Airship: better link← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:02, 26 March 2024 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,098 edits start commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ====Airship==== | ====Airship==== | ||
| I thought I had reviewed this article a long time ago, and I was right. I am glad to see from the nomination statement that the approach , of cutting the majority of military history details, was followed. Back then, the article ; the improvement is very evident, so well done. ] (]) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. | |||
| ;General comments | |||
| *The structure needs another look. Why are the "Knights and chivalry" down to "Perception of Muslims" subsections under "Evolution"? These are very definitely "Major themes" or "Major elements" and should be sectioned as such. | |||
| **]: subsection headings should not have links in them. | |||
| *Why so few images? This is one of the most well-represented historical eras in terms of images/diagrams/maps. It seems criminal not to use some of them for illustrative purposes (don't go overboard either). | |||
| *I disagree with Jens below that "Birth" should be renamed "First Crusade", as it is well established in scholarship that the movement began earlier. I also disagree that "main articles" are necessary for the century subsections, which should not be taken as subtopics of individual crusades. I do however concur with him on the length of the 13th century subsection (not helped by its complete lack of images to distract the eye from paragraphs upon paragraphs). | |||
| *I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial ]. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker. | |||
| *This article likes its simple lists—I count eight. I think most of them are fine, but feel, per ], that the last three (relating to Gregory IX and Pius II) might be better suited as prose. | |||
| More specific comments to follow later. ] (]) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ====UC==== | ====UC==== | ||
Revision as of 23:02, 26 March 2024
Crusading movement
Crusading movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As of 25 December 2024, 18:22 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. Reviewers have suggested that to keep in on topic the MILHIST should be kept to a minimum - this is largely covered in the Crusades in any case. That article doesn't have the space to cover this subject in detail. It has just been through an exhaustive A-Class Review and passed GAR 9 months ago. So it should be in good shape. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Airship
I thought I had reviewed this article a long time ago, and I was right. I am glad to see from the nomination statement that the approach I suggested over two years ago, of cutting the majority of military history details, was followed. Back then, the article looked like this; the improvement is very evident, so well done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.
- General comments
- The structure needs another look. Why are the "Knights and chivalry" down to "Perception of Muslims" subsections under "Evolution"? These are very definitely "Major themes" or "Major elements" and should be sectioned as such.
- MOS:HEADINGS: subsection headings should not have links in them.
- Why so few images? This is one of the most well-represented historical eras in terms of images/diagrams/maps. It seems criminal not to use some of them for illustrative purposes (don't go overboard either).
- I disagree with Jens below that "Birth" should be renamed "First Crusade", as it is well established in scholarship that the movement began earlier. I also disagree that "main articles" are necessary for the century subsections, which should not be taken as subtopics of individual crusades. I do however concur with him on the length of the 13th century subsection (not helped by its complete lack of images to distract the eye from paragraphs upon paragraphs).
- I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker.
- This article likes its simple lists—I count eight. I think most of them are fine, but feel, per MOS:EMBED, that the last three (relating to Gregory IX and Pius II) might be better suited as prose.
More specific comments to follow later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
UC
This is a big one, but looks fascinating. I'll try to chip in at some point. UndercoverClassicist 19:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Jens
I remember I have reviewed this one a long time ago. I want to give some drive-by comments for now; I am not sure if I can commit to a full review. I have concerns about the structure of the "Evolution" section:
- For a reader that looks at the article for the first time, the sub-headings seem confusing or random: You have "Knights and chivalry", "Military orders" and so on, and then, all of a sudden, list the separate centuries. So the first four sections do not seem to express a chronological order, but the remainder do, which is not ideal. Maybe it would make sense to move the first four sections to the "Background" sections, because they cover the starting conditions before the crusades?
- The heading "Birth" is not particularly obvious. That could mean many things. I suggest to rename into "First crusade".
- The "century" sections are too long. Any chance to cut them down?
- At the very least, the "century" sections should have sub-headings to break-up the wall of text. In particular the "13th century" is way too long.
- It would help to have "Main articles:" indicated for the "century" sections.
- The "Dennis, Gorge T. (2001)" citation has an oversized "access required" icon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)