This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 26 March 2024 (→Airship: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:41, 26 March 2024 by AirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs) (→Airship: +)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Crusading movement
Crusading movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As of 27 December 2024, 08:51 (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
Comments to follow. 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 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)