Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 15:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

No DAB links Y
No dead links Y Although I suggest archiving with the WayBack machine.
No missing citations N
The The RHC is divided into five series: [list of series]) section needs a citation, and I'd also suggest restructuring it to allow easier flow of the citation and text, as The RHC is divided into five series: Lois ("Laws", i.e. the Assizes of Jerusalem), Historiens occidentaux ("Western historians", i.e. texts in Latin and Old French), Historiens grecs ("Greek historians"), Historiens arméniens ("Armenian historians")

Coverted list to text with more detail and less french! Sourced to Tyerman. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: The text Much of the popular understanding of the Crusades derives from the 19th century novels of Scott and the histories of Michaud. is missing a citation; article is otherwise good to go. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Some work needed with the citations:
1st: I'd avoid the usage of dictionary sources, it shouldn't be hard to find academic sources (perhaps even within the already cited books) which define the terms.

2nd: The bibliography structure needs to be fixed to meet GA Criteria 2A. Need to tidy up the uncited materials, fixing capitalization and other issues.

3rd: The bibliography structure is convoluted, either:
Bring the list of uncited sources up below the "Islam" section, an action which will help to bring the citations on the non-cited material into the references, as the reflist only collects references above it; although the lists probably don't need to be referenced as they are, themselves, references.

or else separate the list of books not cited within the article to a new "Further Reading" section, and remove the references, which aren't strictly required as they are not currently prose or a footnote to prose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved as suggested plus pruned what amounts to an arbitary list of sources, some of which are in the body, some that are not. I have left the references because they add a source to who thinks the primary sources are primary sources. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

have been subject to competing interpretations from the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and possibly before. sentence structure seems to set up for a "from [date]... to [date]" statement; recommend making some sort of "until the modern era" or some such statement.

meant that crusading was always controversial. suggest meant that the crusades were always controversial to avoid using crusading twice in two sentences (i.e. the start of the next one.)

against Palestine, Syria and Egypt: the First Crusade between 1096 and 1099 with a second wave 1101-1102, suggest against Palestine, Syria and Egypt; the most commonly accepted numbering holds the First Crusade between 1096 and 1099 with a second wave 1101-1102,...

I've made a few minor edits, feel free to revert any of them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Iazyges, much appreciated. There is another related one on the list Outremer, any chance you would like to run that one through GAR? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]