Talk:Krak des Chevaliers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI (talk · contribs) 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I plan to review this article, starting today. It seems fitting for GA, but there are a few things that I'd suggest revising. DCItalk 00:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC) There are no major problems in the article. However, I have found a few things that might need clarification.[reply]

Lead

I see that you use Krak des Chevaliers' when using the possessive form. The manual of style recommends that "official names" do this, but I am wondering what is best for an article like this, with a foreign name.

I think using Krak des Chevaliers' as the possessive form is ok even though it's a foreign name. Take for example another French example. Nicolas Sarkozy's house in French would be le maison de Nicolas Sarkozy (I think, GCSE French was a long time ago) but in English "'s" is acceptable, as is the case used in this article. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be fine with adding a citation next to the UNESCO statement?

That's fine by me. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

It was called by the Franks Le Crat and then by a confusion with karak (fortress), Le Crac. Crat was probably the Frankish version of Akrad, the word for Kurds... This sentence seems a bit wordy. This is something I can fix.

I do see what you mean, but I don't have any particularly good suggestions for a change that keeps the key elements of the derivation. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The castle they established there played a part in the First Crusade. I'm not sure that this sentence is necessary, as the following ones seem to explain this themselves. Removing this sentence would also make the Muslim castle-building one seem less out of place. I don't find these to be big issues, but thought them worth mentioning.

That's a fair point, it's not necessary so I've got rid of it. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin ventured into the County of Tripoli, ravaging the area...". I am inclined to source this, but I'll leave this up to you.

It's referenced to Kennedy (1994), pp.146–147 it's just that the footnote is a couple of sentences further on. I could make it more prominent if you think it worthwhile. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a reading error, but I am a little confused by the claims in the paragraph beginning, The main contemporary sources.... You say that Homs and Hama were forced to pay tribute, but then discuss raids that the Hospitallers made on those towns. Later, they took punitive measures against Hama's amir. What was the purpose of those raids against Homs and Hama, if they were already paying tribute?

I attempted to clarify the situation by adding "This situation lasted as long as Saladin's successors warred between themselves." Essentially, the settlements were still Muslim, but as long as the rulers were struggling for power between themselves, the Hospoitallers were able to menace the surrounding area. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of linking in the last paragraph of History. Are they all necessary?

I think most of those terms are worth keeping linked, although I'll delink "mosque". "Outwork", "palisade", and "undermining" have technical meanings which can be quickly checked by those unfamiliar with them, but will be common in castle articles so I want to avoid repetition by explaining what they are, and I think it's likely most readers won't know what a mihrab is. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The letter was a forgery...this sentence could be included as a clause in the one before it.

I'm not sure, I like the current wording because I feel it has more impact, but I'm happy to change it if you think it would be more effective not to use such a short sentence. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later history

Can something be said of Krak's use in the current Syrian Civil War? It is being damaged by Syrian forces trying to dislodge rebel snipers.

Exactly, no current events whereas awful things are happening - http://www.academia.edu/1257560/Damage_to_the_Soul_Syrias_Cultural_Heritage_in_Conl The 12th-century Crac des Chevaliers fortress, which used to be one of the most-visited landmarks in Syria before the conflict began, was seriously damaged by artillery fire as the Syrian army attempted to clear out a rebel encampment. http://rt.com/news/synagogue-jobar-destroyed-damascus-139/ AP video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmOlQFlgqNw or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJEhx9lNLdg — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarioTW (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Watch for overlinking, for example, you link the word palisade at least twice in the article. Not a big concern, as I can fix this easily.

True, but I think they're sufficiently far apart for linking to be worthwhile and the duplication is there for readers that decide to skip the history and go to the architecture. Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence beginning, The design of the later chapel - is somewhat confusing. Could you clarify it?

I've essentially split it into two sentences so it should now be less complicated. It reads "The later chapel had a barrel vault and an uncomplicated apse; its design would have been considered outmoded by contemporary standards in France, but bears similarities to that built around 1186 at Margat." Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the 1935 chapel no longer exist?

The source wasn't entirely clear on this. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify or reword some of the information in the last paragraph of Outer ward?
- I don't mean to sound confusing myself here, so here's an example: The bent entrance was a Byzantine design, but Krak des Chevaliers' was a complex example... Could you clarify some of this, or add more of a description of those terms, so readers unfamiliar with these concepts can tell what they are?

You make a fair point, so how do these changes look to you? Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (text)

I think that this article should pass, as it is well-written and these errors do not detract much from the overall quality of the work. I'll provide a GA checklist soon.

DCItalk 02:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (pics)

An image check showed no copyright, etc. errors. DCItalk 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Good Article criteria summary

The article exhibits NPOV and is certainly not the subject or focus of edit-warring.

Checklist (soon), comments

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, I aim to address the issues you've raised in the next few days. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. DCItalk 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this does not seem too rushed, but I am approving the article for GA, without the customary checklist. My concerns have been addressed, and I am trusting your judgment for the other ones I raised. The formal approval will come sometime tomorrow. DCItalk 00:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my replies weren't as swift as they could have been, but I think I've responded to all the points you raised to some degree or other. Nev1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]