Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2017 [1].

Crusades

[edit]
Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns in the middle ages. I am nominating with trepidation as this is an enormous and contentious subject. That said it has been through a GOCE copy edit, Good Article Review and a Milhist A-Class review so it should be well placed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009

[edit]

Some initial comments while I read through in depth...

  • In the bibliography, I'd be looking for consistency in page numbering - e.g. we have page numbers given in "Constable, Giles (2001). "The Historiography of the Crusades". In Laiou, Angeliki E.; Mottahedeh, Roy P. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 1–22. ISBN 978-0-88402-277-0. Retrieved 2016-10-04.", but not "Bull, Marcus (1999). "Origins". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280312-3."
  • At first glance, "Rose, Karen (2009). The Order of the Knights Templar. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4486-5190-0." looks self-published. Is there a strong case for it being a reliable source?
  • "Strack, Georg (2012). "The Sermon of Urban II in Clermont and the Tradition of Papal Oratory" (PDF). Medieval Sermon Studies. 56 (30#1): 30–45. doi:10.1179/1366069112Z.0000000002." - I wasn't sure what the "30#1" meant.
  • Worth checking all capitalisation of titles in the bibliography and further reading - some fall into lower case.
  • Some of the images look like they are missing a source (and licensing) for the underlying mapping - e.g. :File:Map Crusader states 1135-en.svg, :File:Seljuk Empire locator map.svg, :File:Deutscher Orden in Europa 1300.png. The coastline, rivers etc. look very detailed, and that they've come from somewhere other than the author who did the overlay etc., but I can't see where this is detailed.
  • Might be worth asking on the map project on Wikimedia - someone might know which underlying map was used? Be a shame to lose them if we can identify where they came from. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't see the date of death of the artist (the artist who did the drawing, not the earlier glass painting). In order to justify the claim that they died more than 70 years ago, the file needs to list when they died - at the moment the file just gives the publication date, which isn't the same thing. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smurrayinchester

[edit]

This isn't a topic I know much about, so these comments are only really about structure:

  • There's nothing in the intro about when the Crusades took place - there's quite a bit about how the First Crusade started, but nothing about how they ended - it doesn't mention how much success the Crusades they had, nor how they failed.
  • You could probably trim some of the detail and focus more on the big picture - for the intro, you don't need say exactly which Germanic states were created, for instance, but rather talk about how the crusades strengthened Christian states in Northern Europe - but it's the right direction, yeah. Smurrayinchester 14:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of Crusade is probably too detailed for the intro.
  • There should be a year attached to "The Islamic prophet Muhammad founded Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. The resulting polity in the 7th and 8th centuries..." - I'd reword it to something like "The Islamic prophet Muhammad founded Islam and by his death in 632 had united much of Arabia into a single polity. Arab power expanded rapidly in the 7th and 8th centuries...", but maybe there's a tidier way of writing it.
  • The Background section talks about lower-case crusades a couple of times ("In northern Europe, the Germans used crusading as a method to expand Christianity" and "Participation in a crusade was seen as a form of penance") before the First Crusade has happened. This seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
  • The word "Frank" appears quite a lot, but it's never explained what it means. My understanding is it's basically a synonym for Crusader, but this isn't clear.
  • "Political events in the 20th century such as the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel led to the growth of historical parallelism between modern politics and the Crusades." This is a bit convoluted for a final sentence, and "historical parallelism" is an obscure phrase. "Historians have drawn parallels between the Crusades and modern political developments such as the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel."? Smurrayinchester 12:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

[edit]
  • I have to say I'm rather disappointed on a first look over. The big picture seems missing.
  • Only 3 paras worth of things to say in the lead? Including half a para on the terminology - that is almost immediately repeated.
  • Loads of paras are very long & should be split.
  • In general the infuence of the papacy, which was well out of touch once campaigns were underway, seems over-stressed. The situation in the Crusader kingdoms receives hardly any attention. Maintaining them was really what it was all about, after the 1st. The Italian contribution in shipping the Crusaders out, then hanging round as virtual bandits, breaking every truce, is not mentioned at all.
  • Various universally or very widely-held views are randomly attributed to current historians:
"David Nicolle called the Fourth Crusade controversial in its "betrayal" of Byzantium." - "controversial" is bathetic, and Runciman goes far further. Does anyone have a good word to say about the 4th?
"Similarly, Norman Housley viewed the persecution of Jews in the First Crusade – a pogrom in the Rhineland and the massacre of thousands of Jews in Central Europe – as part of the long history of anti-Semitism in Europe." - does anyone not?
"The historian Paul Everett Pierson, asserts that Urban also hoped that aiding the Eastern Church would lead to its reunion with the Western under his leadership." - in the lead confidently stated as fact. Of course all historians can do is guess, but don't most guess this?
"The scholar Norman Cohn identified a "messianism of the poor" inspired by an expected mass ascension into heaven at Jerusalem.[36]"
"According to historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, these states were the first examples of "Europe overseas"."
  • Too much of a list o'facts approach, and too little overall analysis. The developing pressures in the Islamic world don't come across very well.
  • "The 1071 victory over the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert, once considered a pivotal event by historians, is now regarded as one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia." - strikes me as a false contrast. As a look at the map shows, it was always "one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia".
  • The old thinking on Manzikert was that it was a pivotal moment that led directly to the conquest of Anatolia, this is largely discounted now. It is worth mentioning for histiographical reasons and also to prevent editors using old sources to put the obsolete interpretation back. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on the economic motivations of crusaders, and potential settlers in the kingdoms.
From the start:
  • "The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, especially the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." - "especially" is the wrong hinge, no? Ungrammatical, for one thing.
  • "other church-sanctioned campaigns fought to .... resolve conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups" - hmm. See if this justified later.
  • I think all the 1st para terminology stuff should be merged to that section, or at least brutally shortened in a later lead para.
  • "The First Crusade arose after a call to arms in a 1095 sermon by Pope Urban II," too many prepositions? Date false title. "In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon in France..." maybe.
  • "Others participated to ... seek opportunities for economic and political gain." Indeed, but is this expanded on later.
  • "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders." Rather debatable - is there a modern "pro-crusade" historian? All the ones I've seen take pretty much the same dim view, with of course shades of emphasis.
  • Ok, so the lead is currently missing:
any sense of the time dimension after 1095
any mention of the C kingdoms
mention of WHO WON! Levant and elsewhere.
I know that this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say pretty awful. First of all, you don't seem to grasp the concept that you should link any significant person or thing the first time that it is mentioned in an article. "failed to retake Jerusalem in 1189 to 1192" is almost grammatically incoherent, you went from giving us no perspective of time to inundating us with years. You also spend several sentences discussing things that happened after the Crusades were finished, and weren't technically part of them. All this could be summed up in one or two sentences, especially because you said that after 1291 "there was no further coherent response." By the way, that phrase both makes no sense and is later contradicted by the sentence beginning "The rise of the Ottoman Empire." Also, I recommend creating a separate section known as "14th century" and include the information on the 15th and 16th centuries in one known as "Aftermath," because technically the Crusades were over by that time. Display name 99 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical scholars and modern research have no problem with the concept that the Crusades continued as an ideology long after 1291 and the Papacy considered many of the events mentioned as Crusades. Indeed Riley-Smith considered Crusading still active to the end of the 19th century. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now I guess I'll take your word on that. But that paragraph still has lots of problems. How about all the other stuff I mentioned? Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without getting into detail, and while it gives more sense of the overall timescale and "result" etc, as requested, I think it has problems that affect the whole article in terms of the level of "magnification" used to examine extremely complex events over huge ranges of time and place. I'll mention the general question below. As it is, I think it has too much compacted detail, and will confuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth I tend to agree with you @Johnbod:—it has been a struggle to hit the right level of detail. When there was less other editors/reviewers wanted more and now your view, I think, is to have this at a higher level. I can simplify in the lead if you think that will help but if you pick up the points as you work through perhaps we can come to a happt medium? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, the meaning of "Franks" as French needs explaining.
  • "In northern Europe, the Germans used crusading as a method to expand Christianity and their territories at the expense of the non-Christian Slavs,[25]" Placing implies this was before 1095. Was it? Do we have a link?
  • "In 1054 centuries of attempts by the Latin Church to assert supremacy over the Patriarchs of the Eastern Empire led to a permanent division in the Christian church called the East–West Schism.[26]" A pretty POV summary. The Latin church had for centuries merely asserted, without anything much in the way of attempting. There were plenty of other issues.
  • "... control of Palestine from the Fatimids.[31]" - better explain who they were - Shite dynasty, based in Cairo.
  • "the first major outbreak of European antisemitism" - bit dubious? Of violent popular European antisemitism maybe.
  • "In Speyer, Worms, Mainz, and Cologne the range of anti-Jewish activity was broad, extending from limited, spontaneous violence to full-scale military attacks.[38] Despite Alexios' advice to await the nobles, the People's Crusade advanced to Nicaea and fell to a Turkish ambush at the Battle of Civetot, from which only about 3,000 Crusaders escaped.[39] Both Philip I of France and Emperor Henry IV were in conflict with Urban and declined to participate." Whaaaaah! Not even a para break. This para is currently 418 words.
  • "These five Princes" - they weren't all princes, arguably only one was (at this point).
  • Antioch "massacring the inhabitants" - the Turkish garrison certainly, but was there a wholesale massacre of the inhabitants like Jerusalem? It was mainly a Christian city, held by the Byzantines 969-1084. Mayer, 52 makes no mention, Runciman I, 234-235 gives a more detailed account of a general massacre of Turks, in which local Greeks and Armenians joined, adding "Many Christians perished in the confusion" and all houses were pillaged.
  • "Sunni Islam now recognised the threat, and the sultan of Baghdad sent a force, to recapture the city, led by the Iraqi general Kerbogha." "Now" is rather misleading - Kerbogha was only 2 days away when the city fell, and there had already been two attempts to relieve the city. Kerbogha was a Turkish warlord with territories in Iraq (Emir of Mosul), who (Runciman says 215) wanted Antioch for himself. He was supported by Baghdad, Persia etc with troops, but any control over him by the caliph & sultan was probably just theoretical, and the phrasing is misleading.
  • "Under the papacies of Calixtus II, Honorius II, Eugenius III and Innocent II smaller groups of Crusaders continued to travel to the Eastern Mediterranean to fight the Muslims and aid the Crusader States in the early 12th century." - I can't see why the first 2 are mentioned, and really only Eugenius III is important for the Crusades. The phrasing is misleading for him, and his dates (Innocent II was actually 3 popes before him).
  • Before continuing with a systematic nit-picking process, some general thoughts. As I've said, the article lacks analytical overview, and tends to be just a condensed version of the various milhist individual articles, which concentrate on a basic narrative (however convoluted it gets). I don't think this approach can take it beyond GA standard. Combining the Levant with north Europe, Iberia, and various heretics adds to the lack of focus. I'd like to see better thematic sections on the aims of the wars, ie the various types of societies the crusaders were trying to establish (which varied greatly), and how that worked in different places. Also the economics, and more consistent explanations of who the opponents were. In the Levant there is stuff on this, but the wood tends to vanish under the trees, and in Europe there is less - "who were the Wends?" has been asked already. Really I'd suggest adding these components first, then seeing how much room is left for narrative, and getting a consistent level of detail across that. It's asking a lot, I know, but I don't think just sorting out details on the current text is enough.
  • Other editors and reviewers have been keen on the narative structure and where there wasn't detail looked for it to be added. However, if you can be more precise about what you feel needs adding I'll see what I can do Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at the history and the Milhist "A" class review. In most respects the balance was better, and the article less overwhelmed by detail, after DaB's edits around the beginning of the year (though the women section was undue). Frankly, listening to and acting on Hawkeye7's comments (which he admitted were parti pris) was a mistake, and though the 1st Crusade does have the clearest narrative structure & is in many ways the most interesting, it now has too much space. You absolutely need a section on the Crusader kingdoms, how they worked and how long they lasted. A longer one than was there before. I notice at the A-class review, but sadly am not surprised by, the lack of comments (other than Hawkeye7's) on the structure, content, and indeed anything much above the sentence by sentence level. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musings by Dank

[edit]

Thanks much, Smurrayinchester, Johnbod and Hchc2009, now I'm thinking this one is going to succeed (eventually). These musings will eventually turn into copyediting, and support, I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

[edit]

This happens to be a topic that I know a little bit about, which provides an advantage when reviewing.

Lead

  • I agree with what others have said regarding the terminology and coverage of events after 1095, as well as with some other points that they have made.

Background

  • This section mentions that Islam spread rapidly through the Middle East and around the Mediterranean, but it does not say how. The fact is that most of its spreading came through military conquest. I believe that the Siege of Jerusalem (636-637) should be specifically mentioned because that city was the primary goal of all the crusades except for the Second.

First Crusade (1096–1099) and aftermath

  • Far more than one historian has cited reunification of East and West as a major factor in the First Crusade. Do we really need to single one of them out? Why not just say "historians?"

12th century

That's a good suggestion. I have an FAC and a GAN both up right now. Once that's over I might consider it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bernard of Clairvaux, who had encouraged the Second Crusade in his preaching, was upset with the violence and slaughter directed towards the Jewish population of the Rhineland."-Wait, so there was widespread violence against Jews before the Second Crusade too? This needs to be explained more than just in passing in a single sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the feeling that the events in the first paragraph are more notable than those of the second, as they formed the central part of the Second Crusade. So why is such great attention given to the events of the second paragraph, while those in the first are hardly mentioned at all?
  • There was criticism before that the article didn't reflect the Islamic response to the Crusades. This paragraph gives context on the Muslim world in the 12th century Levant. Without this we are left with a very Occidental Pov Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, please do not strike my comments. I'll strike them if and when I think they have been resolved. Anyhow, I'll take a look at the article later today and also finish my review during that time. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK Display name 99—won't do it again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13th century

  • Get rid of that whole first paragraph. 1) The Children's Crusade is said to have happened in 1212, after the Fourth Crusade, so it shouldn't be mentioned before the Fourth Crusade. 2) It may not have happened, so why is the article citing it as evidence of something as if we know for certain that it did? I recommend reading an altered version of the paragraph after the section on the Fourth Crusade. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childrens Crusade is mentioned because it forms part of the historiography of the Crusades. Whether is actually happened or not, it is widely reported. This paragraph forms an introduction to the entire century and discusses the rise of Crusading sentiment. The CC is used as an example Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just struggle with the article drawing a historical conclusion from a story for which it admits "little reliable evidence survives." It would also probably be a good idea to make known earlier in the paragraph that evidence for the events is scant. I need a third opinion. Johnbod, would you mind providing your perspective on this? Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not striking yet. I won't oppose on the basis of this though if everything else is dealt with properly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Asbridge's full name.
Norfolkbigfish, I've reviewed the changes you have made up until here. Anything that I've struck you can regard as having been answered satisfactorily. Those things that I haven't struck are parts that I do not yet know have been resolved. Below you'll find more of the review.Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military orders

  • "In 1312, Pope Clement V issued a series of papal bulls, including Vox in excelso and Ad providam, dissolving the Knights Templar on the grounds of false allegations from the king of France of sodomy, magic, and heresy, but probably for financial and political reasons."-The article alludes to Philip IV, but, without even mentioning his name, makes it seem as though the dissolution occurred largely because of Clement V. That isn't the case. Philip IV was deeply indebted to the Knights Templar and, being in the midst of conflict with the papacy, probably saw this group as a threat to his power. He persecuted its members quite severely. It was probably only because of the stranglehold that he had over the papacy that he managed to get Clement to bend to his will and dissolve the order. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better, but it's still not entirely clear if the "financial and political reasons" were the behind Philip IV's opposition to the Knights or Clement's bull. To me it looks more like the former. Maybe you could say that "in reality, Philip's opposition to the order was primarily for financial and political reasons." "and" works better than "or" in my opinion because it seems like both. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albigensian Crusade

14th, 15th and 16th centuries

  • Fix "Siege of Constantinople" link in the second paragraph. Shouldn't you also explicitly mention that they succeeded in capturing the city and thus finally crushing the Byzantine Empire? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's to a list of sieges, rather than to a specific siege. I'm guessing you want the one from 1453. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "including Helen Nicholson"-Again, do we need to single out one historian? If you're referencing whatever the consensus is, you probably don't need to single out a single person unless you're quoting him or her. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

  • "The Muslim world exhibited no interest in European culture until the 16th century and no interest in the Crusades until the mid-19th century." I find this sentence, especially the second part of it, very hard to believe. I'm sure there was less interest in European culture amongst Muslims than the reverse, and there may have been less interest in the Crusades. But none whatsoever? I don't think so. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • This section is arranged a bit oddly. Usually there is an individual section containing footnotes. I also think it makes sense not to

have "Further reading" in between the secondary and primary sources. Wouldn't it be better to keep all the things that the article uses as a source together, and to put whatever else after that? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish, I like what you have done, except it is normal and perfectly acceptable to include a "Further reading" section. The purpose of that is to give reference to reputable material on the subject of the article which, for whatever reason, is not officially cited. Plenty of articles have such sections. I recommend re-adding this one to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the FR section should be restored - or at least much of it. It is entirely normal to have one, especially for such a vast and well-covered topic (many FACs are such micro-topics it may not be needed). At the least have major and very detailed treatments like Runciman (v. cheap 2nd hand - 3 x £0.01 + p&p!) and Setton, which I see is fully free online - well done U Wisc! Probably this is a somewhat random selection, though, & could be refined. Joshua Prawer was top man on the C kingdoms, and The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. 1972. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (later edns The Crusader's Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages) a massive doorstop on that subject, which should be included. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better. However, the "Further reading" section usually comes last, after the notations and the bibliography section. While "Further reading" is useful, we give greater importance to what's actually cited in the article. I ask you to fix that, and to respond to the other points that I mentioned above. I'll check back later. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, we're getting close, but I need you to follow up on a couple more things that I mentioned above. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Great Seljuk map caption should explain the symbols used
  • Suggest scaling up 13th century map, conquest of Constantinople, Northern Crusades map
  • File:Vexillum_Regni_Hierosolymae.svg should include an explicit tag for the original design
  • Per Hc above, File:Schlacht_bei_Askalon_1099.jpg needs an author date of death
  • File:Battle-of-Ager-Sanguinis.jpg should include details of original source, not just the upload
  • File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg is tagged as lacking author details
  • File:Dirham_struck_in_Acre_by_Christians_1216-1241.jpg: should include an explicit tag for the original coin
  • File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: the given tag suggests that if this was first published in 1954 it would not be PD in Syria. This would also need a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seraphim System

[edit]
  • "At the time of the early Crusades the word did not exist, only becoming the leading descriptive term around 1760." - this seems redundant, wouldn't it be enough to simply say the term Crusades was not widely used until around 1760?
  • "Not until the word crucesignatus, for one who was signed with the cross, was adopted at the close of the 12th century was specific terminology developed." - the double use of was here could be avoid "Specific terminology was not developed until ..."

Background:

  • "and by his death in 632 had united much of Arabia into a single polity." - could be revised to avoid ambiguity that it was his death which had united Arabia
  • "his influence spread to the northwest Indian subcontinent, across Central Asia, the Middle East including the capture of Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire after a siege in 637, North Africa, southern Italy, the Iberian peninsula, and the Pyrenee" - probably at least a parentheses missing here
  • "for example, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but his successor allowed the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it" - do we have a link for his successor? the sentence following this one should start with a capital letter.
  • "with Basil II spending most of his half-century reign in conquest." - I've seen "conques of" and "War of conquest" and even "Byzantine conquest" but can not find any examples of "spending...in conquest"
  • "Pilgrimages by Catholics to sacred sites were permitted, Christian residents in Muslim territories were given Dhimmi status, legal rights, and legal protection" — this is where I start to lose track of the narrative...
  • So the Byzantines regained territory where? They were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—is the rest of the paragraph talking about Christians in Jerusalem? A new paragraph should probably start at "Tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Arabs and the Christian states of Europe waxed and waned." If the Byzantine conquest has nothing to do with this paragraph, which seems to be about Christians living in Muslim territories, then it should be removed.

I see Johnbod has already gone through this in some detail, and I don't want to duplicate those points sufficed to say there are significant issues with structure and "analytical overview" — I see it was a long process to GA, but right now I am leaning towards oppose. Seraphim System (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query

[edit]

Can I check how we are progressing working through Johnbod's concerns? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been concentrating on Display name 99. Now I have his support will pick up on the detail JohnBod concerns which should be straightforward, The more general will require a bit of research and I am tied up a bit IRL. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has rather stalled now. Nothing has happened for some time, and we seem no closer to resolving any issues. I would recommend taking this to Peer Review before renominating, and working with the reviewers who have commented here, so that the heavy lifting is done away from FAC. As I said before, this one is worth getting right. I'm going to archive this now, and it can be renominated after the usual 2-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2017 (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/Crusades/archive1&oldid=791874303"