Wikipedia:Peer review/Second Crusade/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Second Crusade)
After we worked to make First Crusade a featured article, a lot of work has been done on this one to make it the same quality. Before it goes to FAC it would be nice to have some outside eyes look at it. Adam Bishop 05:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article is comprehensive and very informative indeed. Obviously it should be put into featured articles after First Crusade. Or maybe we can put Crusades as featured article series? Another suggestion is a series of Crusade features, as listed in here. CrossTimer 06:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Lead is too short, see Wikipedia:Lead and expand. Failure and aftermath sections are rather sort, look like section stubs and can use expantion as well. Otherwise, a good article worthy of FA after the above points area adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lead. The last two sections kind of repeated each other, so I've combined them into one...perhaps more work could still be done there. What do you think? Adam Bishop 18:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Lead looks better now. I still think it can use some expantion, as well as the entire article - I always say if it is under 32kb it's too short - but I wouldn't object if I saw it on FAC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, well I'm not sure what else to add...perhaps if people had specific questions about things, it would be easier to expand those areas. I'll leave it on Peer Review for another couple of days, then add it to FAC if there are no problems. Adam Bishop 06:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Good work as usual. One issue is Image:Realoui7.JPG. It claims to be fair use, but I don't see how it meets any of the fair use criteria, especially important is that it has no source listed. Moreover it was uploaded by User:Isis, a fairly notorious copy violator. - SimonP 01:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know...I know I have seen other photos from tombs like that on Wikipedia. The article wouldn't really suffer if it was removed entirely. Adam Bishop 20:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)