Talk:Crusader states/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Marshall (talk · contribs) 00:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Doing...—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So, after one read through, my hot take is that this is a very near GA-quality article that's somewhat let down by its lead.

• The article should begin with a topic sentence that enables readers easily to identify what the article is about. The topic sentence of this article is very precise and accurate, and I think it needs to be more succinct, even though this might make it vaguer. If I'd written it, it would say something like: "The crusader states, also known as Outremer, were four Roman Catholic realms in the Middle East that lasted from 1098 to 1291 AD. They were created after the Frankish conquest of the Holy Land in the First Crusade." Later on, you'd need to define these terms more clearly.

How about The Crusader States, also known as Outremer, were four Roman Catholic realms in the Middle East that lasted from 1098 to 1291 AD. These feudal polities were created by the Latin Catholic leaders of the First Crusade through conquest and political subterfuge.? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I concur.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• At the top of the article, right next to where it says that there were four Crusader States, there's a map showing five states, captioned "The Crusader States in 1135."

How about The Crusader States and Armenian Ciliciain 1135? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I think there should be a map of the four Crusader states. I'll see if I can make an adaptation of that one.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you S_Marshall—Amitchell125 is it possible for you to amend the map you kindly cleaned up to meet this suggestion, if Mr Marshall can't? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can do. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done - please advise on any amendments you need. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That is exactly the change I felt was needed.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• The "Outremer" section looks fine. I'll give it a copyedit as part of my review.
• The Catholic Europe section looks great as far as it goes. I was surprised to see that it doesn't refer to Pope Urban II's invention of the then-novel doctrine of bellum sacrum (Christian holy war) at the Council of Clermont in 1095.
• The "Levant" section looks good. I'll give it a copyedit as part of my review; it consists of six long sections, and I think it might benefit from a subheading or two.
• I also like the "Foundation" section, but I'd comment that a newcomer to the topic might be confused because it mentions Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire without explaining that Constantinople is Byzantium.

There is more to come. The article is too long to review in one sitting.

I'm familiar with the topic of the Crusader States, and having read the article once, my impression is that it's comprehensive, accurate, and well-sourced. The only issues that jumped out at me were cosmetic. In the coming days, I'll give it a further copy-edit. (All credit to Two-fingered Typist for his good work, but another editing pass wouldn't hurt.)

(Later)

• On second reading, the rest of the article will also be fine after a copyedit.
• I did raise an eyebrow at All estimates of the size of Frankish and Muslim armies are uncertain, although records by chroniclers with access to official military data like Ibn al-Athir or the royal chaplain Fulcher of Chartres are probably reliable, as if the Crusaders took censuses. But then, I don't have the Morton source, and maybe it actually says this. Does it?

I don't have Morton and ne appears to cover only the First Kingdom. I have ce the beginning of this section: All estimates of the size of Frankish and Muslim armies are uncertain, existing accounts indicate that it is probable that the Franks of Outremer raised the largest armies in the Catholic world.. What do you think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes: that's what we need to convey. I'll copyedit the wording a tad when I get to that part of the article.—S Marshall T/C 11:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• The "Combat arms and tactics" section is, I feel, an excellent description of how things were during and immediately after the First Crusade. It could do with another paragraph that explains how things had changed by Saladin's day.
• Also in that section, I was surprised at: Between 1099 and 1187, the Franks participated in almost 40 major engagements, while the Norman kings of England fought less than 20 pitched battles between 1066 and 1135. The dates chosen exclude England from 1135-1187, thereby omitting the Anarchy. Would you consider removing that sentence?

Agree, removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Finally, would you consider trimming the "Historiography" section? It currently consists of three long paragraphs, while the "Legacy" section is one medium-sized one, so by emphasis, the article makes the historiography seem more important than the legacy (which it certainly isn't). We could also somewhat expand "legacy" to give more balance?

I have pruned the section by nearly 30% mainly by removing duplication and unnecessary wordiness. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's really helpful, thank you. I intend to make a further editing pass when I get to that end of the article. Would it be possible to expand the legacy section, at all?—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Re the legacy expansion, what exactly have you in mind, S_Marshall? Off the top of my head the legacy seems to regarded as very limited: the military orders, castle architecture and I think it was Runciman's famous derogatory comment of only the apricot? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, exactly so. Two hundred years of European presence in the Holy Land had surprisingly little effect on the ground; what do historians have say about that?—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Added a small paragraph to legacy, what do you think Mr Marshall? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that's helpful.—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to say that I think this is an interesting article and I can see that you've done a lot of good work since the oddly confrontational GA review last year.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Later)

On the Levant

Having made one editing pass through the section entitled "Levant", I am minded to expand it. I feel that this section should mention and summarize the Islamic Golden Age, and give greater emphasis to the conflict between Sunni and Shia that was going on at the time (and which does so much to explain the success of the First Crusade); and I feel that where it mentions Baghdad, it should explain Baghdad's economic and political importance at the time. I would like to connect this to the Silk Road, along which goods were flowing as a result of the reunification of China during the Song Dynasty. Does this accord with your understanding?—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly does S_Marshall— the older versions of Crusades such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&oldid=1027993192#Historical contained info along these lines before it was edited back to a more crusade focus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: please read WP:NOR before editing ([1]). We are not here to share our own thoughts about historical events in articles. You may also want to decide whether you want to review or edit this article. Borsoka (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do you want this article to be promoted to GA, Borsoka?—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do you want to review or edit this article? If you want to edit it, please verify your edits. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• The two aren't usually seen as incompatible. I'm here only for the time it takes to make the improvement; I won't be a long term editor of this article. If you're interested in OR then I would welcome your participation on WT:OR in future! Now, please tell me, do you support or oppose Norfolk's bid to get this article promoted?—S Marshall T/C 08:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

After nearly 90 GANs I can say, that I have never experienced that a reviewer try to fill the article with the results of their own original research. What is your purpose when reviewing? Do you want to improve or destroy this article? Borsoka (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• What I want is to pass the article as a GA.

The article's main issue as I see it is that it is full of meticulous detail, and lacks the kind of broad overview that is needful for a reader to understand the topic. My apparently fumble-footed edit was part of an attempt to connect all the detail into a narrative. I've self-reverted, and normal Wikipedian behaviour would be to accept the revert as an admission of error and move on.

Normally, the GA process is not begun unless those who have the article watchlisted agree that it's nearly there and support its promotion. To me, you appear to be refusing to articulate that this is your wish, and I'm now seeing red flags that this article is therefore not promotable at this time.

I'll ask again. Do you want this article to be promoted?

I need to be clear that we absolutely can work in your preferred way, with me reviewing and you editing, if-and-only-if you're here to get it the article passed.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

All WP-editors are to be ready to improve articles. Agree, there is a chance that the article can reach the level of a GA, but several issues are to be addressed. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to normal Wikipedian behaviour. You have not reverted your edit about Baghdad's economic importance at the time of the Seljuk conquest, although it could hardly be verified. The Seljuks already controlled the Central Asian section of the Silk Road and Baghdad was in anarchy during the last decades of the Buyids' rule. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

During the course of this review, you've added a maintenance tag to the article. As you will doubtless be well aware, after your 90 GA reviews, your tag, unless removed, will have the effect of causing the article to fail. I think that only you can remove your tag, because only you know what an edit that addresses your concerns will look like. Are you willing and able to write the expansion that you require within the period of the GA review, or should I just quick-fail it now?—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I raised the same issues during an A-class review a couple of months ago, and on the article's Talk page a couple of weeks ago. I doubt that only I can address these issues. Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. Let's stipulate that the absence of that section would cause the article to fail A-class review. GA-class is below A-class. In your view, is that section's absence a GA-failing matter, or merely an A-class failing matter? And which sources cover the matter in detail?—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you imagine that an article about the crusaders states that does not contain information about their societies and government could meet GA criteria? Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it does contain information about their societies and government, but you are dissatisfied with the information it contains on balance grounds. Very well: I can't pass an article with a tag, even where that tag was added after the GA review began. In the circumstances, the only outcome available to me is to fail the article unless someone else adds the information that you require.

@Norfolkbigfish: Are you able to deal with this promptly?—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a side remark: the article does not contain information about the crusader states' societies and government. It contain highly selective information about society and government in one of the crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

S_Marshall probably not in a way that will satisfy Borsoka: too busy IRL, but I will try. Without discussing the relative merits or not of the tag I will delete it for the moment which will hopefully allow the completion of the review to give at least one alternative viewpoint. If the tag needs to be restored it can be done after that point. Is that a compromise that works? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Both, I have added a paragraph to explain the historiography and address the point that the focus is on the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is pretty normal in this topic, there are very few if major works on the other states. How does that look? Also change Monarchy to Government and Instituitions which I think workss better. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka was pretty clear. He said (1) that he wishes the tag to remain and (2) he feels the article isn't a GA pass without the requested information. I'll hold off making any final decisions til he's reviewed your edits there.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough S_Marshall—let's go with that. Thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish's latest edits indicate that available sources allow the presentation of the governmental system of the crusader states. Unfortunatelly, about one third of the new text repeats information already mentioned in other parts of the article (for instance, about the diverse groups of native Christians). I am not a native English speaker, but I think the new text should be copyedited. For Norfolkbigfish used encyclopedic articles to verify the text, close paraphrasing can also be detected. The section about society in the crusader states still reflects Prawler's segregationist model and does not provide a full picture of society. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite challenge, what Borsoka describes as the segregationist model is the consensus view of academics working in this field, and no alternative model has been proposed. Tyerman made this point in 2011 and unless I am mistaken that remains the case. The extant written evidence makes it difficult to suggest otherwise. No problem with it being copy edited, it is afterall just the restoration of content that was in the article but has been deleted overtime. Why don't you make the necessary edits Borsoka, you clearly have something in mind? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka has said above that he doesn't have the time to make the edits he requires within the time scale of the GA review. I'm sorry, Norfolkbigfish, but it's crystal clear to me from everything that Borsoka has said above that he's not content with the new wording and wouldn't countenance the removal of the tag.

I have not previously come across the situation where someone who's got a GA candidate article watchlisted adds a maintenance tag during the review and declines to remove it. My reading of the rules is that this is a knock-out move that prevents the article's promotion. In my opinion this article shows how much work Norfolkbigfish and others have put into it. I would note that the effort invested far exceeds the amount that's put into other articles that do get promoted. Nevertheless I am unable to promote it to GA at this time.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(1) As I mentioned above, I raised the same issues (and several other issues) months ago, and I repeated them some weeks ago. (2) GAs have to meet several criteria, but work invested into an article is not listed among them. (3) Segregationist model has been always debated (see for instance MacEvitt's alternative model, that emphasizes that Frankish society was not so different from contemporaneous European society in this respec). Furthermore, Prawer based his model on sources about the Jerusalemite kingdom. The segregationist model could hardly be substantiated when writing of Antioch or Edesssa. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)