Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by GrahamColm 07:36, 13 February 2012 [1].

Franco-Mongol alliance

edit

Franco-Mongol alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Elonka 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of two arbitration cases and various related amendments and other various motions, but it has been stable for over a year now, so I'd like to see about getting it promoted to FA status. It had one premature FA nom shortly after it was created in 2007, but has since gone through extensive peer review and editing, including being promoted to GA status in March 2010, a MILHIST peer review in April 2010, and a MILHIST A-class promotion in June 2010. It is my opinion that the article meets FA criteria, is extremely well-sourced, has many high quality free images, and should be promoted because it covers an interesting aspect of history, the 13th century intersection between the events of the waning Crusades, and the expansion of the Mongol Empire. Thanks for your attention, --Elonka 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick driveby comment (I probably won't reply) - I noticed at least one citation uses p where it should say pp. Also, at least one page range appears to use a longer dash than others. Parrot of Doom 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • many if not most of the images face off the page. At least in the lower part of the article they would be better all switched round as far as left/right placing goes.
  • The complicated background needs more introduction. I know there's a history to the title, but if retained it needs more explaining and qualifying. The use of "Europeans" is also confusing - at times apparently meaning people in Europe & at times those of European origins in the Crusader kingdoms. The use of the contemporary term Outremer is found useful by several historians.
  • Did "historian Steven Runciman" really say the Georgians "were particularly fiercest in their destruction" in 1258? An implausible lapse in grammar from such a grandee, and his editors. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally many of the multiple citations would be combined, but I suppose this can't be done with the templates used. Another demonstration of the disadvantages of these.

More later Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I have moved some of the images as you recommended (that's a subtlety I'd never noticed before, thanks!). In double-checking the Runciman quote, the actual wording is "were particular fierce in their destruction" rather than "fiercest". Not sure how that got in, but fixed. As for the language about the Europeans in the article, it's generally meant to encompass both groups, both those still in Europe, including the Popes and royals, and the transplanted Europeans in the Crusader states (the Outremer). We could potentially change the wording to say something like, "the Europeans both on the mainland and in the Outremer", if you think there might be some genuine confusion, but that would seem a bit bulky to me. As for the background, we have this covered somewhat in the "Early contacts" section, or do you feel that more is needed? Perhaps we could just change that header to "Background"? --Elonka 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearing support, sorry for the long delay since my last. I have gone through making small rephrasings & links, and have taken the liberty of adding a one-para section on "Cultural contacts" with a quick summary of Mongol elements in Western medieval art, which I hope people are happy with. I don't do "cite book" I'm afraid, so the Mack book in refs needs converting
  • I don't think the article says outright that "Franco-Mongol" means "Frank-Mongol" not the usual "French-Mongol" readers might expect it to. I think this should be spelled out, & somewhere in the lead seems the obvious place.
  • Re: "The complicated background needs more introduction" I really meant a brief new section that goes through the various power/ethnic/religious blocs in the Levant at the time, as this is unfamiliar country for the great majority of readers, who will think that Turks come from Turkey for example. I wouldn't insist on this, but I do think some more is needed on this.

Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I commend the effort put into this article, but at this point I don't feel it meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • WP:LEAD: lead is quite long and contains multiple citations
  • WP:OVERLINK: don't link the same terms multiple times, don't repeat hatnoted links within section text, etc
  • File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif: three of the source links return error messages. Also, on what source or data set is File:Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png (the basis of this map) based?
  • On what source or data set is /File:Principality_of_Antioch_locator.svg based?
  • Photographs of 3D works need separate licensing info for the 3D work and the photo, especially given that France does not have freedom of panorama
  • Source link for File:Bagdad1258.jpg returns error
  • PD-old tag also requires a US PD tag (though it should be fairly obvious in most cases)
  • Avoid repetitive and redundant phrasings, for example the repetition of "event" in "an event often considered as the single most catastrophic event". Try to be concise and straightforward in the language used.
  • At the same time, avoid very short and choppy paragraphs
  • Generally speaking, in-text attribution avoids using work titles
  • Make sure citation format is consistent - compare for example current FNs 6, 78 and 79
  • Reference formatting is also inconsistent - check multi-author listings, wikilinking, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the review and comments. My responses are as follows:
      • WP:LEAD. The current condition of the lead is a result of the many disputes that the article has been through. The lead section was a major point of contention, and has been through many discussions and patient consensus-building, of which the citations were an important element to reduce controversy. WP:LEAD doesn't say that citations are prohibited, so if possible, I'd rather leave the lead alone unless there is some major issue that is blocking the FA process?
      • Linking: Good point, I have thinned out the links considerably, at least looking at things manually. Is there a tool or script that would help me find any other problems?
      • Images: I have swapped out the 3D images, added the US PD tag, and removed the dead link (good catch!)
      • Phrasings: I fixed the "event" sentence, but were there other places that you were concerned about?
      • Paragraphs: I looked for places where some of the shorter paragraphs could be combined, though in some cases they are covering such different concepts, it wouldn't make sense to just string them together. I did some copyediting/rearranging, so please let me know if you see any other problem spots?
      • In-text attribution: Sorry, I didn't understand this comment, could you please elaborate?
      • Citation format: Good point. I reworked all the citations and references to something more consistent.
    • Let me know about the attribution part, and I'll see what I can do to fix? Thanks, --Elonka 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The length of the lead seems fine to me too, although WP:LEAD says "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs". I think this is often ignored but the 2 line 5th para could be merged to the shortish 4th maybe. But I agree many paras are very short, for example: "Following Ain Jalut, the remainder of the Mongol army retreated to Cilician Armenia under the commander Ilka, where the Mongols were received and re-equipped by Hethum I" is a one-sentence para (deprecated) taking up less than a full line. I think I will have some language points later. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim about in-line attribution may be somebody with a strong preference for short titles in footnotes. For my part, the citation of Jaroslav Folda's book (cited once), with full title - and no listing in the bibliography- seems perfectly reasonable. I know of no guidance against it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quick response on the in-text attribution: by that I'm referring to "Person X in his book Title" constructions - generally simply "Person X" is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite often it is not sufficient; Wikipedia cannot guarantee that somebody will not add another paper by Grousset, say - especially on a subject like this, where there is a limited pool of authors; there are already three works by Peter Jackson. Personally, I prefer a short title in such cases to "Grousset (1936)" - which work is that again? Others differ, and so there is no guidance. (And if you include short title only when absolutely unavoidable, somebody will complain that your style is inconsistent.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nikkimaria: Thanks. I have reworked several of the citations to not include titles, though as Septentrionalis mentioned, sometimes they are necessary when one author has multiple possible works. --Elonka 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an update: I've struck my oppose. Further copy-editing will likely address the prose issues (Dank is an excellent copy-editor), but I'm still seeing inconsistencies in reference format (further examples: FN 33 vs 116, 96 vs 104, 94 vs 103, etc), so am unwilling to support at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good catch on the references. I fixed those, and some others which were inconsistent with their "the's". As for prose, could you please point out a few places where you have concerns? I'm a bit uncomfortable with a requirement that "one particular other editor has to rewrite things", as it's not really something that I can take action on? --Elonka 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that it had to be a particular editor, I had just noticed his comment here. Some further examples of prose issues: "A few marital alliances between the Mongols and Christian rulers continued between the Christians and the Mongols of the Golden Horde" - phrasing is redundant; "who were making attacks on Eastern Europe" - awkward, why not just "who were attacking"?; "when they needed them more at home" -> "when they were more needed at home"; still have some ellipses in parentheses; paragraph about Mongol court historians uses "seen" thrice in two sentences; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, thanks. --Elonka 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general; this meets my standards for FA: it would not be regrettable to see it on the front page as it stands. Some comments:
    • Do begin the passage on Constantine and Helena with a source that uses Helena, and an explanation (his mother would probably do) of who she is. Most of our readers will think of Helen of Troy, and relying on a link to undeceive them has an Easter Egg feel.
    • Which Mongol representatives reached, and negotiated in, Europe? (For example, bar Sauma's visit to the King of England). By this time, Elonka, you know the material so well it is no longer clear to you what the article does not say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review. I have reworked the section on Constantine and Helena. As for Mongol representatives though, to my knowledge they are all mentioned? Bar Sauma is mentioned several times (I'm a big fan), though if you'd like, I could definitely go into more detail. --Elonka 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "westward" and "northward", but "southwards": be consistent with the adverbial form. (For those who have Garner's, see "Directional words".) If there are any directional adjectives ending in ward, don't add s to those.
  • Since this article has seen a lot of dispute resolution, including Arbcom, I have less freedom here than usual. I'll go through it quickly, and probably wind up neither opposing nor supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The communications initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian–Mongol communications: the Europeans would ask for the Mongols to convert to Christianity, but the Mongols would simply respond with demands for submission.": Christians were asking the Mongols to convert, which would have put them under the authority of the popes, and the Mongols in turn asked for submission. I changed the "but" to "and" because the two parts of this sentence aren't in opposition; there's nothing surprising about either side's demands, or their responses. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, it's always interesting to learn about these subtle points of grammar! I've changed "southwards" to simply "south", and reviewed all the other "thward" parts of the article but they appear consistent. I've also reviewed your other changes, and have no objections. Thanks for your time! --Elonka 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My pleasure. I'm really enjoying the variety of history articles we're getting at FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Incidents ... a few incidents occurred, one of them leading to an incident ...": Too many incidents. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hethum I, King of Armenia": All the relevant style guides say that this needs a comma afterward if there's no other punctuation there, although it's becoming more and more common to omit the second comma. See WP:Checklist#second commas. Since I'm skimming this article, I may not catch all of these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stopping early; I hope the copyediting helps. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be happy to continue copyediting after progress has been made on turning the one oppose and the two "comments" into supports. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dank. To my knowledge, all of the concerns have been addressed, and there are no open requests on the page. Regarding the one oppose from Nikkimaria, I've followed up at her talkpage a couple times[2][3] to see if she has any other concerns, but she has not replied since the 11th, probably because she is too busy. So if you'd have time to continue copyediting, it would be much appreciated. :) --Elonka 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'd like to help here, but I feel too constrained, because the article has so much history in dispute processes; I don't want to be named in a future Arbcom case just because I copyedited an article. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dank, sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, I don't think there's a risk of any other ArbCom case in the near future. The article has been stable for over a year, and the key editor involved has been gone from Wikipedia for several months. And even if there were an arbitration case, I can't see as any reviewer would get dragged in... It would normally only be those editors actively involved with disputes on the article talkpage. Just making comments and suggestions here shouldn't be a problem. It's up to you though! --Elonka 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Nice read, interesting subject. I've made a few tweaks hope you like them, if not it's a wiki....

  • Links. I fixed two that went to the wrong article, and I'm afraid I may not have time to check every link. Have now checked more as I think have others.
  • Europeans/Franks I changed one occurrence to West Europeans, this is one of those subjects where Europeans shouldn't all be lumped together as this is really about one part of Europe and indeed one part of the Mongol Empire. In that sense statements such as "Contact between the Europeans and Mongols began around 1220" really needs more context about the contemporary events in Eastern and later central Europe. Similarly dating the "The first official communications between Europe and the Mongol Empire" to 1245 puts it after the the Battle of Legnica and indeed the surrender or refusal to surrender of various east European states. Either that or clarify that this omits the Battle of the Kalka River and subsequent events because this article is really about the relationships between the Frankish crusaders in the Levant and the Ilkhanate, and not between Europe and the Mongols.
  • Maps are difficult because borders shift and records may not always be exact, but your first omits the Mongols altogether and your second only shows the movement of their armies. If possible it would be great to have a map which shows the bigger picture, including the boundaries of western and eastern Christendom as well as Islam and the various Mongol states.
  • "an increasingly bleak situation for the Crusaders in Egypt" I would have thought The Levant was more accurate. Ta.
  • "There, no strong state could have stood in their way until Morocco." This links to the modern Morocco and is more than a little misleading as both the Marinids and before them the Almohads ruled what is now the inhabited part of Algeria as well as Morocco, as well at some points areas of what are now Tunisia and Libya. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your detailed review, and copyedits. I could tell by my watchlist that you were doing a very thorough check of the article, which is appreciated. I've done my best to address all of your comments, except for the map. I agree with you; however, map-making is not one of my skills. Would it be best to simply remove the maps are there, to avoid confusion? --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't remove the maps as they are useful, just not as good as they could be. For the purposes of FA we should use the best we have available, but it wouldn't hurt to ask one of our mapmakers if they couldn't do something specific for this article. Changing Europeans to Franks in several places works for me, but it increases the importance of the way they are described at the start of the article. I think that "Europeans on the mainland" is not as good as "West Europeans", that may just be my perspective as a Londoner. But my understanding is that in that context English crusaders in the holy land probably would be counted as "Franks" whereas Europeans from the areas ruled by the Golden Horde wouldn't. As for Morocco, the new link is better because it mentions that Morocco then ruled NorthWest Africa, but I'd prefer North West Africa over Morocco, not least because many who know their current world map won't click to see that we are talking about a much larger state that the Mongols would have reached much sooner. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I've switched to "Western Europeans" in the lead, and the Morocco sentence to "Morocco and the Islamic caliphates in the Maghreb of northwest Africa," does that work better? --Elonka 02:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, that largely works for me. I think its time for me to count as a support. I'm still not quite comfortable at the balance between this and the contemporary Mongol invasion of Europe. But I'm not sure how to do it better so that would not be good grounds for an oppose:) ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (Disclaimer: I made some comments on the talk page in 2010.) As a lay reader, I was puzzled by several things in the "Incidents" section:

  • Isn't this an instance of the hostility of the non-Antioch Franks described in the following section, rather that some sort of border friction?
  • The cited source (Richard) describes a simpler encounter than the first paragraph (no expedition for redress or ambush), and doesn't seem to have the deprecation of Julian. Is there an additional source?
  • On the other hand Richard says the raid on Sidon involved sacking the lower town, which seems a significant detail.
  • The second paragraph seems to suggest that Baibars was angered by Crusaders and Mongols attacking each other, and goes on to describe attacks that don't seem to fit with the truce discussed in the following section. The source (p416) says that Baibars claimed the treaty of 1240 was void because the Crusaders had "allied with the sultan of Damascus against Egypt" (the article says because they had helped the Mongols to attack Damascus). It turns out these attacks occurred in 1263, i.e. after the events described in the next two sections, and don't seem connected to the Mongols. Kanguole 00:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kanguole. Good point, that "Incidents" section was confusing. I have added some refs, and overhauled that section. --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The re-distribution of the material makes sense, but the source (Richard, p416) does not seem to support the underlined causal factors in the following sentence: "In 1262, the Mamluk leader Baibars threatened Antioch for its association with the Mongols, and declared that the treaty that had been signed between the Crusaders and the Mamluks in 1240 had been invalidated when Christian forces assisted the Mongols to capture Damascus." Regarding the first, Richard says Baibars had "an anti-Christian fanaticism intensified by his hatred of the Mongols". For the second, Richard gives the quite different reason that the Crusaders had "allied with the sultan of Damascus against Egypt", presumably referring to events back in 1240 described on p323. And wasn't the year of his siege 1263? Kanguole 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, after spending a few hours going through multiple sources, I've got it figured out (thanks for spotting this!). The 1240 treaty didn't have anything to do with the Mongols or the Mamluks, but was related to a time when Crusader Theobald I of Navarre had brokered separate agreements with two warring factions of the Ayyubid dynasty, the Ayyubid sultan in Egypt, and the Ayyubid sultan in Damascus. In 1260, Baibars appears to have been claiming that the 1240 treaty was invalid because the Crusaders had also allied with Damascus in 1240. In any case, most of this isn't Mongol-related, so I just removed that part of the section, and expanded several other related articles where it's more appropriate. Please let me know if you think it reads better now? --Elonka 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't read the other sources, but, yes, that was my reading of what Richard was saying, and I agree with trimming it. One minor nit: I think Richard says the seige of Antioch by Baibars was in 1263 rather than 1262. Kanguole 15:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, he may be implying 1263, or maybe 1262, it's not entirely clear. I've checked several other sources, but they're kind of vague as well, with the general consensus being, "Baibars attacked a bunch of places after 1260, and Antioch fell in 1268." So how about I change the line in the article to "Around 1262 or 1263"? Or if that doesn't work, I can just quote Richard directly? --Elonka 03:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I see the vagueness – "1262 or 1263" is fine, but the sentence still contains "for its association with the Mongols", when the source seems to indicate he hated them because they were Christians, and being Mongol vassals was just the icing on the cake. I also see that the preceding paragraph has two unsourced sentences (restoration of patriarch, Antiochene territories) – the cited source only covers the last sentence. Kanguole 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Dispute about the existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance", it's not clear that there is an actual scholarly dispute on that question:

  • The clauses "There is dispute among historians as to the existence or extent of an alliance" and "though a few historians have argued there was an actual alliance" aren't supported by the citations, which deal with other parts of the sentences about different questions.
  • Demurger's post-1300 alliance presumably refers just to the Ruad expedition, since the principalities had been lost by then. Is that contentious, or just a matter of labelling? The section of the article on the Ruad expedition speaks of the Mongols being delayed, which presupposes at least some attempt at coordination, but this is not described.
  • That leaves Richard as the only cited dissenter, but the extent of the alliance he's claiming is not described. If his is a significant minority view, it would be useful to clarify the points of contention. Kanguole 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kanguole, thank you for the comments. Replies below:
      • For the "Dispute" question, did you see Reference #8? The source is a book entitled History in Dispute, which goes into great detail about the debate as to whether or not an alliance would have been a wise idea.
      • I'm not entirely understanding what you're asking about Demurger. Yes, he was referring specifically to the Ruad expedition. This is covered in more detail in the Fall of Ruad article. There is a also a mention of his views in the "Saint Louis and the Mongols" section.
      • Regarding Richard, I personally don't regard him as a "significant minority view", since his opinions were expressed only by him, and were not shared by other historians. However, since he is a major historian, it seemed reasonable to include his views, as well as those of Demurger. There is also a bit more detail about Richard's views up in the "Papal communications" section.
      • Please let me know if you have any other questions? --Elonka 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The broad issue is whether there really is a "Dispute about the existence" among scholars, as suggested by the section header:
          • Yes, #8 discusses the wisdom of a hypothetical alliance, but not the questions of existence or extent.
          • Similarly, #2, #138, #139 and #140 talk about failure, but not anyone arguing for an alliance.
          • My point about Demurger was that saying there was an attempt at cooperation limited to the Ruad expedition doesn't seem particularly contentious, i.e. more a matter of how to describe an agreed event than an example of a dispute over the existence of some over-arching alliance. (The "Saint Louis and the Mongols" section discusses Demurger's views on events in 1270 rather than after 1300.) That leaves Richard as the sole dissenter.
        • Most of this could be addressed by giving that section a more modest title (e.g. with "existence" or "alliance") and deleting (or citing) the two unsupported clauses I mentioned.
        • I'd also repeat my remark about the "Ruad expedition" section: it says the Mongols were delayed, but without explaining why the Crusaders were expecting them. Kanguole 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now. How about changing "dispute" to "disagreement", would that work better? I also moved sources around to get them closer to where they should be. There was an earlier reviewer who didn't like sources in the middle of a sentence, so I moved the sources to the end of the sentence, but I agree, it doesn't make as much sense. It's so difficult to please everyone!
          • Regarding Demurger, we had an extensive dispute about this in the talkpage discussions, and to bring peace, we opted to include Demurger's stance, even though I agree with you that it didn't make a strong case for there being an alliance. --Elonka 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fall of Ruad. Aha, good catch! The info about the Mongol request for assistance got deleted somewhere along the line. I'll re-add it. --Elonka 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I mistyped above: I meant to say 'without "existence" or "alliance".' Regarding the scope of the citations, I would prefer to see that addressed by removing the unsupported text. The broader point is that this section suggests a controversy about the existence of an alliance (not least in its title) but then has little evidence for it. I'm sure you're right that such things are left-overs from past editorial disputes, but I'd expect that not to show in a featured article. Kanguole 01:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I guess we're not communicating... To my knowledge, all text is supported by citations, though in some cases the citations might not be right next to the text, and are instead at the end of a sentence or paragraph. If there's something in particular that you think isn't cited properly, please list it either here, or mark the locations in the article with {{cn}}, and I'll see about getting the citations updated. --Elonka 02:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, I've added tags to the article on the passages I mentioned above. Kanguole 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fixed! I re-worked one sentence, and added citations to the other locations. --Elonka 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think that a scholarly dispute can be demonstrated by citing two historians' views (one of whom is taking about a single minor campaign at the very end of this period). I'd expect a source discussing the dispute, or at least one historian criticising another's views. Without that, a section on a dispute about the "existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" seems unjustified. Kanguole 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a thorough survey of a fascinating slice of history, so I regret that I feel obliged to oppose promotion. My principal reason is that although this article has emerged from the long-running dispute, it still bears the scars, i.e. features that are explicable only by reference to the dispute (which of course should be no concern of our readers). The most obvious is the title, contradicting the account of the article that no such alliance existed. Similarly there is a section entitled "Disagreement about the existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" (formerly "Dispute ...") that does not in my view substantiate the existence of a scholarly dispute or even disagreement (discussed above).

A related concern is the use of sources. I checked sources in two subsections, not randomly but (mindful of the article's history) focussing on passages that accentuated Mongol-Crusader connections. Some short items were not supported by the sources, and have since been removed, though I still don't believe the first sentence of the "Disagreement ..." section is supported by the attached citations. I thought that the instances I found were perhaps all there were, but SpinningSpark's random sample has thrown up more errors in the same direction. I'm afraid the only way to be sure that all traces of the former slanting of the sources are gone would be a tedious audit of all the citations against the sources. Kanguole 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kanguole, do you have a suggestion for how that first sentence could be re-worded? As for the title, the current name of the article has been debated extensively at the talkpage, survived multiple RM discussions, and has been stable for some time. If you would like to suggest another title change at the article talkpage though, you are welcome to do so. --Elonka 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more than rewording that sentence, since the same "existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" wording occurs in the section title (actually saying "the" makes it worse), when the section doesn't give evidence of any argument on that point (I don't think just pointing at Richard does that). Rather, the section is focussed on whether an alliance would have been wise or effective, and why it didn't happen.
    • The second paragraph of that section has an odd feel to it. One can see that there was a battle here, and that passages claiming there was an alliance have been mostly removed, but the defensive material around them remains. The effect is an argument with an opponent who has disappeared. Kanguole 02:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have completely overhauled the section, added a couple more sources, and changed the title to "Views from historians". Please take another look when you can? --Elonka 05:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support On the basis of the article as it stands, but could be polished further.

  • Check "never actually left to go do battle" - klunky.
  • I prefer "The idea of "ally" was foreign to the Mongols" to "Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects or enemies, not allies". I think this is both more accurate and succinct. It was indeed not a concept they understood at all.
  • In "There is dispute among historians as to the existence, extent, or even wisdom of an alliance." Existence, extent or (on a non-factual topic) wisdom of an alliance. Not a big issue, but could perhaps be rephrased more elegantly and/or easily referenced.
  • My advice, with humour and great respect - release The Dank! Doug (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Doug. :) I've reworked a couple of those sentences, but am not sure on the last one, what might be better. It's possibly because I've read and re-read the section so many times, my brain just can't fathom wording that might work better. Do you have suggestions? --Elonka 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - I admit I was turned off this whole subject when the article was first created, and all the drama that went on back then, but I see it has greatly improved since I last looked at it. I found a few nitpicky things to mention:

  • In the "Papal overtures" section, should the Battle of La Forbie be mentioned? That was much more immediately disastrous than the fall of Jerusalem a few months earlier. Jerusalem was symbolically important, of course, but it didn't mean much whether the Franks controlled it or not.
  • "Christian Vassals" - this section has a lot of images already, but there is one of the letter from Sempad, if that's useful.
  • "Antioch" - perhaps it would be better to say the Principality of Antioch was founded "during" the First Crusade, since that wasn't the intended result of the crusade, and the crusade went on for at least another year afterwards.
  • "Invasion of Syria 1260" - one of an-Nasir's Arabic titles is in fact "king" but the Ayyubids are not usually described that way; an-Nasir is usually called an emir. Maybe someone refers to him as a king though, I don't know.
  • "Council of Lyon" - here the Muslims are called "Sarazins", and it doesn't seem to be part of a quote. Elsewhere "Saracens" is used, and in the "Arghun" section this is actually defined as "Muslims". I would stick with "Saracens" but define it when it first appears (in "Saint Louis and the Mongols"), or just use "Muslims" throughout.
  • "Arghun" - did Tekuder convert to Islam, or from Islam to something else? Presumably to Islam, but "a converted Muslim" is ambiguous.
  • "Genoese shipmakers" - Acre fell in May 1291, so "on March 1291" has the wrong month, and is missing the day, or it should be "in" rather than "on".
  • "Ghazan" and "Ruad expedition" - Amalric of Tyre is linked in both sections (but with different links each time, once as Prince, once as Lord). Also, although in context it is obviously Amalric of Tyre, "Amalric of Lusignan" usually refers to the Amalric of 100 years earlier (Amalric I of Cyprus/II of Jerusalem).

Otherwise I don't see any problems. I am impressed with how this article has turned out! If I have a moment I will try to go over it in more detail. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, thanks. It's great to work with someone who really know the material! I have addressed all issues, including adding a mention of the Battle of La Forbie, and the Sempad letter. For an-Nasir, I re-checked Morgan, who refers to him as "Caliph", so I updated the article accordingly. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please let me know. --Elonka 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, he does? I can't check that at home right now, but an-Nasir certainly wasn't the caliph...the Abbasid caliph of Baghdad was sort of like the Muslim Pope, a religious leader. He was killed by the Mongols in 1258. an-Nasir was a relatively minor Ayyubid emir, a political leader. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually I can see that on Google Books. Morgan is talking about the caliph in Baghdad, and then an-Nasir, separately, although he doesn't give an-Nasir a title. Normally I would say an-Nasir was just an emir, based on his age/previous possessions/general inexperience, but since he ruled in Damascus he could just as well be called a sultan, which is what Grousset calls him (in "Empire of the Steppes"). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, should An-Nasir redirect to Al-Nasir? There were more Caliphs than usual at this point, surely, but I'd defer to AB & his sources. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah, I guess it doesn't help that there is also a caliph with the same name. I think that's a problem with with people named "al-Mansur" too, and there are a couple of Ayyubids named "al-Adil". Too bad they are always known by these names, which are actually titles, rather than their actual given names. In any case, Runciman also refers to an-Nasir Yusuf as "sultan". (Maybe he's not as minor as I thought, I must be thinking of some earlier Ayyubids.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so there's Sultan An-Nasir, and Caliph An-Nasir, and it didn't help that Morgan referred to the Caliph in one sentence and the Sultan in the next. Okay, thanks, I agree with the change.[4] --Elonka 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to change my comment to a support :) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I'm not seeing it on this page, although it is likely covered somewhere in talk archives or one of the arb cases (if so, please link?). I'm wondering how the article name "Franco-Mongol alliance" was chosen considering ... there wasn't one. A Google books, Google scholar search doesn't lead me to anything conclusive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current talk page has a failed move proposal from 2010, made by Elonka, opposed by Adam Bishop ("Oppose, since this a phrase used by scholars, even if it is to say that there wasn't one") and others. It has links to previous rounds. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnbod-- your link is red, but I found it here; noting for the record that the requested move was closed as "no consensus" and the subject was not reviewed on this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion of "European-Mongol diplomacy" was made after the RM, and would also solve the question of defining Franco as more than France; "Western European" might be even better. The title should not say Franks; too many readers will think of the Merovingians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title doesn't accurately describe the topic. It's a relic of the troubled history of the article, and the dissonance will be confusing to readers. Kanguole 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to another discussion about re-naming the article, but for now, I think it's probably best to leave the title as it is. If nothing else, the title has been stable for over a year, and I'd rather not stir up the naming hornets' nest right now, which might risk de-railing the FA process. Could we possibly table this discussion for the moment, with assurances that we will re-visit it after the article is promoted? We can then (re)review the terms that historians use, and look into crafting a new consensus if necessary. --Elonka 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a spotcheck of the sources, and another look at the prose wouldn't hurt. Ucucha (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Reasons for failure" section seems to have only source, and every paragraph begins with "there have" or "there are" –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many direct quotes in this article. I know that sounds like the "too many notes" bit in the movie "Amadeus". However, direct quotes are for main points, or particularly original or particularly representative ones. Many times the quotes in this article seem like mere name-dropping, "Person x said simply, 'The attempt failed'" is one example. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a result of the disputes that the article has gone through. Often when there was disagreement about how to interpret what a particular historian said, the consensus was just to quote the historian verbatim. --Elonka 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reference spotcheck

References to check chosen by random number generator.

  • FN.24 Ascelin is not mentioned on cited page 522. He is mentioned on the previous page but his leadership of the mission or the 1245 date is not verified there either. The meeting of Aibeg and Sargis with the pope is not verified, merely that they probably carried the letter.
    • Article: "They [Aybeg and Sargis] accompanied Innocent's embassy back to Rome, and stayed for about a year, meeting with Innocent in 1248.
    • Source (p.522): "The pope's reply to Baiju's letter...dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aybeg and Sargis..."
    • Source (p.521): "It is thus quite understandable that the two Mongol messengers, Aybeg and Sargis, were held virtually incommunicado..."
  • FN.29 Hetum's submission is verified but not his role as the main conduit of negotiation nor his encouragement of other kings to submit. FN.28 is also cited but I can only access page 7 with my credentials. However, the snippet given in the footnote also fails to verify his later role.
  • FN.36 ok
  • FN.38 ok
  • FN.61 ok
  • FN.63 ok
  • FN.74 ok
  • FN.98 ok , except neither this source nor FN.97 verify that Kelemechi was head of the astrological observatory in China.
  • FN.99 partly verified through Google snippets view only. Cannot get a hit in this book for "Ghizolfi" or "Ghisolfi" on any page but the rest of the sentence seems ok. Although not cited here, FN.104 later found to verify Ghisolfi.
    • Article:Through Bar Sauma and other later envoys, such as Buscarello de Ghizolfi, Arghun promised the European leaders that if Jerusalem were conquered, he would have himself baptised and would return Jerusalem to the Christians.
  • FN.104a ok (in conjunction with FN.103)
  • FN.105b agf no access
  • FN.110 ok verifies in part only, but covered by other refs
  • FN.134 ok
  • FN.136 ok
  • FN.138 ok
  • SpinningSpark 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the thorough review. Answers follow:
      • I reworked the section on Aybeg & Serkis, and added a couple more refs.
      • For Hetum, I toned back the language a bit, and added a link to another ref, Nersessian, to verify the info.
      • Regarding Kelemechi, the information was sourced at the Isa Kelemechi article, but I've gone ahead and brought one of the refs over.
      • For Ghizolfi, the ref you are referring to, Rossabi p. 99, is verifying the Bar Sauma part, not the Ghisolfi part. As with Kelemechi, since Buscarello de Ghizolfi has his own article, I didn't feel that it was necessary to source the details on him (since the sources are at the Ghizolfi article), but if you'd like, I could definite bring some refs over.
    • If you have any other questions, let me know! --Elonka 06:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am still not seeing verification of Hethum ecouraging other states to submit to the Mongols. Nerssessian (FN.30) talks about encouraging alliance, not submission. He also appears to be discussing the period late 1250s- early 1260s which is somewhat later than 1247. I can only access the first page of Stewart (FN.31) but his article is also clearly about a much later period. Jackson (FN.32) also does not talk about encouraging others, and I am not seeing the 1247 date - it could only be arrived at by adding "1244", "shortly afterwards", and "two years later". While 1247 is not going to be far wrong, it is still WP:SYNTH.
      • I offer no comment on whether relying on other Wikipedia articles for facts is acceptable, but it remains that "head of the astrological observatory in China" is unverified in this article. FN.100 verifies neither that it was an observatory, nor its location (although China is a reasonable implication).
        • Source: "...Kublai Khan established an Office of Western Astronomy in 1263 with the Syrian Isa kelemechi as its head."
      • "Ghizolfi" remains unverified for the same reason.
      • SpinningSpark 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworked the sentences on Hethum and Kelemechi, and added a few more sources to verify Ghisolfi's involvement. --Elonka 03:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now struck most of my comments, but you have not responded to the 1247 date question. SpinningSpark 10:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for not being clear. When I said above that I had reworked the Hethum sentence, I meant that I had addressed your concern. The sentence now reads, "Hethum I submitted in 1247, and over the following years encouraged other monarchs to enter into a Christian-Mongol alliance." --Elonka 02:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reworking of the sentence is fine, that is not the issue. The problem is that there is no cite to verify this happened in 1247. SpinningSpark 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. I have added two more sources, with URL links so they should be easier to check. BTW, one possibility for why Google searches are proving more difficult here, is because there are many alternate spellings for Hethum's name: Hethum, Het'um, Hayton, Hethoum, Hetoum, etc. --Elonka 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now struck. For the avoidance of doubt, when searching cited sources I used the spelling of Hethum found in the source rather than that in the article. That is, prior to the introduction of additional sources, the spotcheck would still have failed. SpinningSpark 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source spotcheck has resulted in 3 out of 15 (20%) of passages checked being rewritten to comply with sources. Possibly this was just unlucky, but may indicate either that a further spotcheck is in order, or even that the article should be withdrawn while a more thorough source check is carried out. I am saddened to have to make this comment, Elonka has clearly worked hard to bring this article up to standard and I very much enjoyed reading it. SpinningSpark 10:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinningspark, and again, thank you for the time you have taken to review the sources. I of course disagree with your suggestion that the nom should be withdrawn. Your spotcheck showed that there were no incidents of copyright violation, nor any incidents of "close paraphrasing". --Elonka 14:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm very unconvinced by the quality of the prose in this article. A few examples from the lead:

  • "... as attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance ...". You make attempts "towards forming", as opposed "to form"?
  • "Such an alliance would have seemed a logical choice". To whom?
  • "The Mongols had already conquered other Christian nations ...". There has so far been no mention of any Christian nation being conquered by the Mongols.
  • "... including the Kingdoms of Georgia and Cilician Armenia". Why is "Kingdom" capitalised? "Empires" wasn't in "They also shared a common enemy in the Muslim empires".
  • "... the often-proposed alliance was never achieved". Alliances aren't achieved.
  • "... through infrequent messages from the Papacy or European monarchs ...". "Or"? Shouldn't that be "and"? And why is "Papacy" capitalised?
  • "Attempts towards an alliance continued through negotiations with multiple leaders of the Mongol Ilkhanate in Iran ...". That's at best semi-literate.
  • "... which usually resulted in the forces arriving months apart". "Apart" can't possibly be the right word here.
  • "A final attempt was made to establish a bridgehead at the small island of Ruad off the coast of Tortosa, again in an attempt to coordinate military action with the Mongols." By whom?
  • "The plan for collaboration failed ...". Whose plan? Who were the collaborators? Was it just a "plan for collaboration" or was it a planned collaboration?
  • "... if it had been successful, would have even been effective in shifting the balance of power in the region". How are we to parse "would have even been effective"?

Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malleus, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed most of your concerns, with other comments as follows:
  • "logical choice": Do you have suggestions on how else to word this? It's similar to how the subject is treated in the sources. For example, Atwood's quote, "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam."
  • Thanks for pointing out the capitalization issues, those are now fixed.
  • Regarding the sentence that you say is "semi-literate": Could you suggest a better way to word it?
  • Ditto with "apart": What would you suggest instead?
  • "would have been effective": I'm not sure what you're asking here?
Looking forward to your reply, --Elonka 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some background here that I've only just become aware of, but I not uncommonly look at and try to help older nominations, nothing personal. Returning to this article, I see similar problems with the prose throughout. A few more examples:
Background (1209–1244)
  • "This legend fed upon itself, and some individuals who came from the East were greeted with the expectations that they might be the long-awaited Christian heroes". Why the plural "expectations" and "heroes"? The only hero mentioned is Prester John, and the only expectation is that he would be a Christian ally from the East.
  • "... the legends of Prester John again conflated with the reality of Genghis Khan's rapidly expanding empire." Again, isn't there only one legend?
Papal overtures (1245–1248)
  • "The Mongol invasion of Europe subsided in 1242". Invasions don't subside.
  • "The communications initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian–Mongol communications; the Europeans would ask for the Mongols to convert to Christianity, and the Mongols would simply respond with demands for submission." A rather subtle shift there between "Christian" and "European". Why?
  • "The loss of Jerusalem again caused some Europeans to look to the Mongols as potential allies of Christendom". The positioning of that "again" is rather ambiguous. Is that the loss of Jerusalem again, or that the loss of Jerusalem again caused some Europeans to consider the Mongols as potential allies?
Saint Louis and the Mongols
  • "... as Louis died there of illness." That reads very strangely to me.
Saint Louis and the Mongols
  • "Louis IX of France had engaged in communications with the Mongols since his first Crusade, when he was met on December 20, 1248, in Cyprus by two Mongol envoys, Nestorians from Mosul named David and Marc, who brought a letter from the Mongol commander in Persia, Eljigidei." There's a subtle tense switch there ("had engaged ... since") which is rather jarring. The sentence is also trying to cram in too much. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  • Prester John. The plurals seem appropriate. There were indeed multiple legends about Prester John, in multiple locations, and multiple individuals were greeted as being representatives or relatives of Prester John, so "heroes" seems correct as well.
  • changed "subsided" to "ended"
  • Christian-Mongol changed to European-Mongol
  • "Loss of Jerusalem": I removed the word "again" to avoid confusion
  • Sentence on Louis's death reworked to "when Louis died of illness", and I reworked the paragraph about his meeting with Eljigidei's envoys.
--Elonka 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I keep giving you examples only; I think the whole article needs a good seeing to before it meets 1a. "A few years later, in 1252, Louis tried unsuccessfully to ally with the Egyptians, and then in 1253 he tried to seek allies among both the Ismaili Assassins and the Mongols." Do you really believe that to be an example of our best work? Your explanation of the plural/singular is also inconsistent with the statement in the lead: "... due to the long-running legend of a mythical Prester John". That's singular, not plural. Malleus Fatuorum 07:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the "whole article needs a good seeing to" is not exactly an actionable concern. It is also somewhat dismissive of the many other reviewers who have already read and approved the article. Regarding Prester John, the word "legend" can be used in singular or plural depending on context, so it seems somewhat odd that you would oppose an entire FA nom based on something so minor. Ditto with the sentence about King Louis, I see nothing wrong, but if you would like to suggest a different wording, I would be happy to review your suggestion. As for whether or not I think that the Franco-Mongol alliance article is an example of Wikipedia's best work, my answer is an unequivocal "yes", otherwise I would not have nominated it. I think it would be a credit to Wikipedia to have this article show up on the mainpage, and indeed, I feel that the FMA article is of a higher quality, and has gone through far more scrutiny, than several of the other articles which I have seen bannered. --Elonka 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "the whole article needs a good seeing-to" is precisely an actionable concern - the prose isn't exactly first quality, and "brilliant prose" has always been one of the Featured Articles criteria. 128.226.130.41 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FAC, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Saying "the whole article needs a good seeing-to" is not specific, and is near impossible to address. --Elonka 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other reviewers have their opinions, I have mine, and my opinion will weigh no more heavily than that of anyone else. My only concern is whether or not this article meets FA criterion 1a, which I'm unconvinced that it does; if that's "dismissive" of other reviewers in your mind then so be it, but we might as well all pack up and go home if disagreement is now to be deprecated. The truth is that I keep giving you examples, yet very little is being fixed, and the focus is only on the examples, not the article as a whole. Let me give you just one more example, from the lead: "They [the Mongols] had already conquered other Christian nations in their advance across Asia ...". As no Christian nations have been mentioned at all at this point, "other Christian nations" is meaningless. And here's another, also from the lead: "Communications tended to follow a repetitive cycle ..." Aren't cycles by definition repetitive? And there are even small things that anyone reading the article ought to be able to spot need fixing, such as the inconsistent capitalisation of "Crusader": "After the Fall of Acre in 1291, the remaining Crusaders retreated to the island of Cyprus. A final attempt was made to establish a bridgehead at the small island of Ruad off the coast of Tortosa, again in an attempt by the crusaders to coordinate military action with the Mongols ". That's why I say the whole article needs to be looked through, not just those areas I've drawn attention to; this is not a peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some of the things you addressed. As for the capitalization of "Crusader", you are correct, this is inconsistent, even among the sources. Some capitalize the word, and others do not. There seems to be a slight preference towards capitalization, so I have tried to make the article consistent in that way, even though it now means that some sentences are using a different style than the sources which support them. --Elonka 02:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am having a look through the article to see if I can hoover up any remaining infelicities in the prose. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits that don't seem like clear improvements. --JN466 03:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comments from Malleus Fatuorum The text is certainly improving, but I still don't think it's quite there yet. For instance, I brought up the inconsistent capitalisation of "Crusader" above, but there's the same issue with "Crusade": "Louis IX of France had communications with the Mongols throughout his own crusades ...", "Louis attempted a second Crusade ...". There's a similar inconsistency with "king": we have "king of Jerusalem" but the "King of Armenia". We also have "French King Louis" in the Edward I's Crusade (1269–1274) section, but "French king Louis" in the Papal communications section.

  • From the lead: "The Franks and Mongols shared a common enemy in the Muslim empires, but despite generations of messages, gifts, and emissaries, the often-proposed alliance never came to fruition." Who was this common enemy in the Mongol empires, and how can messages and gifts go through generations?
  • Why is "Pope" capitalised throughout when "papacy" and "king" isn't"?
  • "Faced with the option of subjugation or facing the nearby Mongol horde ...". That "faced ... facing" is rather awkward.
  • "However, the only monarch who followed Hethum's advice was his son-in-law, Prince Bohemond VI of Antioch." This is said twice: once in the Christian vassals section and again in the Antioch section.
  • "... and accomplished raids as far south as Gaza". Raids aren't "accomplished.

Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point on the capitalization. This is another case where the sources are terribly inconsistent. I've tried to rework the article to have its own internal consistency, so, "The Crusades", "Crusaders", "Seventh Crusade", but "went on crusade" and "Edward's crusade". Will that work?
  • Regarding "king" and "pope", this is another case of sources being inconsistent with capitalization, but I've tried to bring the article into line with WP:JOBTITLES. Meaning the terms should be lowercased when referring to something generically, but capitalized when referring to a specific individual or specific government. So "John became a king", but "King John". "The popes decided that Pope Greg was the proper choice. As pope, he made the following declarations...".
  • With "papacy", sources are again all over the place,[5] and WP:MOSCAPS doesn't seem to offer specific guidance. So I've decided (somewhat arbitrarily) to simply lowercase throughout.
  • "common enemy", I've changed "Muslim empires" to "Muslims". As for the wording of "generations of messages, gifts, and emissaries", I don't really see a problem with it, but if you'd like to suggest a different wording, I'll definitely take a look.
    I've suggested an alternative, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "facing": Good point. Sentence has been re-worked.
  • Bohemond: Again, good catch. I removed one of the sentences.
  • "raids": Fixed.
--Elonka 05:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about ready to strike my oppose, but before I do I need to look through the whole article again, so please bear with me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyediting. I took another pass at the lead too. Does "several decades" work better than "generations"? --Elonka 06:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better I think. Malleus Fatuorum 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

I have added United States public domain tags to the nine files that were missing one. File:Pope Urban IV.jpg and File:B Gregor X.jpg are missing sources, dates and authors. DrKiernan (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've removed the Pope Urban image, and swapped the Pope Gregory image to one that has better source info. --Elonka 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Is Atwood the author of a chapter (indicated in footnote 2) or the editor of a whole encyclopedia (indicated in References).
  • Why do some authors who write short papers not have page numbers (e.g. Ryan ) but others do (e.g. Amitai, Knobler)?
  • Why does Demurger footnote 7 get a chapter title but others not?
  • Why do some footnotes give book titles and others not? I would remove the titles from the authors with only one work in the References section or always include them.
  • Why are Ghazarian and Glick in full in the footnote when other books are only given in full in the References section?
  • Why are some sources linked to google and others not? Jackson's Mongols and the West for example is linked in some footnotes and not others. I thought it might be because only certain pages were accessible, but that's not the case. The pattern seems random. Why not remove the links, and just link the whole book in the references section?
  • The locations in the References section tend to look silly. "New York, New York, USA" is unnecessarily precise, even for an FA. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed review! Answers follow:
  • Atwood: Both. He is credited to the entire encyclopedia, but for the actual citation, I chose to reference the specific entry that is being referred to.
  • Ryan does have page numbers: 411–421?
  • With Demurger, there was one entire chapter of his book which was relevant to that particular cite, whereas other Demurger references were more specific.
  • Books in footnotes: Fair enough, I moved Glick down.
  • The sources that are linked, were usually done in that way to make verification earier. This article went through multiple disputes, many of which revolved around the precise wording of a source. So if something was possibly controversial, we took care to provide links to the specific pages. Linking only to the entire book, would make it a bit more difficult to find the specific pages being referenced.
  • Source locations. (sigh) I agree with you, but I was trying to adapt to comments by other reviewers to be precise and consistent about locations. I'll happily format the sources in any way anyone wants, I'm just trying to be amenable to requests. So, please tell me how you'd like the sources formatted, and I will oblige?
--Elonka 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first five points, my queries are answered. I have made some edits in response: adding page nos. and removing unnecessary details.
On the penultimate point, I suspected as much and that's fine. On the last point, I suspected that too but I don't want it to become standard FA practice to overdo the locations. I think such creep should be avoided. It is, however, unnecessary to revert edits, only to resist doing them in the first place!
I have one more point on the sources: [115] is unclear, to which Amitai source does "Ghazan's first campaign into Syria (1299–1300)" relate? DrKiernan (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good eyes! That's condensed citation for a separate article of Amitai's, but the expanded citation was either never added, or disappeared somewhere along the way. I have (re)added it. --Elonka 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "1260's pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut" and "and the 170-year-old principality was no more" strike me as colloquialisms, I prefer "pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260" and ", ending the 170-year-old principality"
  • The clause "needed to withdraw because of other internal matters in the Mongol Empire." is woolly. It would be clearer to state what the internal matters were.
  • "The raids went as far as Gaza, passing through several towns, probably including Jerusalem.": This statement indicates the Mongols probably entered Jerusalem and then left. But the sentence "But in reality, Jerusalem had been neither taken nor even besieged" indicates that Jerusalem was by-passed. There is a contradiction here.
  • Please re-examine and check the third paragraph of the final section. Currently, it implies the Mongols could have certainly conquered all of Africa, which clearly cannot be the sense meant. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the Antioch sentence, but would rather not move the year 1260 to the end of the Ain Jalut sentence, because it would result in two nearby sentences in that paragraph both ending with "in 1260".
    • "internal matters": I have reworked that paragraph
    • Jerusalem wasn't really a strategic target at that point. Its walls were in ruins, and the populace wasn't in much of a condition to put up a fight. So it wouldn't be correct that it was "besieged" or "taken", though it's probably true that there were some raids on the city as the Mongols passed through, but they didn't stick around. So it's a bit of a semantics issue: If a Mongol raiding party goes galloping through a town, causing havoc, but then doesn't stay, does that mean that the city was "taken"? Sources tend to say no, which is why the section is worded the way that it is.
    • Reworked section about Africa
--Elonka 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note - Could the nominator please confirm that all reviewers' comments have been addressed, including the prose issues raised by Malleus Fatuorum and DrKiernan's points above. Graham Colm (talk) Graham Colm (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi GrahamColm. To my knowledge, all comments have now been addressed, unless of course DrKiernan has any further comments based on my most recent reply. The last I heard from Malleus was a couple days ago when he said he was about ready to strike his oppose,[6] but he has not returned since then. --Elonka 00:18, 13 February 2012 (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/Franco-Mongol_alliance/archive2&oldid=1138461029"