Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive1

Crusades

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This vital article is being improved as an entrant in the Core Contest: Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. This peer review is part of the process, which runs from 0.00 hrs UTC 15 April to 0.00 hrs 12 May 2013. All editors are invited to offer suggestions for article improvement.

On behalf of the Core Contest judges, Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dead link [1] for "The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World" from doaks.org should be replaced with: http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/byzantine-studies/crusades/cr01.pdf Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is a significant amount of overlinking throughout
there are a number of external links that need checking [2]. Suggest you use Google Books links rather than Amazon as they tend to be more stable.
none of the images have alt text (this is important for vision-impaired WP users)
there is one bare url reference [3]
suggest the first sentence of the lead needs a re-work. For example, they were a series of wars "~~taking~~ that took place". The immediate reference to "propaganda of religious expeditionary wars" jars quite significantly. I believe the stated aim was to recapture the Holy Land, so that should probably be what goes in the first sentence. The way in which they were encouraged may well have been through the use of such propaganda, but it is inappropriate to have the ways and means put ahead of the aim.
terminology and spelling needs to be consistent throughout. Seljuq/Seljuk/Turkish Muslims is an example.
an infobox with a map of the areas fought over would be a useful addition. The current miniature painting is not an appropriate lead image.
when using terms which are linked, but which are not self-explanatory, some context or explanation is needed. An example is the Investiture Controversy. Some words need to be added to explain that this was a conflict between the Church and monarchs about who could appoint church officials.
the use of Just War doctrine in the Crusades is highly questionable given it wasn't properly defined by Thomas Aquinas until after the Crusades. This point needs to be carefully cited from scholarly sources. The current section is unreferenced.
the statement about the numbering scheme must be carefully cited
there is a definitional problem in general with the article. In the lead it defines what the Crusades were, then in the Middle Eastern crusades section it talks about other "crusades". The scholarly sources need to be mined carefully to define what the subject of the article is, then stick to it throughout. No problem with mentioning that some authors may go wider, but the lack of definition and "mission creep" is rather clear in the current article.
the First Crusade needs more explanation of the pledge made by Bohemund.
is Bohemund I of Antioch the same as Taranto? Needs explanation.
"taking the cross" is unexplained until the etymology section, which should probably go up near the top of the article.
the See also section has a number of links already in the body of the article. It could be significantly reduced in size.
there are whole sections with no citations at all.
there are many section that are too small to justify remaining separate.
there are some highly controversial statements throughout that have been tagged, and need careful citing to scholarly sources.
it needs a thorough copy edit.

Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated comments from Casliber

make sure you link terms such as Levant at first instance.

The crusaders comprised military units of Christians from all over Western Europe, and were not under unified command. - if you flip this to: "Comprised of military units of Christians from all over Western Europe, the crusaders were not under unified command." - trying to avoid "crusade(r)" being one of the first two words of every para in the lead.

Pilgrimages had been allowed by Christians to the holy sites in Palestine from soon after their conquest by the Muslims - sounds like the Christians are the ones doing the allowing....

Needs a line mentioning the lack of evidence for the childrens' crusade (now that does sound like an intriguing story...)

I am wondering whether the defintiion and use of the word should come at the top rather than the bottom.

I suspect the criticism and legacy sections could be bigger....