Talk:Albigensian Crusade/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * See comments below
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * See comments below
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * See comments below
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Prose
 * by the middle of the 14th century, the Cathar movement had been virtually extinguished What does this mean? Did some pockets survive? Is so, add this. ("virtually" sounds like a WP:WEASEL word.)
 * They regarded water as unclean, and therefore refused to use it. Just for baptism, or for drinking and bathing? And what is meant by "unclean"?
 * Pope Innocent declared Raymond anathematized released all of his subjects from their oaths of obedience to him Grammatical issue here.
 * Carcassonne, préfecture of the department traversed by the Aude river What does this mean?
 * "Carsaconne" should be "Carcassonne" ? (three instances) (You also have "Carcassconne")
 * The article is supposed to be in British English, so:
 * "labeling" -> "labelling"
 * "favorite" -> "favourite"
 * "favor" -> "favour"
 * "vigor" -> "vigour"
 * "endeavor" -> "endeavour"
 * "defenses" -> "defences"
 * "combatting" should be "combating"
 * "monarchial" should be "monarchical"
 * "Massacre against the Albigensians" should be "of"

This has all been done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Layout
 * Suggest merging the first two paragraphs of the Genocide section to remove the one-sentence paragraph. (MOS:PARAGRAPHS) (Also: the section flips between the past and present tense.)(Amd the break between the other two paragraphs doesn't seem logical.)
 * Also (and this is purely a matter of taste) I would swap the images of the Cathers being expelled from Carcassonne in 1209 with the map in the infobox, allowing the map to be made larger (and readable) with an upright=1.3 parameter.

I did as suggested for the first point, but not the second. I prefer to keep the image of the Cathars being expelled near the section about the events at Carcassonne. The map is more general and fits better in the infobox. I did, however, increase the size by a little bit. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * Add access date to fn 19. Suggest formatting to match fn 92.
 * What does fn 82 refer to?
 * fn 91 is a book, so move it into the Bibliography and reformat the reference to match the other references. (And get rid of the capitals.)
 * fn 103 is a book, so move it into the Bibliography and reformat the reference to match the other references. And find the page number.

I couldn't find the page number for the last book, but I took care of everything else. I know that books in FAs are always supposed to include page numbers, and that it's always preferable to have them, but I don't think that missing one out of over 100 should result in a GA review failing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Placing review on hold.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your thorough review. I have responded to all of your concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Passing now. This is a great article. Suggest sending to an A class review.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)