Talk:Crusading movement/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It created its own literature and had an enduring impact on the history of the western Islamic world and the Baltic region. – Does that mean the impact was not enduring in other regions where crusaders were active?
 * Rephrased to match source, does this work? The crusading movement impacted almost every area of life in every country in Europe through influence on the Church, religious thought, politics, the economy, society and generating its own literature. It also had an enduring impact on the history of the western Islamic world. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * His crusade philosophy grew from the political and ecclesiastical chaos in southern Italy and the Reconquista in Spain. – This is very unspecific, and I don't know what to take from it. What where Urban's motives for initiating the Crusade? How is it related to this chaos? Did the crusade help him to consolidate his power, and if so, how? The question what sparkled the first Crusade isn't really answered.
 * Will have a look, covered in the Chivalry section now, will add a summary here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree it is a bit vague, so I have deleted it, . In truth we don't know his motivations, only his actions but relocating the Chivalry section to follwo chronologically adds context. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article focuses on the popes pretty much. But aren't the other institutions, most notably the knights, extremely important as well? What were the motivations of the crusaders? I think the concept of chivalrousness was very important, and fighting pagans was the most honorable thing a knight could do. What were the motives of rulers? Partly to get rid of the knights for some time, because those proved problematic in fighting each other. Things like these, I somehow miss from the article.
 * Good point —I have added a new section, Chivalry, to cover this. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice! I wonder, though, if that section could be integrated better. The sections of the article seem to be, in parts, in a random arrangement lacking overarching structure. Is Chivalry not an aspect of the ideology as well? Should we really discuss the major actors of the Crusades and their ideologies separately like this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The news cascaded through the church hierarchy in writing in a Papal bull, although this system was not always reliable because of conflicts among clerics, local political concerns and lack of education. – That seems a bit unspecific. Did this unreliability effect any crusade in particular?
 * This is really just a summary, impact was both general and specific. But if we go specific that is far more detailed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The "propaganda" section covers the papal propaganda only. At least in some cases, rulers were responsible for propaganda as well?
 * Not sure this is correct? The second half of the paragraph is all secular: Aristocratic culture, family networks and feudal hierarchies spread informal propaganda, often by word of mouth. Courts and tournaments were arenas where stories, songs, poems, news, and information about crusades were spread. Songs of the crusades became increasingly popular, although some troubadours were hostile after the Albigensian Crusade. Chivalric virtues of heroism, leadership, martial prowess, and religious fervour were exemplars. Visual representations in books, churches and palaces served the same purpose. Themes were expanded in church art and architecture in the form of murals, stained glass windows, and sculptures. This can be seen in the windows at the abbey of Saint-Denis, many churches modelled on the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, or murals commissioned by Henry III of England? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

section; you have the article Historiography of the crusades, so this section here could be greatly reduced, leaving only the most important points as a summary?
 * "Medieval English literature" – shouldn't this be a general paragraph on contemporary reception, not English literature in particular? Did play English literature the most important role at that time?
 * Readable prose size is 77 kB (12018 words) which is very much according to WP:Size. The article would read better if more WP:summary style is applied. In particular, I'm wondering about the historiography
 * Will look to summarise, although the target article is still very much WIP. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Some first general points above. I would suggest to discuss them first, and then I move on to some more details. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Jens Lallensack, and thank you. I must admit I had forgotton I had nominated this one, it has been on the list a long time. Some of these are not straight forward and I am currently very busy IRL, so please be patient with me. I will try to find some time to work through these methodically but it might not be quick—is that OK? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem from my side, I will place the review "on hold" for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Jens Lallensack, much appreciated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Jens Lallensack, it would be useful to get some feedback that indicates whether I am on a track with which you agree with the comments above? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Structure looks much better! But avoid the single-sentence paragraph in "Background". If you want to keep the whole "Historiography" section (I note that the article is still on the long end), then this would at least need some subheadings; at the moment it is a quite uninviting wall of text that offers the reader little orientation. I will have another read-through soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made a first attempt to edit Historiography back, may need another go but I will wait until you have had another look. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Outsider comment... I don't understand why medieval literature receives its own section, including the names of figures and their works, while song is reduced to a single line in the propaganda section. I see that Walther is mentioned in passing, and that troubadours are earlier (the article to which is unlinked, by the way). Considering the huge ("huge", considering how long ago we're talking) amount of songs that survive on the topic (see Crusade song), IMO this is a massive omission. Things like Palästinalied, Trouvères are not included at all. This is not my specialty in medieval music though—I will ping, who is better versed than I, to see what they think. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Aza24, it is a huge subject, even with the current scope. Any advice on ommissions e.g. songs would be gratefully received. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, none of the problems that have plagued this article from its inception has really been addressed. When I look at this article, I have no idea what to make of it. The section on chivalry is excessive. The paragraphs on ransom and vernacular literature, for example, do not make any clear connection to the crusading movement. The entire military history section is redundant to multiple articles, since it is already summarized at Crusades. The "Later Historiography" section is out of place, since it is not about ideological development. As to 's specific point, I think the literature section should be much larger. There is a ton of contemporary literature in a variety of languages on the crusades. There are pilgrim guidebooks and the whole recuperatio Terrae Sanctae genre, both of which are more relevant than late medieval insular fiction on crusading themes. And that's not even mentioning vernacular lyric poetry, the "classical" period of which almost exactly corresponds to the classical period of Crusading. Srnec (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Closer look at section "Before the Crusades"

 * The use of violence for communal purposes was not alien to early Christians. – "The use of communal violence …"?
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The evolution of a Christian theology of war was inevitable – "inevitable" is a very bold claim!
 * rephrased and removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * became linked to Christianity and citizens were required to fight against the Empire's enemies. – But wasn't Augustine mostly concerned with fighting the Donatists, i.e., a sect within the empire?
 * that I don't know, does the rephrasing address this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This was supported by the development of a doctrine of holy war dating from the works of the 4th-century theologian Augustine. – I don't think that Augustine introduced the term "holy war".
 * rephrased for chronology. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * and the papacy attempted to mitigate it. – Another bold claim; the papacy was a major player for power itself? It seems that the sentence refers to feuding only (which also threatened ecclesiastical properties), and kings/emperors were equally interested in stopping it; I therefore think it is misleading.
 * removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: I have to say that based on by points above, and drive-by comments by users above, I'm concerned about overall text quality. This is a very difficult article, but it does not seem to be at GA level just yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a difficult article, and for that reason I appreciate your review (whether it ultimately proves to be successful or not). It will certainly improve what we have. @Aza24 makes a very good point regarding the absence of a section on song, I will remediate that next week. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope

 * Reviewers above complained about scope and lack of focus, and I tend to agree. The disambiguation notice states This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. For the expeditions themselves, see Crusades. However, you nevertheless have a long section on "Military history". Shouldn't that be reduced to a single short paragraph to the "Background" section (perhaps with an additional "see also" hint?). The reviewers above also repeated my concerns on the section on later historiography. My question: Is this a sub-topic of "Crusading movement", or should it be a separate topic of its own? If the latter, I would advice to just remove it.
 * The last paragraph in "Later Crusading Movement" is very long and should be split, and it appears to need a copy edit as well.
 * On a general note: I feel we still have quite some way to go to reach GA; very substantial changes have already been made and more are probably needed; and this feels more like a Peer Review. What about closing this nomination now and moving it over to Peer Review – I think that the article could benefit greatly from more diverse input (which would also make it easier for me), and we would not be under time constraints anymore? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @Jens Lallensack, that suggestion works perfectly for me Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have some ideas about the song section, but haven't gotten time recently to relay them. I would be happy to so either here or PR later this week. Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be good @Aza24, I'll add a section as a placeholder and there wouldn't be any problem with editing these ideas into the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, please nominate at Peer Review as discussed. Closing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)