Talk:First Crusade/GA1

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

I will be reviewing this article. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, the review is now basically complete. I can see from the article's history that it was once FA, and most of the article is therefore in good shape. There were some problematic sections, which i've been WP:BOLD with, and reworked/re-written myself, quite extensively in some cases. I've also generally restructured the article, to shift emphasis onto the First Crusade itself (rather than the other events surrounding it). Anyway, I now feel the text is in very good shape, although there are clearly some problem areas. Which are detailed below.


 * 1) There are a number of statements which require citations. These are marked with the  or  tags. In some cases there are whole paragraphs without citations. These need sourcing.
 * 2) The in-line citations need to be standardised. There is too much detail in many. They should be in the format: "Brown, p. 1." Further detail should only be added when more than one source is used from the same author. Most of the citations are actually OK, but particularly at the start they are excessive. All the extra detail can be placed in the bibliography.
 * 3) The WP:LEAD still needs to be expanded, to four paragraphs (for an article of this size). I suggest 'background', 'preparation', 'main events' and 'aftermath'.
 * 4) A summary style description of the Battle of Ascalon needs to be added (since it was a major event on the crusade).

I think that's more or less it actually. There was a lot more that needed doing, but I figured it would take me just as long to explain what I thought needed doing as it would to just do it myself! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: - Changed to "nay" - Chrisfow (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: - Changed to "nay" - Chrisfow (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: - Changed to "nay" - Chrisfow (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously FA
Just a note of trivia, but the article when it first became FA had no inline citations. I suppose this is why this article is missing citations. — M C  10  &#124;  Sign here!  20:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was back before Wikipedia required citations. We were working on it last year, but everyone seems to have given up; I got about halfway through rewriting/citing it, and I haven't gotten back to it yet. I wouldn't list this as GA or FA yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to help you rewrite and cite the article while I have time on my hands. I would at the moment agree, it's not ready to be listed as GA or FA. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has been very greatly improved recently and is now very well referenced, though there are still some outstanding tags. It has been on seven day hold now for six weeks, so I think it is time to admit that it is a GA fail and should be resubmitted when you are happy with it.  I have no doubt that we will not have to wait too long to see this resubmitted. Chrisfow (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oooops, I meant to get round to closing the review but...well...somehow it just never happened. Thanks for doing that. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)