Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/GA1

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

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 15:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  15:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Criteria
GA Criteria:
 * 1
 * 1.a   ✅
 * 1.b   ✅
 * 2
 * 2.a
 * 2.b   ✅
 * 2.c   ✅
 * 2.d   ✅
 * 3
 * 3.a   ✅
 * 3.b   ✅
 * 4
 * 4.a   ✅
 * 5
 * 5.a   ✅
 * 6
 * 6.a   ✅
 * 6.b   ✅
 * No DAB links   ✅
 * No dead links   ✅ Although I suggest archiving with the WayBack machine.
 * No missing citations
 * The The RHC is divided into five series: [list of series]) section needs a citation, and I'd also suggest restructuring it to allow easier flow of the citation and text, as The RHC is divided into five series: Lois ("Laws", i.e. the Assizes of Jerusalem), Historiens occidentaux ("Western historians", i.e. texts in Latin and Old French), Historiens grecs ("Greek historians"), Historiens arméniens ("Armenian historians")
 * Coverted list to text with more detail and less french! Sourced to Tyerman. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The text Much of the popular understanding of the Crusades derives from the 19th century novels of Scott and the histories of Michaud. is missing a citation; article is otherwise good to go. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sourced to Tyerman(2019) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Some work needed with the citations:
 * 1st: I'd avoid the usage of dictionary sources, it shouldn't be hard to find academic sources (perhaps even within the already cited books) which define the terms.
 * I have used OED at FA before on House of Plantagenet with no objections? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 2nd: The bibliography structure needs to be fixed to meet GA Criteria 2A. Need to tidy up the uncited materials, fixing capitalization and other issues.
 * This should be done now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 3rd: The bibliography structure is convoluted, either:
 * Bring the list of uncited sources up below the "Islam" section, an action which will help to bring the citations on the non-cited material into the references, as the reflist only collects references above it; although the lists probably don't need to be referenced as they are, themselves, references.
 * or else separate the list of books not cited within the article to a new "Further Reading" section, and remove the references, which aren't strictly required as they are not currently prose or a footnote to prose. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  07:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have moved as suggested plus pruned what amounts to an arbitary list of sources, some of which are in the body, some that are not. I have left the references because they add a source to who thinks the primary sources are primary sources. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Anything further ? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

Lede

 * have been subject to competing interpretations from the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and possibly before. sentence structure seems to set up for a "from [date]... to [date]" statement; recommend making some sort of "until the modern era" or some such statement.
 * Added to the current day Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * meant that crusading was always controversial. suggest meant that the crusades were always controversial to avoid using crusading twice in two sentences (i.e. the start of the next one.)
 * Replaced second crusading with it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Background

 * against Palestine, Syria and Egypt: the First Crusade between 1096 and 1099 with a second wave 1101-1102, suggest against Palestine, Syria and Egypt; the most commonly accepted numbering holds the First Crusade between 1096 and 1099 with a second wave 1101-1102,...
 * Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits
I've made a few minor edits, feel free to revert any of them. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

—many thanks, are we done now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Passing now. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  19:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, much appreciated. There is another related one on the list Outremer, any chance you would like to run that one through GAR? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)