Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crusades/archive2

Crusades

 * Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns starting in the 11th century and continuing to a point that in time that is a matter of debate for historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * For both the Latin/Byzantine and Teutonic Order maps, suggest duplicating the legend in the caption
 * —DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Painting titles are generally italicized
 * —DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Some images are missing alt text
 * —DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead
 * —Image RemovedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg: first source link is dead
 * —Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Friedrich_II._mit_Sultan_al-Kamil.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Akra1291.jpg, File:La_Rendición_de_Granada_-_Pradilla.jpg
 * —DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Deutscher_Orden_in_Europa_1300.png: possible to translate the description?
 * —DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:"Галицькі_хоругви_у_Грюнвальдскій_битві_15_липня_1410_року".jpg: do not see that licensing at given source
 * —Image RemovedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: why is this believed to be PD in Syria? Also source link is dead
 * —Image RemovedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Ice-battle.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work.
 * —Image RemovedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi —are this ok? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack
Reading now, but probably will need a second read. Great to see an article of this importance here. However, I think this still needs work in terms of readability and comprehensibility. Preliminary suggestions below:
 * The background section focuses on the debates of current historians. However, this section should be primarily help the reader without prior knowledge to get into the complicated topic. I would start with introducing all relevant parties (and all important associated information), providing much more basic information as background. For example, the background section could make use of a map showing the relevant empires just before the beginning of the Crusades.
 * —Can you give examples here please. I look at the background and don't really see current historical debate in the background, or do you mean lede? I am a bit heads down with this so a second pair of eyes is helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The background section revolves around the question if the Crusades where a "surprising and unexpected event" or not. This is actually from the first sentence of that section. It thus directly dives into complicated, very specific questions. Consider that this is a Level-3 vital article and thus should be as accessible as possible. A background section is supposed to provide the reader unfamiliar with the topic with the context necessary for comprehending what follows. What do you think about starting with the basics: Introduce the main powers in both Europe and the middle east first (the constellation just before the first Crusade), together with the most important facts and histories that the reader needs to know in order to understand the rest of the article. Only then I would discuss the question why the Crusade actually started, and if it was foreseeable or not. This is my personal opinion, and I might be unreasonable, but I am just worried that the article makes it unnecessarily difficult for, lets say school childs, to comprehend the background section, and I myself didn't found it an easy read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinking on this —the info is inportant but take your point. What about if I summarise where the background is, and add a section lower titled something like 'Cause'? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — how does the Background section look to you now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion was split further due to a lack of dialogue leading to differences of custom and this resulted in the Christian Church to splitting along Latin/Orthodox lines – a convoluted sentence, perhaps rewrite more concisely, and mention the term schism?
 * —Reworded but didn't metion Schism to keep this simple as you suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This status quo was disrupted by the western migration of the Turkish tribes, particularly the Seljuqs. – link Seljuqs (as first mention), also state when this migration happened.
 * —date added in Cause section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Egypt had been ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969. – Needs more explanation; it does not become clear that Egypt was conquered by the Seljuqs. I would add more background on the Seljuqs (e.g., when did they conquer Egypt)
 * —THis isn't background or cause—it is covered in detail in the 11th century section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the succession of information is not ideal yet in the background section. You are talking about the Christian world first, then about the Seljuqs, then about Christians (the Byzantine Empire) again.
 * —Reordered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is still redundancy between the background and the new "causes" section.
 * —redundnacy removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it makes sense to have the "causes" section as a subsection of "background" (or as a major section just after the "background")?
 * —moved up Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would make sure that every person is introduced at first mention. E.g, instead of just "Peter the Hermit", I would write "the priest Peter the Hermit". I think it helps the reader a lot to get a first impression of what is behind those names.
 * I've gone through the article and tried to do this for everyone who is simply named, or only identified by an epitet, adding "count", "king", and such to give better clarity on why someone mattered in the time. Some figures were harder than others and I chose identifies like "French Noble" or "Franciscan Friar" to help identify them. I'm pretty sure I got everyone. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you — does this cover your points? I don't want to amend LordOfHats fine work if it does—if you still think it needs work how about I work through again and extract some of the names to Notes. If it works for you two it would would read narratively to those who only want a certain level of detail but the detail would remain for those who want more. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When discussing the Peoples Crusade, I miss some info about the reasons for the massacres of Jews. Similar massacres occurred in later Crusades, so this might be an important point to elaborate on a bit more right at this point.
 * I think the point is that there was a level of religious intolerance in Latin Christianity, not sure the drawing the reasons out adds much value to this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —changed mind and added detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For an overview article of this level, it is loaded with names. This makes it challenging for the reader. Two ideas: 1) Maybe you could check if some of the names could be removed, keeping only the most important ones. 2) When names that already have been introduced are mentioned again later on, it is difficult for the reader to remember "who was that". So it might make sense to remind the reader by repeating their status/function. For example, instead of "visited Zengi's son and successor", you could say "visited the son and successor of Zengi (the governor of Mossul)".
 * I'm going to try and work on this later. I'm familiar with the Crusades, but not so much that I know everyone involved by name and was confused more than once as the article went on. Additionally, some figures don't seem to be named at all (The sultan of Baghdad and the Abbasid Caliph are both mentioned but not named) and someone might need to help with that. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — picked up the names and also tried rephrasing. What do you think Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The third decade saw campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians, and Conrad III of Germany and the foundation of the Knights Templar. – This article needs to be readable for people without any prior knowledge, especially since the Crusades are such an central topic. This sentence is an example of how the reader may get lost: What is the relevance of the Knights Templar for the Crusades? They need to be properly introduced at first mention.
 * added introduction Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Egypt was ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969, independent from the Sunni Abbasid rulers in Baghdad and with a rival Shi'ite caliph – considered the successor to the Muslim prophet Mohammad. The caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier, was chiefly responsible for governance. – This is the kind of background information that is also needed elsewhere in the article. This specific information comes too late in my opinion; why not moving it to the "background" section?
 * — text moved Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In 1163 the deposed vizier – I can't quite follow, it was previously stated the invasion was halted, so how comes the vizier got deposed?
 * —rephrased for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Doge Enrico Dandolo – "Doge" should be linked, and ideally explained, at first mention.
 * —Added expnanation of title & linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the French Crusaders eventually had their excommunications lifted. – What "French Crusaders"? I thought it was the King of Germany and the Doge of Venice?
 * —I have removed the sentence as this seems superfluous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos, they conquered Constantinople, not once but twice. Following upon their initial success, the Crusaders captured Constantinople again and this time sacked it – this reads quite confusing. They conquered Constantinople twice and than sacked it? Not sure how to understand this.
 * —RedraftedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols – Also, important players such as the Mongols need to be properly introduced. They appear out of nothing in the text.
 * — added Mongol explanation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You use both the terms "French" and "Franks", are these synonyms? If so, this is confusing; I suggest to stick with one term.
 * —No, they are not synonyms. French is used for the subjects of the King, and residents of France at the time, Frank is explained in terminology, it is the generic term for any Western European/Latin Christian crusading in the Levant. Used to differentiate Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

minor points: --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Western chronicles present the First Crusade as surprising and unexpected event – "a" missing?
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The resultingGregorian Reform – space missing
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They were joined by Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin I of Jerusalem – But I guess Baldwin I didn't had this name ("of Jerusalem") at this point already, before the Crusade?
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

second look: Thanks for all the improvements so far. I'm still not completely convinced about the background section though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think there should be more general background. I would even start with the spread of Christianity and the Umayyad conquests (Muslim conquests is listed under "Further information", but no word in the text about this). Something similar to the second paragraph of the "Historical context" section of the First Crusade article, but with less detail. Just to get an idea where the Seljuqs and Fatimids are coming from.
 * —Added something similar to the First Crusade article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world existed across the Mediterranean Sea. – Needs a date. Since when?
 * —Now follows from aboveNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Muslim control for more than four centuries – Also, this needs a point of reference. Four centuries before the start of the first Crusade? The preceding sentence states "From the 8th century", so this has to be assumed to be the temporal point of reference, but this can't be.
 * —Now follows from aboveNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * and Norman adventurers led by Norman nobleman Roger de Hauteville (Roger I of Sicily) conquered the Muslim Emirate of Sicily. – Maybe it does not hurt to mention this, but is there a direct relevance for the crusades?
 * — This illustrates the frontier conditions and is analogous to the Reconquista. In addition the Kingdom of Sicily, the de Hautvilles and the Normans conflict with the papacy and the Byzantines are all covered later and have significant importance Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The legal rights of Christians in the Holy Land are explained in detail, but other aspects lacking, I just have the feeling this is still quite unbalanced.
 * — How does it look now. The realtions between faiths at the point of the First Crusade is crucial while other factors of life in the Levant are not. If you explain how and why you think it is unbalanced I will investigate  Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey —are you able to support this now? Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the fixes, it is much improved. However I still haven't read the rest of the article. First bunch of issues below.


 * The three-month march to Antioch was arduous – should be mentioned that this city was Muslin-held; one can guess from what follows, but it disrupts reading flow.
 * —added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * massacring the Muslim and many Christian Greeks, Syrian and Armenian inhabitants – "Greek", because of "Greek inhabitants"? I would also add "orthodox" to the "Christian" for better accessibility.
 * —reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some Islamic contemporaries promoted the idea that there was a natural Islamic resurgence under Zengi, through Nur al-Din to Saladin although this was not as straightforward and simple as it appears. – This somehow interrupts the Saladin narrative, and makes the text quite difficult to follow. I also does not become clear why it was not "as straightforward and simple". Maybe just delete this sentence.
 * —deleted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Saladin imprisoned all the caliph's heirs'' – I cannot right follow here. In the previous sentences we learned that Saladin became ruler of Egypt. Did he really imprisoned the heirs before he seized Damascus and Syria?
 * —now this is interesting but perhaps overly detailed so I have deleted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * King Louis VII and Conrad III led armies from France and Germany to Jerusalem and Damascus without winning any major victories. – This is the only information the article gives on the effects of the second Crusade in the Holy Land. Would it worth adding that they were defeated by Seljuks, reached Jerusalem, and started a failed attack on Damascus? Maybe make the point that it was a failure?
 * —too true, rewritten for more detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * King Guy of Jerusalem – linked more than once
 * —not only done this one but remove all overlinking through the article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As a result, much of Palestine quickly fell to Saladin including, after a short five-day siege, Jerusalem. – Here it would be helpful to know where King Guy of Jerusalem went (as he remains important in what follows, not clear where his army was coming from when he lost all of his lands).
 * — added recover Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On 28 August 1189 King Guy of Jerusalem besieged the strategic city of Acre – Information appears a bit detached (ok, the bigger picture becomes clearer later). But I think it would be helpful here to state if Acre was under Crusader control but fell to Saladin, or if it was always under Muslim control.
 * — reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The journey to the Eastern Mediterranean was – Who was travelling here? It lacks a clear connection to the preceding information. I suggest to move the sentence "His successor as Pope, Gregory VIII issued a papal bull titled Audita tremendi that proposed a further Crusade later named the Third Crusade to recapture Jerusalem." right before this one, to keep together what belongs together.
 * — reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * due to insufficiency of numbers – not sure if this is needed, could be removed?
 * —done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a new military threat to the civilised world – this would mean that the Golden Horde was not civilised. I doubt we can make this point.
 * —reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Baibars had three key objectives – Comes a bit out of nothing, does not connect with the former. Is it possible to combine this with the sentence where Baibars is first mentioned and introduced?
 * —moved Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Crusader states were fragmented, and various powers were competing for influence. – Again, no connection. Also, this sentence is so general that it does not really tells us anything new, and seems redundant to the first sentence of the paragraph.
 * — removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fleet returned to France, leaving only Prince […] This ended the last significant crusading effort in the Eastern Mediterranean – leaving him where? In Tunis? That is not eastern Mediterranean.
 * — corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Religious fervour enabled amazing feats of military endeavour – "amazing" is not neutral, and inappropriate here imo.
 * —corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

—all done, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell
In the legacy section, I think it would be worth mentioning the use of crusading imagery by extreme right-wing groups, cf Koch 2017. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Good idea, will edit in before review completes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —added content and referenced to this article—what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've included a note on this in my longer comments below. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There should be room for Carol Hillenbrand’s The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will have a look and cross check. She was cited as a source but the text the citations were supporting have been edited out over time. Unsure if there is any benefit of adding the source just for the sake of it. When there are detailed comments will look to tie together with this suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * —good idea, restored Hillenbrand. I will add further references when they come up during the FARNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article to FAC. Topics like this are hard to address and it’s encouraging to see someone tackling it. I appreciate it takes a lot of time and energy, and I hope it’s been rewarding. The outcome is that the 130,000+ people who read this page every month have a very useful source of information. Adam Bishop said the topic might be too big to be dealt with on Wikipedia. Given its complexity and impact, it’s possible he’s right but I’m glad we’re trying!

I’ve put some comments below which I hope will help improve the article. Not all of them need to be ‘actioned’, and some of them may just be food for thought.

Lead: The lead mentions the Rhineland massacres, but in such a way that makes it sound like an isolated event. I think it would be worth adding a bit more context that the crusades inspired religious hatred against non-Christians, which was acted out on Jewish communities across Europe on multiple ocassions.

Terminology: On a few occasions the term 'class' is used to refer to different social groups. I'd be cautious about using it, since ideas of class are often closely linked to working, middle, and upper class which are more reflective of early modern and modern society than medieval.

What is meant by 'frontier conditions'?

Images: The images relate to the text, but I think could be shuffled a bit. Royal MS 16 G VI is aligned with the paragraph before where Philip II (who is depicted) is mentioned. That's not too big an issue on a desktop, but on mobile view there's a substantial separation between image and text. A whopping 65% of readers of this page are on mobile so it's worth considering.
 * —as you asked I have reworded slighly, what is meant, and I seem to remember the source is Asbridge, is that these were the border between jursidictions but in the medieval way this led to occasional friction (typically violent raiding, banditry etc) while inhabitants on both sides actually had a lot in common (socially, economically, politically) and at other times significant contact. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Good change. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Of the 14 images, three are maps, ten are illustrations from illuminated manuscripts, and one is a 19th-century painting. It's a nice mix from a range of periods, but it's missing physical things - artefacts from the period which would evoke a sense of the crusades. Some of the manuscript images were created a couple of centuries after the events they depicted, are there options on Commons which are closer in time? I realise we have to work with what we’ve got, but I’d prefer to get within say 50 years if possible.

With the manuscript images, thank you for including the shelfmarks! Would it be useful to include the folio number too, or would that add too much clutter? At the least, it would be useful to have them on the image description pages.

Content: I’m unsure how much to include about the Children’s Crusade since it kind of didn’t lead anywhere – the current text seems enough if we’re sticking to high-level detail, but I think Gary Dickson’s book should be cited. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about how to discuss the Children’s Crusade.

The information on the Baron’s Crusade feels a little light to me. What’s your opinion on including more information, and how would you go about it?

There’s not much about the material culture of the crusades. The crusades led to the construction of castles and churches, and the use of relics (such as the Holy Lance) make for an interesting study which should be mentioned.

Thank you for adding content on the use of crusading symbolism in the present day. It’s a topic which is frankly unpleasant to deal with but is important to address. I wonder if it needs to be more explicit though. For example, ‘certain circles’ begs the question ‘who?’ when we are able to say that it’s the extreme right.

Clarity: 'historical analysis has demonstrated it was foretold by a number of earlier developments' makes it sound like the Crusades were prophesied. If I'm understanding correctly, the point is that there were conditions which make such a conflict more likely.

"... this marked the beginning of politically motivated Crusades" the absence of the French king from the First Crusade was politically motivated, so evidently a concern from the start. Perhaps this needs finessing, though I'm not sure about an alternative wording.

Nit-pick: directions (ie: north, south, etc) are sometimes capitalised, but since they’re nouns rather than proper nouns they don’t need to be.


 * —picked this one up.......thought I would start with the quick ones Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Overall: The article does a good job of weaving changes in interpretation into the text. It is strong on the political and military history, but I’d like to see more social history woven in. The level amount of information is generally appropriate: detailed without being overwhelming. There are occasions where it would have been easy to go into more detail (accounts of battles for example) but on the whole the article strikes a balance between a high-level view and enough detail to be engaging. That said, I think there are gaps to be filled as outlined above. To keep the article a manageable length, it might be worth considering trimming a little detail from the First Crusade. I can see why there’s a lot of emphasis on it, but that’s also where we’re seeing more detailed accounts of events in the article.

An article like this is fiendishly difficult to write because there are so many factors to consider. What we have here is a good page. I don’t think it’s Featured quality just yet, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be. This is a very important topic, perhaps more so today than five or ten years ago, and efforts to improve the page are greatly appreciated! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod
If I look at this later, will I find my unaddressed comments from the last FAC have been addressed? I'd also hope we can hear from and. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pings don't work unless they're part of a signed comment initially so . Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In part, probably, the article doesn't really get much attention these days including a peer review with no comments, so it really needs constructive feedback from someone who understands. There is more on the Crusader States and the root causes, histiography is tighter etc. There may be gaps that you can call out on that can be fixed as part of the FAR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been following along but I haven't had a chance to make any meaningful comments...to be honest I find that the topic is actually too huge for Wikipedia to deal with properly. But I don't want to be too pessimistic, so I'll try to find some time to look it over in depth! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, —your comment made me smile, I think you might be right Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish
Well, I don't think there is anything outstanding on this FAC at the moment—apart from the points made by on the complexity of names and the points from. I will pick this up after there is further comment in one hit. I am off to Puglia now, so I won't be responding for a couple of weeks. Hopefully there will be loads then and we can crack on with getting this done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No rush as far as I'm concerned - have a good trip! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Praemonitus
A general impression I have from reading the first part this article is of somewhat awkward punctuation in places. There are missing commas in some rather extended sentences, and unneeded commas in others. If you tried to read it aloud you'd probably see what I mean. For example:
 * "One of Urban's aims was to guarantee pilgrims access to the Eastern Mediterranean holy sites that were under Muslim control but scholars disagree as to whether this was the primary motive for Urban or those who heeded his call."


 * —reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "A power struggle between Church and state in medieval Europe began around 1075 and continued through the period of the First Crusade over whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics that is now known as the Investiture Controversy."


 * —reworded, what do you think now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There are some excessively long paragraphs, which don't allow the reader to take a mental breath while reading. See the Background section, for example. Personally, I think it could use a grammarian to go through it and improve the flow. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I have put in a request to GOCE but it is 37 on the list. Will try and clean this up myself in the meantime Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Coord note
With no support for promotion after six weeks I think it's time to archive this nom and bring it back after a couple of weeks, when hopefully the copyediting that's been suggested above is complete. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)}}