Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Crusade/archive1

First Crusade
This is a semi-self nomination - over the past few months, myself, User:Stbalbach, User:Wetman, and many others have been working on this page after an anonymous professor complained about its accuracy. It has grown into a very complete and detailed page with a large set of related articles, and we think it is worthy of being featured. Adam Bishop 09:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, looks very nice. Good work!  --fvw *  09:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * I actually just noticed this earlier today and was rather impressed, particularly by the efficient use of summary style and the nicely detailed subarticles. Support. Everyking 10:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd support even more if it had some more pictures or maps. Geoff/Gsl 10:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Minor object. Cruddy lead section. Small instances of unimaginative (i.e. starting each individual crusade section with a mini-paragraph along the lines of "The Princes' Crusade is also known as the Barons' Crusade") and writing perhaps more suited to an essay (i.e. To understand why the crusade was so popular, it is helpful to understand..) Apart from that, excellent article. Ambi 10:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi, I've made some edits that hopefully address what you've mentioned. Thanks for the feedback, it is helpful.--Stbalbach 08:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't find any problems now with the rest of the article, but I'd still like to see an improved lead section. Ambi 07:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate what "improved" means? Stbalbach 12:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Giano 23:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Mackensen (talk) 06:22, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC). More pictures would be nice, but you've all clearly put a lot of time into it.
 * Object. A well written article, but such article definetly needs a map attached to be a useful - and thus, featured - article. A picture would be nice but is not necessary, I feel however that a map is crucial here. When a map is added, consider my vote as a support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Stbalbach 14:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Great. I support now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Nathanlarson32767 18:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Same as Ambi above, and sorry but the improvements so far are not sufficient. The lead section currently implies, as best I can parse the language, that Christians are conquering territory outside Europe "for the first time", a statement that is just flat wrong - the Byzantine Empire certainly made some non-European conquests in its history after officially adopting Christianity. Lots of excellence in the details, though, and the potential for a featured article is there. --Michael Snow 23:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object for the same reasons as Michael Snow. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 05:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Everyking made edits to address this, please clarify the exact source of objection. --Stbalbach 07:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I quickly scanned the article (I'll look in more detail soon) but the lead section still needs fixing. It can be two paragraphs you know :-) I think that it needs to do more active summarising of the article as there is a lot of detail in the article. Given the size of the article, surely more very brief summary text can go in there? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The lead section is not an article summary. Per the "Guide to writing better articles": The lead section is the section before the first headline. It is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headlines). It should establish significances, large implications and why we should care. The purpose of the lead section is to provide context, significance and large overview and, basically, like peeling an onion, draw the reader in to want to read more. Indeed, this is such a large complex subject, the main body of the article contains a summary, with further detail broken out in sub-articles. Also, this article is broken off the larger Crusades body article, which contains the higher-level views about the Crusades in general. --Stbalbach 02:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Reconsidered what you said, and added additional material to the lead for your review.--Stbalbach 03:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I edited the lead paragraph down a little bit again, I hope that's alright. I'm not sure how big of a summary everyone is expecting...Adam Bishop 00:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)