Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Crusade

Second Crusade
This has been on Peer Review for awhile, and no one seems to have any more suggestions, so I think I can nominate it here. This is mostly a self-nomination - the article existed before, but it has been greatly expanded, with a number of other new articles leading off from it. It's not quite as long as the featured First Crusade article, but not as much happened, and I think this is as good as it can be. Adam Bishop 05:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Stbalbach 05:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. You may want to ilink some more names and terms. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral - for the moment. Is it possible to go back and cite which material came from which source? Otherwise the article is in VERY good shape. --JohnDBuell | Talk 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, probably not...it's mostly a summary from Runciman and Setton, with relevant bits from the various sources. Adam Bishop 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, it's a pain to go back and add them, been there and done that :) Since that's the only "objection" I had (and the references used ARE quite clear), I change my vote to Support. --JohnDBuell | Talk 14:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Ancient history is not a strong point on Wikipedia, and this is quite the encouraging exception. 172 18:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- ALoan (Talk) 18:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support with the sources cited the article is FAC material. Falphin 14:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)