Wikipedia:Featured article review/Second Crusade/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 17:27, 31 October 2009.

Second Crusade

 * Notified: Adam Bishop, ... WikiProject Christianity, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because entire sections of the article are missing and have citation needed. Article is missing ALT text, as well as contains links to four disambiguation pages. This article would not even pass GA nomination. warrior 4321  00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment On first glance, the need for citation isn't as bad as I thought it would be. Did you bring these issues up on the talk page first? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this in the next couple of weeks. There aren't a lot of sections that are uncited, thankfully. And it does indeed have a lead section which should help. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was actually very little uncited. I've cited everything with a "citation needed" tag in the article. In the process I replaced a ref to "Durant (1950)" which wasn't in the bibliography, but I highly suspect was to a Will Durant work, and thus replacing it is a good idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation links fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And alt text added. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing all that. The alt text looks great. However, alt text is missing for the lead image (the infobox map). Also, all those tiny little decorative flags need to be marked with "linkalt" as per WP:ALT . Please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page to find them all. Eubulides (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll forgive me if I let someone else do the little flags. And I did put alt text into the infobox, it hasn't been updated for that yet, obviously (If you look in the article, you'll see it.). I dislike that huge infobox, and honestly refuse to touch it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the wrong syntax was being used for the infobox image. I it, and fixed the little flags as well. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eubulides. I find that particular infobox (campaign isn't it?) supremely ... ugly and huge. I'd take it out if I though it'd stick. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The flags still need alt text however. warrior  4321  03:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Eubulides marked them with the link parameter which means they are purely decorative, and don't need alt text. Correct me if I'm wrong, Eub. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. I just now audited the article with the Altviewer tool and found one little rascal that still needed fixing, so I . Don't know how I missed that earlier. Eubulides (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do people feel this can go? Marskell (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text is done and the disambig pages and citations have been fixed. I'm willing to do further work if required, but nothing has been brought up recently. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was fast!
 * I pinged warrior for an update. Marskell (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No comments from the nominator. I'll move this off. Good work. Marskell (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.