Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusading movement/archive1

Crusading movement


I've listed this article for peer review because of recommendations during a failed GA review that it will be an effective way to improve the article without the time pressure involved in a GA review.

Key area raised were the straucture and detail of Crusade Song

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not ready for a peer review
After reading the article, I concluded that it is not ready for a peer review. 1. It is not an article in an encyclopedia but a small, not well organized encyclopedia within WP. It mainly consists of texts copied from articles in The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, and these copied texts are organized in sections, but without any attempt to consolidate them into a coherent article. (For instance, sections 4.1-4.4 and 5. are in fact abridged texts from five articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia.) 2. The article's scope is unclear: it is an obviously arbitrary selection of topics, but without any attempt to present their interconnections within the wider topic of crusading movement. (For example, the section about Urban II is followed by a section about chivalry, but we soon return to a new pope in the following section.) If we want to create a list about crusading topics, we can create it without writing an article. 3. The article's structure is unclear and diffuse. (For instance, we are informed about Thomas Aquinas, the Albigensian Crusades and the Baltic Crusades in the Background section, although these topics could be naturally mentioned in the sections about the development of crusading ideology.) 4. The article fails to mention basic information about the crusades, but goes into unnecessary details (For instance, we are not told why the first crusade was declared, but we are informed about the original names of certain popes and details of their lives that are absolutely unrelated to the article's topic.) 5. The article contains obviously debatable statements. (For instance, the description of the Kingdom of Jerusalem as the first experiment of European colonialism is quite strange if we take into account the Greek and Roman colonies of the Ancient world.) .... etc., etc. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment rather misses the point of a peer review, not helpful Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the request misses the point of a peer review. GANs, peer reviews and FANs do not serve as forums for creating articles but for receiving ideas how to improve existing ones. I could continue the list proving that this collection of texts is not an encyclopedic article: 6. The text present important features of the crusading movement in a very original way. (For instance, the development of the crusading ideology is presented mainly based on papal biographies from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. This approach is unprecedented in scholarly literature.) 7. The terminology in the text is absolutely unclear. (For instance, why is the historiography section is presented in the context of the development of crusading ideology?) ..., ... etc. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This feedback is noted. Maybe, this process would be more effective if the editor in question recused himself until other editors have the opportunity to comment? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know all editors always have the opportunity to comment. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Peer review
After a brief interruption, hopefully the peer review can restart here. @Aza24, you offered input on the use of Song and @Jens Lallensack suggested raising this at Peer review. Do you think you will offer feedback please? , you usually have valid input (perhaps if we stay away from Runciman and Wisconsin :-) )Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The mediation of is always welcome as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I do disagree with Borsoka's opinion that this article is not ready for PeerReview: if an author is at a point where they cannot further improve an article on their own without external input, then an article is always ready for PeerReview in my opinion, because this is what it is for. I do, however, think that the criticism is absolutely valid and we need to resolve these outstanding points before going into detailed review. The main objection is, as far as I can see, the topic itself. I do not have any overview over the literature, but how do the most reputable sources organise this content? Do they use the term "Crusading movement" as an overarching term? If not, we might have a WP:Synth issue, and need to organise the content differently. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is the first question: what is the article's topic? How can an encyclopedic article be developed based on texts taken from arbitrarily chosen articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to better understand your opinion: Do you think that this topic ("Crusading movement") should redirect to "Crusades", with its current contents treated in multiple sub-articles to the latter? Or do you think that "Crusading movement" should be kept as topic but with different content? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to know what is the article's topic and what are its sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not speak for Borsoka, but is exactly what I think, yes. This article originates in an attempt to solve a perceived problem at Crusades. I do not think its scope has ever been well defined or agreed upon. The title has been disputed and the current title is something of a compromise. Srnec (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a review should be to improve the article. There is nothing wrong in the advice of making the topic clearer. However, there is something wrong, if this is the only way proposed to improve the article and it becomes a disguised third RfC on the same issue as the two previous ones. So a suggestion has been made here, which is fine, and it can be discussed in the view of improving the article and other ways to improve the article should also be discussed.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your above statement? I do not understand it. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The validity of the article was confirmed in the last two RfCs. It should not be questioned again in the review. It's time to get over it and drop the stick. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @Jens Lallensack, good place to start is cited in the article. The chapter  is also cited and useful for the later centuries. The volume includes chapters on  Origins by MARCUS BULL,  The Crusading Movement, 1096—1274 by SIMON LLOYD, The State of Mind of Crusaders to the East, 1095—1300 by JONATHAN RILEY-SMITH, Songs by MICHAEL ROUTLEDGE, The Latin East, 1098—1291 by JONATHAN PHILLIPS, Art in the Latin East, 1098—1291 by JAROSLAV FOLDA, Architecture in the Latin East, 1098—1571 by DENYS PRINGLE, The Military Orders, 1120—1312 by ALAN FOREY, Islam and the Crusades, 1096—1699 by ROBERT IRWIN, The Latin East, 1291—1669 by PETER EDBURY, The Military Orders, 1312—1798 by ANTHONY LUTTRELL, Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries by ELIZABETH SIBERRY and Revival and Survival by JONATHAN RILEY-SMITH. So the term can be considered uncontroversial amongst leading crusade academics, the periodisation of the chapter varies but the agreement is clear that while the origins preceded 1096 that is pretty much the agreed beginning and finally that extending the period to the present day causes academics no issue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * we are reviewing this specific article. As I demonstrated above, the crusading movement is not the subject of this specific article because it is mainly an arbitrary collection of texts copied from articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. if you want to use the above sources, why did you develop five sections in this article (4.1-4.4, 5) based exclusively on text taken from articles of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia? Why do you think this is an encyclopedic article if its sections following each other are not connected to each other in any way? Just a side remark: why did you describe the Kingdom of Jerusalem as the first experiment of European colonialism if you indeed read The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades? The latter work explicitly rejects this claim. Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would help a lot if you could try to formulate constructive suggestions, because I can't fully follow. What needs to be done? 1) More diverse sourcing, 2) better structure and reading flow / integration of sections into an coherent article, 3) removal of particular sections from the article, or all of the above? Thanks. It seems that consensus about the validity of the topic in general has already been reached elsewhere, so lets move on to the next issues that have been pointed out. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lallensack has given you a good advice. Present your criticism as a way to sincerely improve the article. This would go along with my suggestion to drop the stick regarding the validity of the article. It's time for you to move on and be constructive. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I listed all my concerns about this so-called article in my first remarks above : they are clear. Furthermore, (as my point 8) the article should mirror its sources. (For instance the description of the Kingdom of Jerusalem as the first experiment of European colonialism explicitly contradicts The Oxford Illustrated History of Crusades) Yes, the text should obviously be rewritten in order to look like an encyclopedic article not as an abridged version of an other encyclopedia (The Crusades: An Encylcopedia). Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is still not very constructive, and doesn't answer my question: Are you questioning the "An Encyclopedia" source in general; are you looking for more diverse sourcing; or do you think that some of the content does not belong in this article (if so, which)? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Pick a single point that you think can best help to improve the article and present it as a separate issue. We will see if it can help to improve the article. If your points need to be considered as a whole as a way to basically write a different article, if not entirely reject it,  then it's the same situation as in the last RfCs and it's not going to work. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot be more constructive. However, I do not want to prevent you from improving the sections about the development of crusading ideology based on (totally unrelated) articles about individual popes from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Neither do I want to prevent you from presenting historiography in section "Ideological development". Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Good luck. Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will try to translate your comments (which I think should not be ignored) into a list of actionable suggestions in the next couple of days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jens Lallensack—do you still intend to consolidate the word soup of comments from others above into actionable suggestions? Most of them would seem to have already been addressed while responding below, but it would be helpful to confirm that none have been missed. Rest assured though, that you input is appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My word soup of comments is still boiling. About one third of the citations refer to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia - we do not need an abridged and highly selective version of an existing encyclopedia, but a coherent encyclopedic article based on scholarly books about its topic. The article's topic is still unclear: it is named "crusading movement" but it mainly presents "crusading ideology" (based primarily on papal biographies from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia). Perhaps you want to decide what are the subtopics to be covered in this article based on books dedicated to the crusading movement instead of using arbitrarily chosen, only tangentially related articles from an encyclopedia. The article still presents PoVs as facts (I refer to the statement about the Jerusalemit Kingdom as the first example of European colonialism). The article's chronology is still messy (for instance, the 13th-century Thomas Aquinas contribution to the Catholic theology of holy wars is mentioned before Pope Urban II proclaims the First Crusade in 1095). The article does not inform us why was the First Crusade proclaimed. To be short, none of my concerns were addressed. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Some Comments

I think the article would benefit with some restructuring:


 * Move "Chivalry" and "Military Orders" from their current location to under a new section that follows called something like "Related Developments." The flow would be better. In fact, I might organize it like: 1. Knights Hospitaller. 2. Knights Templar. 3. Other Military Orders (not just the Teutonic Knights, but with some of the others). 4. Chivalry. 5. The Church and Warfare (e.g., Just War).
 * One of the criticism of the article is that there is insufficient context. Section 3 is organised chronologically and the interrelations between say Urban and the development of Chrivalry and Chivalry and the Military Orders are more obvious if the content is close.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌—, has made some persuasive arguments on a simpler structure, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Move "Later Historiography" back to the last section and restore it to its previous length.
 * This prompts a wider debate (see below), but have renamed it to Views of Crusading from the 18th century—it can be expanded using Elizabeth Siberry's chapter in Oxford: Images of the Crusades in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅—matches other suggestions.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete "Taxation..." and "Women..." and just reference them in the "See Also" section.
 * ✅ Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Restore part of the "Military History" that was deleted, but just the portion on the Holy Land. Put is right after "Definition" and emphasize the "movement" part rather than the "military" part.
 * ✅ Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There should be a discussion on Popular Crusades, but I'm not sure where to put it. Maybe there should be a section discussing popular sentiment of the Crusades among the average citizen. Most everything in the article is geared towards the nobles, knights and clergy.
 * ✅ Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Borsoka that there's too much emphasis on sources from "The Crusades: An Encyclopedia."
 * It is WP:RS, unless there are errors, ommissions or sysnthesis it would seem to be a vaild source. As this WP:PR develops, alternative sourcing can be added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first point, wouldn't it make sense to start with church and chivalry to cover the basics first (also because of chronology)? And what is your reasoning for not applying WP:Summary style to the historiography section, why restore to full length if details are covered in the dedicated article? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point . Church and Chivalry are pretty much covered in chronological sequence. It would be good to get consensus on the Historiography section, I don't have strong view either way. I wrote a longer section, but there were a number of objections so edited it back. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I though Chivalry should be moved is that it was semi-independent of Crusading, having started before the Crusades. Same with the military orders, especially the Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights. The emphasis for historiography is different for this article vis a vis the general article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * IMHO, chivalry, the military orders and the early crusades were closely interelated in the primordial ideological soup of the decades just before and after the First Crusade. Urban spent the early years of his papacy in exile because he lacked the military strength to enter Rome. It would be no wonder that one of his objectives would be to control chivalry, and when this failed that the papacy would create its own military wing. In turn it is no wonder that in a deeply religious time that warriors would seek redemption and be open to religious leadership. It is from these instituitions that the Crusading movement was formed, starting at the turn of the 12thcentury and differentiate this article from just another piece of MILHIST.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, would be happy to restore Historiography to what it was if there was consensus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅—WP:Summary_Style applied to Historiography @Jens Lallensack Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A third RfC on the merging question when a review is in process does not seem right

The idea that Crusading movement is not needed, because its content can be divided in subtopics and covered in many separate articles was discussed in the previous RfC and the RfC before and rejected. The counter argument was that there is a wholeness in the topic of Crusading movement and the article was needed. I don't see anything new presented on the table. Now, a review to improve the article has been requested and is going on. People had the chance to say something before. Unless there is something new to add to the previous discussions, it does not seem right to me to use the occasion of a review, which should be there to help improve the article, to call yet a third RfC. Let's give a chance to the article to improve by providing feedbacks with that purpose in mind. If one has a different objective, I question whether he is at the right place in this review. I know that no RfC has been called, but it's the same because without yet another RfC no merge is going to happen and suggesting it was pointless. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Urgent need of reform
This needs a lot of work. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First point: I do believe, in apparent contrast to some, that the title of this article should be the title of an article on Wikipedia. The trouble is, that this article almost seems dedicated to focusing on its title as little as possible. Every sentence in this article needs to be asked the question: "Is this more to do with the Crusades, or the Crusading Movement". It's like the priority is given to crusading history, rather than explanation or analysis of the crusading movement.
 * As an example, take the third paragraph of the lead section, which is just a list in paragraph form. It reads as someone's answer to the question "Name as many things as you can connected to the Crusades in one minute". "Muslims, Jews, pagans, and non-Catholic Christians were frequently killed in large numbers" - what is the purpose of this sentence?? What does it do to improve my understanding of the movement, not the Crusade as a whole? ✅—Lead replaced by background section as suggested below. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Grammatical and formatting errors all over the shop; some spelling mistakes too.✅—copy edited Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why on earth does the background section not cover the history of the crusades, and leave that to the definition section, of all places?? And why, when that background does come, is it so rushed and incomplete that the main sections have to go over the history again, instead of discussing the point of the article, the crusader movement?✅—this may now be redundant after the structural changes suggested, accepted and actioned Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is there a contemporary reception section?? The lead's first two sentences are: "The Crusading movement was one of the most important elements and defining attributes of late medieval western culture. It impacted almost every country in Europe as well as in the Islamic world; touching many aspects of life while influencing the Church, religious thought, politics, the economy, and society." Thus, when following the evolution of the crusades, the reception and impact on contemporary society should be integrated as one of the major points of the article, not as some "in popular culture"-like afterthought of a section with only eight citations in it. ✅—accepted and actioned Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @AirshipJungleman29, some good points here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29—with regards to your fourth point. Would this be addressed by restoring the history as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusading_movement&oldid=1070791696#Military_history, located in background and then editing out the MILHIST from the later sections e.g. leaving them to the Crusading Movement only do the job? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Norfolkbigfish. The first line of the article is "This article is about the ideology and institutions associated with crusading. For the expeditions themselves, see Crusades." You would actually be far better served by cutting out every last smidget of information about anything military history, save that which is completely necessary. This article must solely discuss the crusading movement, otherwise it will keep drawing the fire of those who believe it belongs in subsections of other articles. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Norfolkbigfish, I've done some playing around in my sandbox. My conclusions are thus: the definition section can be completely cut; the lead and background sections are identical, but since the lead is pretty terrible anyway rewriting it should solve that problem; the ideological development section only talks about the ideological development of the crusading movement occasionally, and thus needs a complete rewrite; the contemporary reception section, as I previously said, needs to be integrated into the main ideological development. I would suggest a section structure of Ideological background, Idelogical development, Historiography, and Legacy, as can currently be seen in User:AirshipJungleman29/sandbox2. Also, throughout the article, the prose is stilted and awkward - needs to flow - and the citation game needs to be much better. At the moment, I would say that this is a low B-class article, dangerously close to C. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would go so far as to say that the Background section, as it now is, would be a far better lead section than the current one. Just deleting the current lead and adding the background as the lead would be a genuine improvement. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅—genuine improvement is always welcome @AirshipJungleman29, also taken your advice on dropping definition and removing the leading piece of MILHIST. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, Norfolkbigfish, may I suggest that you try to take a less top-down view towards the movement? I refer to the last paragraph: modern historians have attempted "to locate crusading within its social, cultural, intellectual, economic, and political context." At the moment, this article only really locates the crusading movement in a political context. Your focus at the moment should be to integrate these other spheres into the article – less focus on popes and their edicts would be ideal. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29, began working towards the structure you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29 with the caveats that further work is required, what do you think of the structure now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Norfolkbigfish, definitely better. One structural idea: the historiography section is probably over-developed; especially as there is already a dedicated Historiography of the Crusades article. You could transfer material from this article to that, if required and not already covered there (remember that that article is GA-rated, and thus just copy-pasting large blocks of texts should not be done), but cutting the historiography section (to no more than three paragraphs) should be a priority. I note that there are two copies of the long paragraph starting "Lutheran scholar Matthäus Dresser" in the article. Maybe after that, the historiography section could become a subsection of the legacy section, for better flow. Good work so far, but still lots more needed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅—well four paras anyway, what do you think @AirshipJungleman29? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Norfolkbigfish, have only had a cursory look, but seems better. Now, it is time to change the overall focus of the article. At the moment, it seems very concerned with different popes and cardinals, and their various pronouncements, as Borsoka noted earlier. The 'later crusading movement' section, for example, still contains paragraphs with nothing to do with the movement (those beginning with "Commencing in 1332" (❌-Holy Leagues are very much an instituition of crusading movement and a reflection of it during the 14th to 17thcenturies Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)), "The Venetian, Gabriel Condulmaro" (✅—linked more closely to movement and citation added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)), "Humanist Enea Silvio" (✅—expanded to match + source), and large parts of the others.) In addition, most paragraphs, and they are quite lengthy on average, rely only on one or two sources - a greater variety is urgently needed, and not just from one general encyclopedia: specialist papers on each topic are preferable. Finally, the lead needs a rework: eliminate Latin terms and simplify the paragraphs – currently, it is too focused on theological and ecclesiastical rationalisations for the crusades. More on the "social, cultural, intellectual, economic" background is needed. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead has been pruned, will revisit after working through the body for sourcing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @AirshipJungleman29—putting aside the risk of synthesis, FYI the Encyclopedia is not general, but specific to the crusades & crusading. All the entries are written by, and credited to, leading, possibly the leading, academics working in the field today. It was, for some strange reason taken to the sourcing noticeboard before, where consensus was it is WP:RS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has questioned that it is a reliable source. What was raised was that our policy on sourcing is clearly biased towards reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, could you explain why do you use encyclopedic articles about individual popes to describe the development of crusading ideology? Could you refer to specialized literature about crusading movement that refers to individual popes' biographies in connection with the development of crusading institutions? For instance, Britannica is a reliable source, but we could hardly develop a WP article about European politics based on arbitrarily selected Britannica articles about heads of states of European countries. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I am perfectly aware that it is a general crusading encyclopedia. I believe, as Borsoka has outlined, that this devalues the encylopedic worth of the article, since, aside from the WP:SYN risks you have mentioned, that relying heavily on one source (yes, it is one source, it's collated and heavily revised by the same editor to remove any contrary information, or to emphasise specific points) is never beneficial for an article. It is certainly reliable as one of a selection of works cited — it loses reliability, like anything else, the more it is relied upon. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One idea I have is to transform the article, so instead of ordering it chronologically first and thematically second, it is organised thematically first and chronologically second. I feel like that would structure the interlacing of all the different sectors of the movement better, than a straightforward chronological approach, as there is now, which strongly favours a top-down approach. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea, will work up the background section as a movement towards this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

More comments
Hey, —would appreciate if you could have another look and suggest any further actionable comments you might have. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)