Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Crusade


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * No consensus to promote at this time. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First Crusade

 * Nominator(s): — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently a GA, it passes all of the five criteria listed here, and some more input for FA would be appreciated. Any suggestions and requests for improvement are welcome. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  22:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Skimming the article, I'm impressed with the language, scholarship, and breadth. But the lead section, particularly the first paragraph, is hopelessly POV, in the sense that the guys on the other side would disagree with just about all of the phrasing and ideas.  There are three perspectives on the First Crusades (I prefer the "s" but won't push it), and each perspective deserves representation in the lead:
 * The perspective currently embodied in the first paragraph.
 * The perspective of the defenders: after 461 years of relative (by the standards of the time) stability, enlightenment, and tolerance for other religions and other points of view, some invaders came, committed a number of atrocities, broke all their promises concerning what would happen with the conquered lands, and then left, committing more atrocities on the way home.
 * Question: Are these "invaders" the Seljuq Turks or crusaders? —mc10 ( u &#124; t &#124; c ) 05:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood that the Seljuqs were also brutal; I'm talking about the Knights. - Dank (push to talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the clarification. —mc10 ( u &#124; t &#124; c ) 03:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The perspectives of the various Western rulers: most of them had various goals and subgoals which had little to do with reclaiming Jerusalem and everything to do with expanding their reach or strengthening their hold on power. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't oppose while I'm on vacation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've been working on the article for a while now, which is great, but this subject is a massive one, and a lot of Wikipedians have worked on it for years. It would be best to notify the major contributors if you haven't already; we need to see if they currently have time to respond to any questions that come up.  If not, this may not be the best time for an A-class review, but I don't want to jinx it; we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have notified the major contributors to the article. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering the above, you may find this editorial helpful. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted. —mc10 ( u &#124; t &#124; c ) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No progress. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.