Talk:Crusading movement/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Godtres (talk · contribs) 10:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

The prose could be improved, but is of a sufficient quality for good article status.

The page is organised appropriately, including a lead section and relevant headings, and contains a good number of relevant wikilinks.

The spelling and grammar is weak. I have found a number of typos (all corrected) whilst looking at the page, and the syntax of many could easily be improved. However, it is again good enough for good article status. Godtres (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

The short description had a typo, which I have corrected. There are appropriate disambiguation links. The initial picture is relevant, but does require its caption to show its relevancy. It should show make it clear to readers that they have arrived on the right page, and the current image somewhat (but not entirely) fulfils this role. There is an appropriate sidebar on the Crusades. There is a good table of contents.

The lead sentence establishes why the topic is notable. However, it could be improved: it implies that the First Crusade was the catalyst for the crusading movement, when it was part of the crusading movement. The first sentence should preferably define or describe "the crusading movement", perhaps as the Christian movement (ideology and institutions) behind the Crusades. The page title should be the subject of the first sentence.

There are an appropriate number of paragraphs in the lead section. It is relatively long for a lead, but this is not a problem. There are no citations. This is acceptable, as the claims are either not far-fetched or justified in the main body. I would question the description of France as "on the periphery of Christian Europe". The section fails to mention "Muslims", "Islam" or the like at any point, except in the image caption. The final paragraph of the section briefly traces precursors to and successors of the movement, but could easily be expanded.

Overall: passes the MoS lead section requirements, but there is significant room for improvement. Godtres (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page passes the MoS layout requirements. Godtres (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page, on the whole, passes the MoS word choice requirements. Godtres (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not bound by the MoS fiction requirements. Godtres (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article overuses lists. It fulfils the MoS stylistic requirements for lists. However, "sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose" applies here. For example, Urban II's two directives at Clermont do not require a list. Godtres (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Godtres—I ahve copy edited the lead. What do you think now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! I've had a stab at updating it, but it's not an easy task. Godtres (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

The list of references and bibliography is well-formatted. Godtres (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (citations to reliable sources):

All the sources are reliable. Godtres (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, and counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged are supported by inline citations. Godtres (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

c. (OR):

Methodology of source spot check: I will take paragraphs from the largest section and the smallest one and check their sources to see whether they sufficiently support the claims made on the page. If the results are unclear or I cannot access the sources, I will repeat this test with similar sections. Godtres (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two sections identified were: "13th century" and "17th century and later".

The first paragraph of "17th century and later" only had one citation. However, this citation did verify all the claims made in the paragraph. The second paragraph used the same source four different times, although under different guises. The page references are all accurate, and the text was supported by the source. This section passes a NOR check.

Whilst there is a wider range of sources than in the "17th century and later" section and all the sources referenced do support some claims, some paragraphs in the "13th century" (e.g. beginning "There is evidence...") lack citations altogether. Some claims (such as "there is evidence of early criticism of crusading and the behaviour of crusaders" and "Gerhoh of Reichersberg equated the failures of the Second Crusade to the coming of the Antichrist") are entirely unsupported, and need citations. Overall, this section fails a NOR check. A cursory glance of the page as a whole reveals similar deficiencies in referencing.

Whilst I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims within this page, they are not easily verifiable. Godtres (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another check after the issues identified in the spot check were resolved by @Norfolkbigfish. The referencing is overall fine, although there is room for a diversification of sources used, as identified in "17th century and later". Godtres (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

No plagiarism was found in the source spot check, although (acceptable) loose paraphrasing was observed with the limited number of sources provided. Godtres (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

The article comprehensively covers all the main aspects of the crusading movement. Godtres (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (focused):

There are numerous tangents that are outside the true scope of this article, which is unreasonably large.

For example, the "terminology" section is irrelevant to the article. It does not address key terminology related to the crusading movement. I am aware of the discussion regarding "secular" in the talk page: however, in the article this is not linked to the crusading movement. Godtres (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Godtres, thank you for the review. With regards to the terminology section would it be better if I removed it completely? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Godtres, the 17th century section got split in GOCE copy editing. It came from Siberry, have added citations to make this clear. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that removing the terminology section was the right thing to do. On the 13th (!) century, thank you for resolving my issues... I'll have a look at the rest of the article in a bit, and get back to you. Godtres (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

There are few disputes/controversies covered in the article, which maintains a neutral point of view for the most part. A few sentences (e.g. "its recovery was on the behalf of God") could be mistaken as opinion. Godtres (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

There are no ongoing edit wars, and the talk page is appropriately used to resolve disputes. Godtres (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

Images are appropriately licensed. Godtres (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Whilst I question the relevance of the image of Pope Pius II, on the most part, the images provided are relevant with relatively succinct, but very informative, captions. Godtres (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/fail:

This nomination passes initial checks (i.e. is not quick failed): the article possibly meets all six criteria; the article contains no evident copyright violations; the article is stable; the nominator is a major contributor to the article; there are no active, valid cleanup banners; previous concerns raised in GANs and peer reviews have been adequately addressed. Godtres (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I would commend the page's comprehensiveness and content, and would suggest improvement to the lead section, scope and referencing of the article.

I have placed the article on hold in case the nominator or other contributors would like to make significant edits to the article in the next few days that might affect my judgement. Godtres (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of the article has been improved. The referencing is acceptable. There is still considerable scope to narrow the focus of the article, which is something that needs to be worked on in the future. Every sentence must be relevant. However, I determine that this article does now fulfil the good article criteria. It will remain on hold for a few days in case anyone else wishes to comment on the article. Godtres (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now ended the review, and passed the article. I would like to place on record that I had not contributed to the article at all at the time I agreed to review it, although I do plan on contributing in future. Godtres (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)