This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Borsoka (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 13 February 2022 (→Not ready for a peer review: +?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:41, 13 February 2022 by Borsoka (talk | contribs) (→Not ready for a peer review: +?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Crusading movement
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
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 article (?) misses the point of a peer review. GANs, peer reviews and FANs do not serve as forums for creating articles. 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)