Wikipedia:Peer review/First Crusade/archive2

First Crusade[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed First Crusade for peer review because I would like to have comments on this article before I take it to FAC. The article looks much better than when it was demoted from FA, so any further suggestions for improvement of this article would be welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking could be improved, but is minor and I will work on that.
This sentence strikes me as inane: "Generally, subsequent historians have either followed Erdmann, with further expansions upon his thesis, or rejected it." Are there really any other options other than following him or rejecting him? (from Historiography section)
"The motives of the nobility are somewhat clearer than those of the peasants; greed was apparently not a major factor. It is commonly assumed, for example by Runciman as mentioned above, that only younger members of a family went on crusade, looking for wealth and adventure elsewhere, as they had no prospects for advancement at home. Riley-Smith has shown that this was not always the case." Citations on these specific sentences would be nice, though there are cites on examples later in the paragraph. (from Recruitment)
Stylistically, I find that having a section with one sub-section to be stylistically poor. I would raise "Recruitment" to section level; and either do the same for "Attacks on Jews in the Rhineland", or just remove that heading so that it is seamlessly part of "People's Crusade". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]