Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knights Templar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Knights Templar

• 2004 FA nom

Self-nom. This is an article about a major subject, the medieval order of the Knights Templar. The article went up once for FA back in 2004, and has been substantially expanded since then, with a MilHist peer review, and is currently at Good article status. The article still gets occasional POV wars, primarily because there's a lot of misinformation about the Templars out on the web, and there are also modern groups which claim to be the current incarnation of the medieval organization. But wherever possible we've stuck with high quality references which have been extensively double- and triple-checked, and done our best to make this article a hub which spokes the majority of the more speculative stuff out to other articles which we're working on separately. Assuming that featured status is approved, I'd like to see the article featured on October 13th of this year if possible. That will be the 700-year anniversary of the famous events on Friday, October 13, 1307, when King Philip IV of France had many Templars simultaneously arrested, charged with heresy, and eventually burned at the stake. I hope you'll find the article both informative, and interesting. :) --Elonka 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — looks quite good; I'll come back with some comments and suggestions later. — Deckiller 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The second paragraph is very unfocused. Any article that references large tracts of land needs a Monty Python reference ;-) But overall, the article just doesn't feel right... too much in the narrative style with exposition about the situation.Balloonman 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Lead has been re-written. --Elonka 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object mainly on the brilliant prose requirement. Grammar wonks are likely to hound any article that begins (not a sentence or a paragraph but) a section with however. That's one of numerous places where the prose could use a good copyeditor. Suggest withdrawing this nomination and routing through WP:GA and Wikipedia:Peer review. Durova^Charge! 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected about GA (shame on me) and would gladly support if the wikignomes visit at midnight and remove a few weeds from this lovely garden. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tightened up the writing a bit, let me know if you have any other specific concerns? --Elonka 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Many FACs are initially opposed because of 1a; several (note the plural) copy-editors give the article a runthrough, and the oppose is withdrawn. It is not a situation that requires withdrawal and another peer review. I'll see if I can find time to give it a look; I do agree that the prose is a little flowery in some areas. — Deckiller 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support It does look good. (aside, to Durova, it has gone through WP:GA. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the prose needs some work, but a couple of good pass-throughs could probably fix that. The bigger issue for me is length: I don't know that this article is written in a good summary style. In particular, given that there is a main article (History of the Knights Templar), I wonder why the history section is 3,000 words -- it seems a bit much if there is another complete article on the section. Further, given the traffic this article probably receives - and the edit wars noted above, I wonder how stable the article is. On the plus side - great work with citations and pictures. -- Pastordavid 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Stability seems to be good right now. The main instigator in the most recent edit war, along with sockpuppets, has been blocked, and I haven't seen any problems re-emerge since protection was lifted. --Elonka 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's great. My other major concern is the "history of.." section. Please consider tightening that up with a some more concise writing. -- Pastordavid 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. -- I think it's in good shape. I'll keep my eye on proceedings here, and am expecting to voice support once concerns about prose have been addressed. There's some mixing of American and Commonwealth spelling: 'Rumors', but 'organisation', for example, which should be sorted. — BillC ^talk 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --Elonka 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like the structure and the information, and to me the prose is acceptable. J. Spencer 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well sourced and comprehensive article with an abundance of free images available; an ideal candidate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)