Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Knights Templar/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hchc2009 (talk | contribs) at 21:12, 22 March 2022 (→FARC section: Delist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Knights Templar

Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Elonka, Devokewater, Anupam, Berengaria, Ранко Николић, Afernand74, WP MILHIST, WP GLAM/Pritzker, WP Cyprus, WP Middle Ages, WP Christianity, WP Secret Societies, WP England, WP France, WP Organizations, noticed on January 21, 2022

Review section

I am very concerned with the sourcing quality in this 2007 promotion. First, the article uses the History Channel quite extensively. While this was likely acceptable in 2007, the History Channel is now considered unreliable due to a tendency to publish fringe views/conspiracy theories. Given that this is a subject that has a lot of fringe views and conspiracy theories attached to it, History Channel should not be used at all. Additionally, I have also listed several other sources as likely unusable for FA on the article's talk page, including low-quality print books, unreliable websites, and a few things that look outright WP:FRINGE (RILKO, possibly Mystic Realms). Sourcing needs attention from someone more familiar with this topic than I. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for bringing this up, I agree that the article is worth a re-review. As the editor who brought it to FA back in 2007, I'm taking a look now. It appears that most of the History Channel references, which I agree are unreliable, were added to sections alongside other reliable sources, so it's a simple fix for those: I've removed all of them except for one in the Popular Culture section, where it seems appropriate. Thank you also for noting other sources on the talkpage, I'm working my way through and will comment there as well. --Elonka 17:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DelistComment: This is a controversial topic which (as Hog Farm observes) has a lot of fringe views and conspiracy theories attached to it. It is therefore incredibly important that we get this right. Since listing, the article has doubled in size - which is not a good sign. The reference section is all over the place. There is quite some reliance on the History Channel, self-published web sites and the like. There appears to be an adequate number of good quality reliable sources on the subject. It should therefore be quite possible to write an article without the need to resort to questionable sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cinderella157 please see the instructions at WP:FAR; keep or delist are not declared in this phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this is a comment that it doesn't meet the criteria at several points. I think it falls short of being comprehensive. It has a "rise" and a "fall" section but nothing in between. It doesn't tell you much about them either. They were all over Europe and not just in the Holy Land and only 10% were knights. It doesn't make it clear what the other 90% were doing all over Europe - and particularly, why they were doing it all over Europe. (OK a broad brush but you get the idea) The article states: With its clear mission and ample resources, the order grew rapidly. I'm not seeing where its mission is clearly stated. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for inviting for me to comment on this proposal User:Hog Farm. In my view, the article is well written and it possesses a lot of sources that would meet WP:RS. As User:Hog Farm has correctly noted, however, there are some sources, such as those sourced to a website hosted on MSN, that should be supplanted. If this is done, I would see no reason to remove the FA status. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SANDWICHing in the top portions of the article to be resolved.
  • The end of the article is a series of one-paragraph sections; better section organization and themes may be needed.
  • Copyedit needed: this is one sentence:
    Beginning in the 1960s, there have been speculative popular publications surrounding the order's early occupation of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and speculation about what relics the Templars may have found there, such as the quest for the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant,[115] or the historical accusation of idol worship (Baphomet) transformed into a context of "witchcraft".
  • There are HarvRef errors throughout the sources.
  • FAs are supposed to be comprehensive; lengthy See also needs to be rationalized (links worked into article where possible).
  • Further reading needs to be pruned.
  • Google Scholar hits only since 2018; has a survey of recent scholarship been completed, and is the article comprehensive?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still a bit concerned about a few of the references, particularly - " Louis Charpentier, Les Mystères de la Cathédrale de Chartres (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1966), translated The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral (London: Research Into Lost Knowledge Organization, 1972)." If this is the publisher I think it is, this source could well be WP:FRINGE. Hog Farm Talk 16:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Knights_Templar/archive1&oldid=1078693975"