Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhodes blood libel/archive1

Rhodes blood libel

This is a GA now, and I'm looking forward to advice on how this article could be improved further so that it could be nominated for FA. Beit Or 19:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Looks good so far - obviously a lot of work has gone into this and it reads well for the most part. Some suggestions: Headers and subheaders are not supposed to repeat the title (so "Jewish community of Rhodes" would just be "Jewish community". Not sure how to reword "Blood libel against the Jews in the Ottoman Empire" - maybe just "Jews in the Ottoman Empire" or "Accusations against Jews in the..." or "Previous cases in the...". I would make sure dates are included, so Mehmet II is referenced, but no dates given in the article, or give the dates for the start and end of the blockade. Repeat dates in new sections or even paragraphs to help keep the chronology clear. I would also list items chronologically (Antioch in 1826 before Aleppo in 1840). You might want to summarize the Damscus affair briefly in that section. "Rotschild" is not spelled correctly in a few places. Finally, you might want to have some sort of section at the end on legacy of this - what effect did it have in the years following, was it influential in literature or art, or did it cause people to work for increased freedoms after? Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 03:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bit above, here are a few more suggestions. I would add the date / timing of Passover that year. Montefiore shows up with very little transition or explanation - maybe add a few sentences to put him in context. I assume the missing child was never found - if so say so near the end. Legacy could at least refer to subsequent cases. Ruhrfisch 12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Final thought - would a map of the area showing Rhodes and Istanbul and other places important to the story help? Ruhrfisch 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ruhrfisch about breifly summarizing the Damascus affair, and later consequences, maybe on the development/perceptions of anti-Semitism in the later 19th century. Knowing nothing about this before I read about it here, I was struck by how the European diplomatic community (and the Turkish officials as well) seemed to be working at cross purposes, some joining in the persecution and others advocating for the Jews. I wonder if there is anything there to be mentioned or linked, that would not dilute the focus of the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]