Talk:Ahmed Niyazi

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahmed Niyazi Bey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016184039/http://www.vecer.com.mk/?ItemID=743D8D72F398FE48BFD9F5CA54FFDC30 to http://www.vecer.com.mk/?ItemID=743D8D72F398FE48BFD9F5CA54FFDC30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115143327/http://exploringmacedonia.com/?ItemID=7D670A5C9473FA4BBD3C4337BB2C8227 to http://exploringmacedonia.com/?ItemID=7D670A5C9473FA4BBD3C4337BB2C8227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ahmed Niyazi Bey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll review this. At first glance, it looks like the basics are fine, but there are a lot of prose issues. It's also a fairly long article on a topic I'm unfamiliar with; so it may take me a while. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93:, i went through the suggestions and applied them in full. Have a look. Thoughts? Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Apologies for the delay. I've moved your comment here because it was likely to get lost otherwise. While you've made a creditable effort, I'm concerned that even in the small section I covered, the prose isn't quite clear or neutral. I'll go over this section again, and then we'll see where we're at. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Resnjari Okay, I've now read through the first two sections of "life" again. Without making any assumptions about your background, there is a language problem somewhere in this process; perhaps you are translating from a language you are unfamiliar with; perhaps it's something else. But the prose is all over the place, and it's not just in these sections; there are grammar, clarity, neutrality, and consistency issues throughout. You generally have no problems with purely factual information (he went there, he did this) but when it comes to beliefs and/or perceptions, there's significant issues, and I don't think a GA review is the best place to address them, because they will require a very comprehensive overhaul, so I'm going to fail this review. I know this is discouraging, but I would encourage you to find someone to work with who can help you transform the source material into readable prose. If you would like, I am happy to offer any help I can myself; if you send me an email with the sources, I will see what I can do, although I am very busy for the next three weeks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hi @Vanamonde93:, i've written the article some time back. In general when i do my edits its very late at night. Often that's when i go on wiki. That said, overall what is in there is what the sources state, written to capture the spirit of the text while not veering off it. There is only so many synomyns a person can use. A complex task. I cast the net wide and everything that i could get my hands on in terms of RS sources i did for the topic. If you did a google search and scholar search on Niyazi, those sources are all there. I would appreciate it if i had a extra pair of fresh eyes that could offer me suggestions on how to fine tune this. Possibly this article was still in draft mode. But there are few, if any people on wiki who have a interest or expertise in dealing with this subject. I can send you the sources, which would you need (as there are many and some of them are accessible via the weblinks ? An additional question. What of the following sections on the actual revolution itself? How much of that requires work, or is part of most of it ok? Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm going to copy your comment to the talk page, since this review is finished, so that it doesn't accidentally get archived with the review. I'll reply there. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See comments below and overall assessment above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   A considerable number of neutrality issues with the prose.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Per comments.

Comments

Early years and education

• "notable landowning family" "notable" is a term that seems meaningful at first, but really adds nothing, and is an example of puffery.
• Link Resne and Civil Service Academy
• The role of the parenthetical (rüştiye) isn't clear; what is it translating?
• "others who advocated for progress, society, humanity and the homeland." Again, verging on puffery. The only way to use this phrase it to attribute it directly to Niyazi

  This hasn't been addressed; it's still in Wikipedia's voice.

• "Captain Tevfik and French teacher Captain Orhan" If the teachers aren't notable independently, I would recommend leaving their names out
• "devotion to the homeland belonging to earlier generations of Ottomans and French" grammatically, this is a little off.

  This is still a problem. What does "patriotism regarding the Ottomans and French" even mean?

• "He credited his teachers for absorbing those ideas" His teachers didn't absorb these ideas. He did. I would drop that fragment entirely, and start the sentence "Through his years in high-school..."
• Even so, the connection between Kemal's writing and the previous sentence isn't clear.
• In general, references to the "homeland" aren't very encyclopedic. If you're looking to describe actions or stories, use something like "patriotism" or "nationalism" or something.
• Did Niyazi's desires really play a part in choosing his high school?
• "(harbiye)" Another confusing parenthesis...
• "like many of his fellow Ottoman officers" You haven't yet told us that he became an Ottoman officer; the previous sentence refers to his training.
• "As an officer, he was trained by the German military" Again, unclear. Does this mean that all Ottoman officers were trained by the Germans? Or that officer candidates were trained by the Germans before they became officers?
• "he became exposed to patriotic works of liberals like Namık Kemal" This is another example of what I mentioned above. It is both more concise and more neutral to just say "he read the works of liberals such as Namik Kemal".

  You've partially addressed this, but this raises a new question; if he already revered Kemal in high school, why does this suggest he is reading Kemal for the first time?

• Can you link Namik Kemal? If he isn't notable, I wouldn't bother mentioning him; if he is, but an article doesn't exist, a redlink would still be useful.
• "the absolutism of the sultan" The uninformed reader doesn't know who this refers to, and why he is absolutist. More context is necessary.

  "a ruler who had dissolved parliament and governed alone" This is better, but raises more questions than it addresses.

• It seems likely that "lit a flame" is a translation of something written in another language, in which case I wouldn't use the quote; just say that he felt inspired, or use "awoke patriotic fervour", or some such.
• The second paragraph of this section jumps around a little too much; it goes from education to his time as an officer back to his education and then to his mosque repair work.

Young Turk membership and early military career

• Can you find a link for "Battle of Beşpınar"?
• "yet Niyazi refused due to the campaign launched against the CUP" This needs more context; what campaign?

  A little more detail would still be more helpful.

• The next two sentences also need more context, and clarification; if Niyazi despises the Sultan's despotism, why and how did they reconcile?

  Still an issue

• Was Niyazi ever a supporter of Murad Bey, for him to become disillusioned with him?

  Still an issue.

• In general, the subject of the sentence should be made clear again in the first sentence of a new paragraph; I fixed a couple of instances, but please check through the article for others.
• "in particular the decisions and split of the CUP First Congress in Paris (1902)" More detail is necessary.
• "with his status raised to war hero and had gained great notoriety among the Muslim Albanian population of Macedonia." Many issues here. Who "raised" his status? Was this because he had previously fought in a war? "had gained great notoriety" refers to the past; should it be just "gained great notoriety"?

Further improvement

Hi @Vanamonde93:, i've written the article some time back. In general when i do my edits its very late at night. Often that's when i go on wiki. That said, overall what is in there is what the sources state, written to capture the spirit of the text while not veering off it. There is only so many synomyns a person can use. A complex task. I cast the net wide and everything that i could get my hands on in terms of RS sources i did for the topic. If you did a google search and scholar search on Niyazi, those sources are all there. I would appreciate it if i had a extra pair of fresh eyes that could offer me suggestions on how to fine tune this. Possibly this article was still in draft mode. But there are few, if any people on wiki who have a interest or expertise in dealing with this subject. I can send you the sources, which would you need (as there are many and some of them are accessible via the weblinks ? An additional question. What of the following sections on the actual revolution itself? How much of that requires work, or is part of most of it ok? Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Copied from [1] by Vanamonde (Talk) at 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources that you have used look quite solid; certainly those that are in English, which I am better able to evaluate, look good. The problem isn't with the sources, it's with the prose that has been used to summarize and paraphrase the sources, and this problem exists throughout the article. Many sources, particularly non-scholarly books and journalistic accounts, are reliable enough to use, but also have a tone that we cannot use. When they make hyperbolic statements, or statements that are otherwise not encyclopedic in tone, we need to quote, or at least use in-text attribution. Also, when multiple sources say slightly different things, you have to work to make sure your text isn't being self-contradictory. These aren't always easy, so as an example, I've completely rewritten the first two paragraphs [2]. Obviously, individual styles differ; you don't have to copy my style. But in terms of attributing opinion while sticking to the source, this is what we should aim for. I hope that helps. I don't have the time to rewrite the whole article, but I'm happy to give you advice on specific points, and I can chip in more after some weeks have passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, your style is fine. Thanks by the way. Much appreciated. On sources and contradictions (most on small things), yeah its shitty. The only way around that was by going with the more recent source! I'll go through it over the next few weeks and then ping you to have a look. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)