Jump to content

Talk:Güzel İstanbul/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am looking forward to reviewing the article.

Review

[edit]

While the article addresses the most important points relating to this important sculpture by Gürdal Duyar--the context of the commission, its design and ways in which it fits into the artist's oeuvre, and the socio-political significance of the work after it had been installed and, later, toppled--it does not meet the GA criteria in its current form (I would say it is somewhere between B-class and C-class criteria). From what I have learned while reading about Duyar, Güzel İstanbul seems to be among the most widely recognized and controversial works by the artist and, as such, a GA article should provide more in-depth coverage. That said, there is valuable content in the article, as well as some reliable secondary sources, and I think that it can be improved to meet GA criteria by addressing the issues discussed below.

My main issues have to do with the structure of the article and its scope: the current structure feels disjointed and lacks flow (for example, the subheadings in second section appear confusing and sound too general: "Erection," "Reaction," "Removal," "Charges," and "Exile") while the secondary literature does not seem to be sufficiently explored, even though it relies on some interesting and--in my limited knowledge of scholarship on Turkish modern art--important sources (for example, the Ahu Antmen peer-reviewed article from 2009).

Language is often too descriptive and repetitive without staying focused on the subject (this is where a better structure would definitely help). I would suggest rethinking the structure the article (for example, it could proceed chronologically with the first heading "History," subheading "Design and commission" etc.) following style guidelines (MOS:SECTIONSTYLE; WP:SUMMARY); here is an example of a GA about a controversial sculpture (different historical and socio-political context) that was toppled in 2020 and which could be used as reference in terms of organization: Statue of Harvey W. Scott.

Ppt91 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: original review template from January 19 was removed and will be replaced by a new one when the current review process is complete. Below are comments from the first review.

  • there are no major issues with grammar, but prose is too descriptive and often veers off without staying sufficiently focused (see structure comments)
  • article needs to be reorganized as it is hard to follow in current form (see above)
  • sources used are reliable but the references list should be cleaned up to remove existing formatting errors and inconsistencies
  • sources need to be cited more carefully and selectively; in multiple cases, singular events (like when the sculpture was removed) are supported by several citations, making it seem like the sources are not being used to their full potential
  • article does not stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
  • there are too many images that are not sufficiently addressed and/or described in the article and thus seem superfluous; that is especially the case with the drawings in subheading "Removal" under "Events following the inauguration")
  • In its current form, the article does not meet the GA criteria. Issues discussed above need to be addressed to pass. I'll also provide more detailed updates on copyright and images soon. In the meantime, I will be happy to answer any questions and/or discuss my feedback in more detail.

Ppt91 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

[edit]

Below is the second round of review, started on 25 January 2023, which incorporates new material added and edited following the GA hold. Ppt91 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • replace nude with public sculpture (link to public art)
  • add location Yildiz Park
  • add "Originally located at Karakoy Square and representing a nude reclining on a .... (your description), the sculpture was removed and partially destroyed (if that happened during the removal) on (date).
  • "Commissioned in 1973, it was one of the 20 sculptures installed in (was it just this one park?) as part of an initiative by the Istanbul Municipality to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Turkish Republic."
  • "It represents Istanbul as a nude female figure with different motifs around the figure and on its plinth." what motifs around the figure?
    • There's motifs on the plinth and on the figure there is the hands which are shackled. But I removed the part about around the figure because there is not much sources going in detail about the shackles. checkY--Gazozlu (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although nude sculpture is common in art" reword; do you mean Western artistic tradition? if so, specify and link
  • the sculpture's nudity was interpreted by several certain media outlets and (conservative? should be specified even if from both ends of the ideological spectrum) politicians as being obscene or suggestive."
  • replace some time with date when it was re-erected
    • Don't have exact date of re-erection, just the date of when it was brought to the park.

more to follow soon

Lead further edits

[edit]

Description

[edit]

Commission

[edit]

Board.. – remove quotation marks

donecheckY--Gazozlu (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copy editing, but I am afraid I can’t do this throughout the article… Prose is still lacking with awkward sentence structure and imprecise language

more to follow soon Ppt91 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the article and reworded what I found to be written poorly or unclearly.checkY--Gazozlu (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erection and removal

[edit]
  • I’ve added sub sections and cleaned up a bit; feel free to move images around as you see fit
  • Remove excessive citations; make sure these are used correctly for each claim; for instance, where it mentions the removal of the sculpture by Erbakan with three footnotes—why?
    • I have checked two of the footnotes that are online and those references both mention what Erbakan said about "the sculpture aught to be removed" and other things he said about the sculpture. So the reason that those citations are there is likely because they all serve as a reference to what is talked about in that sentence.--Gazozlu (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • “a difference between a naked woman and a nude sculpture.” Proper quote use here
  • Quote needs to be contextualized; describe why it is relevant directly to where it is placed; I am not sure it is needed in entirety and I reduced it to English only
  • Section needs copy-editing throughout and some improvements in language
    • Took a look at it.
  • Happy to take a look at it again once all of the above issues are addressed for this part

Ppt91 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal and public backlash

[edit]

Charges

[edit]

Move to the new location

[edit]
  • I believe it should be lying on its side* (intransitive verb)
  • instead of "stopped" try to expand it a bit; sounds too abrupt given everything said above
  • can you say more about what these journalists wrote exactly? a few short quotes maybe
    • This photo is likely from one of those newspapers at that time which reported on the sculpture lying in the park. I'm afraid I currently only have access to one secondary source (Özgentürk 1995, p. 36.) about this which talks about what appeared in newspapers but does not quote them exactly. At least some of these articles that Özgentürk is talking about are likely to be from Milliyet and Cumhuriyet. Newspaper archives of Milliyet are available and have archived newspaper articles about the sculpture from various days in 1974 as can be seen here. but the archive interface is not working properly and does not let me read the articles but appears black when you click on "Read the Article". On the other hand the Cumhuriyet Archive also gets some hits but it is paid access. There is a way to access a text-dump here but I have not been able to get any hits yet. --Gazozlu (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • when was it placed on a makeshift plinth?
  • move the images around to avoid MOS:SANDWICH

Later events

[edit]
  • might be a good idea to mention iconoclasm to describe what Duyar said and I think it could also be mentioned earlier in the article, in which case link it only once
    • I suppose there is a potential connection to be made between the those conservative people wanting to "censor" the sculpture through its history and the act of censoring or iconoclasm of religious icons by the Ottomans and Protestants on basis of religious beliefs. Perhaps there is an irony that the sculpture represents the conquest of Istanbul which resulted in the censoring of icons such as in the Hagia Sophia its self ended up being the target of censorship. However I don't see a way to include such an idea in an encyclopedic way. --Gazozlu (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

general comments: these sections read much better and the prose is definitely improved; you remain focused on the topic and introduce many important details regarding the removal process; it does seem that the bottom of the article is very image-heavy compared to the middle sections; I'd move them around and I am not sure the second map works as well, though I will leave it up to you

More to follow, but I think we're getting there! Really glad to see how the article has improved over the last few weeks. Ppt91 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazozlu I also wanted to mention in terms of general layout that I think moving "Description" part after "Commission" and changing it to "Design" (which is a common section title used among public sculpture articles) will work better; it then follows logically after your discussion of Duyar's sketches and will make it easier for the reader to follow, leading them to erection and removal right after; there are also some minor comments I have regarding visual description, just in terms of making it a bit more concise, but let's see how it works when moved first. Ppt91 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your observations now that you mention them. I've moved the description down and renamed the, now first, section to "Design". Also removed the second map because it's too general to add to the overall narrative of it's new location. Gazozlu (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazozlu I was waiting to be mentioned in the discussion again after my last comments and had assumed you were still working on the article. I am glad I came back to check in! Thanks for making these edits. I've read through the article and overall this is very close to GA at this point. Few comments:
  • I changed "Design" to "Commission" and then "Description" to "Design" which I think will work better in terms of structure; if you feel very strongly about it, I am happy to discuss further, but these section titles make it clearer
  • I also would like to potentially see if a few more images could be added in the first two sections, though it is okay if not
  • As I don't read Turkish, it's important that you go through the article again to remove any extraneous footnotes; eg. in "Move to new location" the first sentence still has three footnotes and might be seen as WP:REFCLUTTER. For GA articles, such citations-related aspects need to be fully addressed.
    • I removed several extraneous footnotes, the maximum amount of piled up footnotes has been reduced to 2. I can also combine them in places where there are two footnotes if you think that would improve the readability?--Gazozlu (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have some reservations regarding prose in a few places, especially in "Description" (which is now "Design" after my most recent edit) and in the lead; I'll try to do some final copy-editing there by tomorrow latest
  • once we're done with all of the above, I'll do a final check on sources and image copyrights and then we should hopefully be good to go (no pun intended) :) Ppt91 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, sorry about that. I thought it automatically notifies when you use the reply function. However I may have not used the reply function actually because I replied to each point individually, so did that from source view. I'll see to those points above! Gazozlu (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gazozlu Thanks and No worries, I should have just subscribed to the page to begin with, so it's my bad. I've made sure to receive all updates now. Please don't rush with the footnotes; they're obviously very important. I'll wait until you're done and then will copy edit! Ppt91talk 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another image that could be included but I decided not to include it so far is this one which shows people posing on-top of the plinth after the main part of the sculpture was toppled. Gazozlu (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gazozlu I just finished copy editing the rest of the article; removed some of the artists' names who do not have en-wiki corresponding articles as the list was too long and you linked the list of sculptures (congrats on FA list, by the way!). I also changed the lead to better reflect the content of the article and shortened the design section to be more precise, including some description taken from Duyar article with proper attribution. There are some tags throughout the article from Hoary and myself that need to be resolved before we proceed with GA. I hope it won't take you long and please ping me when done. Ppt91talk 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your improvements. And thanks for the congrats. I'll address the tags soon! I have also seen you have improved the layout of the images, I also added another image, hopefully the layout is still ok with that added. Gazozlu (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gazozlu Did some more minor edits throughout. The structure works really well now in my opinion. I also think the pictures are great overall, though I worry somewhat about Instagram as source for the one where the sculpture is being loaded onto the truck, even as fair use. Based on your caption, I figured it is not really possible to trace the source, right? It's obviously critical all images are cleared, especially that applying copyright laws from other countries can end up being quite tricky. I am sure this was something you had spent a lot of time thinking about when working on the FA list of Turkish sculptures.
    There are some newspaper article clippings I found (some of which you have already used in cropped version) as possible alternatives/additions: https://d2kq0urxkarztv.cloudfront.net/5b9ceabcba08931e0edc06d3/1973351/upload-ee7e0002-d5d6-4194-928d-f1f7ef05b4fd.jpg?w=488&e=webp&cX=100&cY=79&cW=1436&cH=2643; https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhpvEuEWoAAIQhD?format=jpg&name=large (this one is particularly fascinating; looks like a bunch of people satisfied with the destruction and standing on the plinth; are those politicians?)
    Also, it does seem that the bottom of the article now became quite image heavy relative to the middle where it could definitely use one or two additional photographs. But I'll leave that up to you to arrange the visuals in the way you see fit. :) Ppt91talk 17:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About the Instagram image: Yes, the image is presumably a photo of a photo which they posted onto Instagram. It does not explicitly state they are the owner of the rights to the photo. I'm not sure to what extent it could be acceptable to cite the post as the original source given that there are no traces of the image available elsewhere online. For the FL List I included mostly photos that were gathered in someone's masters thesis. The main rationale for fair inclusion of those images there was that those sculptures are gone so alternative images will likely never be possible, I think the same applies to the photos of specific events that happened to Güzel İstanbul.
    About the 2nd image, the caption only describes them as people. They don't particularly look like politicians. They perhaps look like supporters of a political party who may have been involved with the sculptures removal, and are indeed proud of their work. Or just passersby fascinated by the now empty pedestal and wanting to take a picture on/with it. This photo could be added in the removal section, after the image of the sculpture in its regular state on the street.
    The other one is indeed a different cropping/edition of a photo that is already in the article.
    Although neither of those 2 pictures you found would be a replacement for the picture of the sculpture being lifted because that picture is presumably of the sculpture arriving in the park judging by the trees around it and lack of buildings. The arrival at the part was a different event some months later. Gazozlu (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the text part of that newspaper clipping can be useful as a source. I might add that as a supporting source. Gazozlu (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gazozlu Thanks! I appreciate your thoroughness and the work you're putting into the details here. I think this rationale is sufficient for the truck image. Please make sure the rationale reason is explicitly stated (I haven't done a final images check yet), as you have done for other photographs. The two I sent were just suggestions, so feel free to include the ones you feel most comfortable with. Otherwise, let me know when the citation tags are addressed in the text, so we can proceed with final GA checklist and hopefully promoting the article shortly. Ppt91talk 19:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope to finish the other issues soon, maybe by later tonight. I've included the images you have sent, one as an image, the other as a source. I have also expanded the Free-Use rationale for the truck image. Gazozlu (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ppt91: I have addressed all of the citation tags in the text. And I have addressed all of {{@Hoarys maintance tags.Gazozlu (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Article

[edit]

The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Article for issues which need to be addressed. Comment: In its current form, the article does not meet the GA criteria and needs to be reorganized (required edits are more than minor). However, I do not believe it should be failed right away and I want to provide enough time for you to address the issues discussed above, which is why I am placing it on hold for now. I am happy to answer any questions in the meantime. Ppt91 (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying deadline: 28 January 2023 Ppt91 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for taking up this review. I am working on fixing the problems with the article that you have identified. Gazozlu (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it's a really interesting sculpture and I hope we can address the issues to bring it up to GA level soon. Please notify me when ready for review. I am looking forward! Ppt91 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the points in your review, the article should be more logically built up now. I think it might be ready for you to take another look at it. Gazozlu (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gazozlu Thanks! I'll provide separate feedback for each section over the next five days and also remove the current review template to be replaced by a new one when the review process is complete. Ppt91 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have just reviewed the article once more and am wondering if those two maps are useful or if perhaps the article would be better without them. Gazozlu (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gazozlu apologies for my delay in restarting the review. I was dealing with an important personal issue and hope to complete this by week's end. Thank you for your patience. Ppt91 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have implemented your latest comments into the article. Gazozlu (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article is now ready for a new review? Gazozlu (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppt91 I've copy edited the article once more and fixed a few more points. Still unsure about the maps but i'll wait for your opinion on them and the article over all. Gazozlu (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazozlu thanks for your edits--I wasn't sure you saw my recent comments as there were no responses to each section above (if possible, please mark each as "done" or something along the line moving forward, so I know you acknowledged them).
I think overall that the article is moving in the right direction and it looks much better; there is still a good bit of work to be done to bring it to GA and I plan to give feedback on the remaining sections soon. The last couple of weeks have been particularly busy for me, but things are thankfully slowing down, so I will have more time over the weekend to finalize the review.
Also, please let me know if you are okay with my small interventions in order to streamline the process, primarily in regard to copy-editing per WP:GAN/I#R3. Ppt91 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ppt91, I'll go through each comment and double check them, and mark them as you requested. As far as interventions go, I believe reviewers are generally encouraged to make minor to moderate edits directly to the article that improve the article if they think they are appropriate. As the GA reviewer you are just not supposed to be the main contributor or have written major parts of the text to the article, but that's already me so you should be fine. Gazozlu (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gazozlu Correct, that's why I cited WP:GAN/I#R3 to make sure it's recorded in the review and that you're aware of possible small cleanup. Looking forward to finishing the process hopefully soon! Ppt91 (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note (for Gazozlu, Ppt91, or anyone else) from a non-reviewer: A few minutes ago, I did some rewording (cutting a kilobyte or so). There's probably more rewording to be done. (There may be larger problems too: I haven't thought about these.) NB I've added the "Vague" template five times: clarifications are needed. -- Hoary (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary thanks for the ping and for the changes, which are certainly appreciated! It's been a long review process and Gazozlu has really improved the article since its first nomination. @Gazozlu I haven't forgotten about this and hope to finally be done with the rest of my comments and edits by Tuesday. I realize this is taking longer, but reviews are not something I would ever want to rush through, especially when changes made were so extensive relative to the original version. Thanks for your patience. Ppt91talk 01:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing Hoarys comments, per section:
  • Yes, Gazozlu, and I did so a few minutes ago. When I wrote "clarifications are needed" above, I should instead have written something like "fixes (clarifications, minor deletions, etc) are needed". -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) checkY--Gazozlu (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Following the first round of review during which the article was put on hold, the nominator has significantly improved the overall quality of Güzel İstanbul to bring it up to GA level. The nominator has also addressed outstanding issues raised during the final article review and the article is now passed. Congratulations!
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    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:
  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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Ppt91talk 01:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Güzel_İstanbul/GA1&oldid=1145364686"