Talk:Kitab-ı Bahriye

Kitab-ı Bahriye has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 26, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Maps

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 August 2024 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs).

A fact from Kitab-ı Bahriye appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 September 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the surviving copies of the Kitab-ı Bahriye contain a total of more than 5,700 maps?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kitab-ı Bahriye.

Wikipedia

Other talk page banners

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Piri Reis was copied or moved into Draft:Kitab-ı Bahriye with this edit on 25 July 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TheNuggeteer talk 12:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Kitab-ı Bahriye, showing Corsica

... that the surviving copies of the Kitab-ı Bahriye (pictured) contain over 5700 total maps?

Source: Goodrich, Thomas D. (2004). "The maps of the Kitab-i Bahriye of Piri Reis". Piri Reis Sempozyumu. Istanbul Military Museum. Archived from the original on 16 May 2015. In the various copies of the Kitab-ı Bahriye there are more manuscript maps than that of any other cartographer ever. So far the total number of manuscript maps is 5704, and there is at least one manuscript whose maps are not yet tabulated.[...] The total may rise to 5800 [...]

ALT1: ... that a sixteenth-century nautical atlas (pictured) is one of the few sources of information on its author, Piri Reis? Source: Soucek, Svat (1992). "Islamic Charting in the Mediterranean" (PDF). In Harley, J. B.; Woodward, D. (eds.). Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 266. The first direct evidence we have of Ottoman chart-making is several extant works by the naval captain Mul;ylddin Piri Re'is (ca. 875-961/ca. 1470-1554). Re'is means captain in Turkish, but despite Piri Re'Is's position and long experiencein the Ottoman navy, almost no biographical information exists outside his own works, particularly the Kitab-i bahriye (Book of maritime matters), a manual of sailing directions.
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)
Comment: In edit summaries, I noted that I copied some lines from Piri Reis. You can use this Earwig link to see what was copied: [1] It's less than a 100 words of prose (and a bunch of tabular data).

Moved to mainspace by Rjjiii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Length, date, hook, qpq checks out. Image free on Commons. Earwig tool is down, I could not detect close paraphrase. --Soman (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kitab-ı Bahriye/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 03:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to learning a great deal about this book! When I review, I typically make relatively small tweaks myself and just leave comments about bigger-picture items, though of course as always with editing you should feel to modify any changes I may make. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, @Rjjiii, I think we are at the finish line! I am very happy with my source review and all the other checks. There are two open questions under the prose/MOS umbrella: 1, any interest in further organizing "contents" into sub-sections? 2, any desire to further revise my bolder edits to the article? Since neither of those are dealbreakers for GA status, I will pass the article now, but won't "close" the discussion just yet in case you'd like to talk further about it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn Thanks for looking through it. I checked out the changes to the article and think it is overall an improvement. I made one change to the lead to fold a smaller paragraph into other sections.[2] Regarding subsections in "contents", there is a natural break at "The Kitab-ı Bahriye's charts begin" where it switches from discussing the format/organization/genre to discussing the subject matter covered. It would be no big deal to split it into two sections there. I think going smaller might require reorganizing things at the sentence/fact level, though. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like that edit in the lead, thanks for rolling with my changes. I also like the sound of adding a subheading at that natural break, to help flag for readers how the information is organized. I’d be happy to see any headings that sound good to you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose

I think the "History" section might be more accurately titled "Composition", since that is primarily what it explains. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, the paragraph that begins with The details in a portolan chart... seems like it would fit better in the next section, since it explains the contents of the book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes! I think the "composition" section read more smoothly now. As I evaluate the prose of the following sections, though, I'm wondering if the information could be more clearly re-organized into the sections "Contents" (covering only information true of all versions), "Variations between versions" (covering the differences between 1521 and 1526), and "Extant copies" (covering where manuscripts and facsimiles exist). Right now, for example, the whole first paragraph of the "Versions" section is actually about the extant manuscript copies, which makes it confusing when the second paragraph begins comparing only two versions. I think a re-organization wouldn't take much re-writing, just moving things around, to accomplish a lot. What do you think? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a sandbox to work on this at Talk:Kitab-ı Bahriye/Sandbox. I'll drop a ping when I'm getting close to merging it back, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material is reorganized, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn, the changes are all in the live article now. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, and your patience -- my apologies that I was away from this for longer than I hoped. I'll take a look now, I should be able to finish the review this weekend! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a chance now to look through the re-organization, and I think it's a big improvement -- thanks for taking it on! I made one edit in "composition" to remove a detail that felt like it was distracting as a first sentence of the paragraph, but feel free to revisit that if you don't think it's an improvement. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is optional if you'd rather not mess with the organization any more, but I'm now wondering if there's a way to group the rather long "Contents" section into some smaller sub-headings for readability. I am not sure what appropriate subsections would be, though, so maybe it's fine as-is. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a bold set of edits to the lead with MOS:LEAD in mind, with the two aims of removing redundant citation and improving the lead's clarity as a standalone summary of the article. Specifically, I made a number of changes to the paragraphing, in the hopes it would have a clearer flow/organization of main points. If you're OK with my proposed version, nothing else to be done here, but you may wish to make further tweaks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a less bold revision so the copy at the Walters Art Museum is not referred to as "privately held", since that typically means it is owned by an unspecified individual rather than an institution. My wording is maybe a little clunky so feel free to revisit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I like to check a random 10 or 10% of the sources (whichever is more). For this article, I'll check sources 5, 9, 12, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 35, as they're numbered in this diff. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for taking on the review. Let me know if you need quotes or scans from any of the sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: pinging because I forgot to {{ping}} on the offer above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and my apologies on the delay here! First, regarding sources — I have access to a quite good library so I am generally able to access sources on my own, but if I have any trouble I’ll let you know. Thanks for offering! Second, regarding my delay — again, my apologies; I had a busier week than I expected, which has prevented me from dedicating time to this review. I now have a quite busy weekend ahead of me so it would likely be Tuesday before I can pick this up again. That’s pretty slow to leave you waiting, so if you like, I could throw this one back in the pool and see if someone else bites. Just let me know. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good; I can wait a week, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. All the cites to this source check out for WP:V. I'm a little unsure about whether this source itself is a good WP:RS-- it certainly does cite good research, but it doesn't seem to have involved editorial review. Can you offer more context on why you choose this source? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn The authors (Salah Eddin Zaimeche Al-Djazair, Salim Al-Hassani, etc.,) are subject matter experts on the History of Islam. The article currently cites it only for factual statements. I try to cite some sources available online with no paywall, but if you feel like this is not quite making the WP:RS cut, I'll go through and find alternative sources for these, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working in the sandbox linked above to make it easier to do large changes. 2 of the citations have been replaced with Goodrich. The citation in the lead was removed as not necessary. The other two, I need to find a replacement for and will then ping, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all but one citation. For the remaining citation, I've also included the Soucek citation from their work. I haven't yet tracked down the Soucek article, so I can't remove it just yet. That remaining citation is only for a description of the contents of the book, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, and your conscientiousness here. I am happy with the changes, including retaining the source where you currently have it -- I didn't really mean to make you go replace all these! I do think the new sources are stronger, though, so your effort here was valuable. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9. Not currently able to access this since Internet Archive is down but will return to it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped this out for a more recent source which is online. On page 226 is says, "almost no biographical information exists outside his own works, particularly the Kitab-i bahriye" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is great! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12. This checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18. İnan 1954. p. 15. Looks great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23. Goodrich 2004, Appendix 1. I am relying on Google Translate to read this, but looks like it all checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

26. Soucek 1995, pp. 10–33. Good here too! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27. İnan 1954, pp. 21–22. Great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30. Soucek 1992, p. 274. Great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

31. FSTC Research Team 2010, sec. 6. We talked about this one above -- I am happy with the double-citation solution, since the 1976 Soucek is certainly reliable but the FSTC is a much more accessible source for the Soucek information. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

35. Soucek 1992, p. 266. Great too! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my source review. You've done an exceptional job -- I don't think I've ever done a source review that found no small mistakes or omissions! I am impressed by your careful research, and I appreciate your effort to use accessible sources, too. Thank you for your wonderful work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2024 (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.