Talk:Kitab-ı Bahriye/GA1

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.

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

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.[1] 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.