Talk:Piri Reis/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 00:30, 30 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) 00:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having undertaken the Good Article review for the Piri Reis map, I am very pleased to see that the article on its author is nominated by the same nominator. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is high.
It is of substantial length, with 3,842 words of readable prose.
The lead is significant with a length of 459 words.
Authorship is 85,3% from the nominator with contributions from 129 other editors, although most are not significant.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.
Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
- Done, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- I can see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Cuoghi does not seem to support the statement that "The southern coast of the Atlantic Ocean is widely accepted to be a version of Terra Australis.". Can you please confirm where the source confirms this. The relevant statement seems to be "At that time, the land south of the strait was thought to represent the northern edge of that large continent which, according to tolemaic tradition, must have existed in the southern emisphere to balance the quantity of emerged lands in the northern one. Furthermore, many charts and planispheres of that period read "Terra Australis Incognita" (Unknown Austral Land) on the land south of the strait of Magellan." but that does not seem sufficient to me
  - Thanks, and that's my bad. At some point I removed a citation to McIntosh there because it covered an entire chapter. I've changed "widely accepted to be" to "most likely" and I've added the concluding page of the McIntosh chapter. The page that verified the previous statement was 62, but after thinking about it "widely accepted" doesn't really capture his point. He writes, "Not all writers who have examined the relationship of Terra Australis on the Piri Reis map to the outline of Antarctica have uncritically accepted the theories of Mallery, Hapgood, Pauwels, Bergier, and von Däniken. Some, such as Clifford Wilson, Daniel Cohen, Ronald Story, William H. Stiebing Jr., and David Woodward, have attempted to present more balanced views and represent that the kinds of depictions shown on the Piri Reis map are not unusual for its time and can be explained without hypothesizing about vanished civilizations and ancient astronauts." and the point there is not the quantity of writers but rather contrasting historians, skeptical science writers, and geographers with fringe theorists invoking Atlantis or ancient astronauts. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodrich 2004, states that "Unlike his famous two partial world maps of 1513 and 1528 these are not originals, most drawn after the death of Piri Reis." How does this support "The known surviving manuscripts are all copies created beginning in the later 1500s" please.
  - This source also gives the dates of all known extant manuscripts (all of which are copies). They begin in the 1500s. Most are from after his death, but a handful were made in the years just before his execution. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems fair. I understood 1500s to be the first decade of the sixteenth century rather than the whole century.
- Please check the other sources before I continue my spot checks.
  - Spot checks confirm Ayyubi 1989, Heinrich 2001 and McIntosh 2000a are relevant and discuss the topic.
it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- I assume V in Akçura 1935 is the fold-out map. Is this correct?
  - section V "fell into his hands" is in the leftmost column, a few lines down from the section start. Akçura uses Roman numerals for each major inscription. I cited it by section instead of page number because "V" is also translated on other pages into German, modern Turkish, and French. The fold-out map shows the position of that inscription and has a transliteration. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ayyubi wrote a later article that is almost identically titled to the one listed [1]. Worth reviewing?
  - I checked the three existing citations to Ayyubi (1989). Two are worded almost exactly the same, and the third isn't covered. It just seems like a slightly shorter version. Thanks for the heads up, though, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 48.7%% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is highly likely. However, looking at the top hit, MicIntosh's A Tale of Two Admirals: Columbus and the Piri Reis Map of 1513, it seems that these are the titles of sources shared between the articles. The remaining sources checked also seem to avoid any close-phrasing or similar potential violations.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article does a good job of covering the subject's life and work.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article goes into a lot of detail but is generally compliant.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is was some prior content dispute as recorded in the talk page but the editors do not seem to be substantive to the current version and there is no current evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The three images Venice by Piri Reis.jpg Piri Reis - Map of the Islands of the Aegean Sea Including Chios, Cos, Rhodes and Crete - Walters W658101A - Full Page.jpg and Piri Reis - Map of the Egyptian Coast From Alexandria as Far as the City of Rashid - Walters W658303B - Full Page.jpg require a US PD tag.
  - These all have US PD tags now. There are still error messages from one of the templates, but the rationale for both the US and country of origin is provided.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piri reis world map 01.jpg and Second World Map of Piri Reis.jpg have the correct PD tag.
- The remaining images have appropriate CC tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are extensive and appropriate, covering both the subject and his works.

@Rjjiii: Thank you, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ, for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Thanks for looking through it. Over the past week, I've gone through and double-checked the citations. The ones for "Piri Reis map of 1513" were all fairly goofed up, but should be good now. Somehow in the process of adding citations to the map article's lead, I seem to have uploaded from the wrong text file, so a lot of those had to be changed. I changed citations in some other parts of the article but this was mostly to be more clear, use a higher quality source, or remove a redundant source. I've done a bunch of small copy edits, but I also made several changes that I'll explain below since you've already looked over the article and the citation tinkering makes diffs hard to read:

Book of the Sea → Book of Navigation (use one translation consistently)
Corsica → Pianosa (I mistakenly thought it was the fortress.)
+ This reflects Columbus's erroneous claim that he had found a new route to Asia. (based on concerns raised by an IP editor at Piri Reis map that some people may not know the Columbus story)
Historian Karen Pinto has described the combination of legendary creatures from the edge of the known world with positive portrayals as challenging the medieval Islamic idea of an "inhabited quarter" of the world surrounded by an impassable Encircling Ocean → Historian Karen Pinto has described the positive portrayal of legendary creatures from the edge of the known world in the Americas as breaking away from the medieval Islamic idea of an impassible "Encircling Ocean" surrounding the Old World. (Both are verifiable, but the current version is closer to the point that she was making.)
gloss Hormuz
Piri Reis says he composed an atlas with separate maps and charts because the details in any single map are limited by the space available. → Piri Reis says he composed an atlas because any single map has limited space for written details, and some "knowledge cannot be known from maps; it must be explained." (Same as with Pinto, just trying to better summarize his point.)
There are now three footnotes that explain areas where sources are uncertain, but which I think would be too awkward to explain in the body text: [a] how much did he copy from Columbus, [b] other translations of his atlas, and [c] the date of completion for the first version of the atlas.

Thanks for the patience, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent work, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ. I believe this article now meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 10:36, 18 August 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.