Talk:Piri Reis map/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2023 (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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article and looks close to GA. I will start a review soon. simongraham (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your input! The non-public sources should be mostly available via Wikipedia Library and Archive.org. Let me know if you are looking for anything in particular. Also feel free to ask questions in general. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright issue

@Rjjiii: Thank you. It is clear that you have done a lot of work recently to transform this article. Before I progress, I see that Earwig gives a high chance of copyright violation with [this ebook] and [this website]. For example, the first phrase in the article, "The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis (pronounced [piɾi ɾeis])." is very close to, "The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis (pronounced [piɾi ɾeis])." Can you please confirm that there is not a violation, for example that there is evidence that the Wikipedia article precedes them. simongraham (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's good to be diligent about this stuff. The ebook kind of amazingly copies Wikipedia to such a degree that on page 149 it reproduces the "See also" heading as:

51.4 See also

Geography in medieval Islam
Ancient world maps
World map
Waldseemüller map
Johannes Schöner globes, made in 1515 and 1520.
Also shows a Southern Continent at the South Pole.

Without the wikilink, they have printed the words "World map" with no explanation and no "World Map" section. I searched for a license in the pdf, and it bizarrely gives the name (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0) without crediting any authors by name, handle, url, or organization. I wonder if I reach out would they go ahead and fully abide by the license? Rjjiii (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the second link, I am not finding that specific phrase. I did quote Mallery as quoted there, "Midway in my research on the old charts and maps, I discovered that the grids marked on them were incorrect..." so it should pop up on Earwig. Rjjiii (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simongraham, I checked out the passage that you mentioned, and it is a part of the article from before I began working on it. I ran the latest version before any of my edits[1] through Earwig and did a quick Google search to find quite a few examples of other places copying the text (mainly from the old lead) from Wikipedia:

I'll go through the lead to see where it comes from:

The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis.[2] by Varenius (21 July 2006); "1513" added[3] by Kwamikagami (13 April 2009); Turkish updated[4] by Macedonian (22 December 2011); pronunciation template added[5] by EamonnPKeane (18 August 2013)
Approximately one third of the map survives;[6] by Kwamikagami (13 April 2009); [7] corrected by Doug Weller (9 May 2012); edited [8] by Bobrayner (19 August 2013)
it shows the western coasts of Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable accuracy. Various Atlantic islands, including the Azores and Canary Islands, are depicted, as is the mythical island of Antillia and possibly Japan.[9] by Simonkinahan (11 June 2006)

This material was added in pieces over the course of years over a decade ago by various editors. Some of the copied text, like "(pronounced [piɾi ɾeis])" from the Joy of Museums site is template output. Their site was registered in 2017[10], long after most of these edits.

That's just the first paragraph but this is rather time-consuming. Let me know if you need me to break down any other sections.Rjjiii (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is sufficient to demonstrate that the material is derived from wikipedia rather than the other way round and the common text is not copyright violation. Thank you for your diligence. simongraham (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a stable and well-written article. 77.9% of authorship is by Rjjiii, the remainder shared with nearly 50 editors. It is currently assessed variously as a B or C class article. There has been substantial development and the current version has substantial differences to previous revisions (e.g. from [April 2019] or [April 2023]). It was peer reviewed on 6 August 2023.

The article is of reasonable length, with 2,796 words of readable prose.
The lead is a reasonable length at 296 words.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
The text is clear and seems comprehensive coverage of the map.
Text seems to be neutral, with scholarly debate over the sources covered and mention of non-mainstream views provided without undue weight.
There is no evidence of edit wars and the article has been recently stable.
Potential copyvio infringements have been discounted (as above). Earwig identifies no other copyright violation issues.
The first sentence in the lead talks of the map from 1513. Suggest the History section starts similarly rather than with the rediscovery in 1929. Perhaps, this could use the last two sentences of the first paragraph of Description. Done
- I feel that this reads well. simongraham (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that this could then lead to an explanation of what happened to the map between 1513 and 1929. Done I've added some background. Reliable sources say that the map effectively disappeared after Piri Reis gave it to the Sultan, and I've tried to make that clear.Rjjiii (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That reads well. Maybe, the second paragraph needs a different first sentence to link it the preceding one, e.g. is the discovered, rediscovered or unearthed? simongraham (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I like "unearthed" Rjjiii (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Description and the first paragraph of Analysis, as the former contains analysis of the sources and the latter descriptions. This then means that the remaining sections of Analysis can be raised a level, which I think will help navigation. Question: Simongraham, before I tackle this last suggestion could you give me a more explicit idea of what you are imagining for the final heading structure? I hate to sound dense but I don't want to misinterpret either. Do you mean four top-level headings: Analysis, Iconography, Caribbean, & Southern Continent, or something different?Rjjiii (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rjjiii: Not at all. That feels reasonable to me. I certainly saw Iconography and Southern Continent as worthy of top-level. simongraham (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done and after testing, that improves navigation on mobile a good deal. Rjjiii (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest moving Iconography before Caribbean. I feel it is more logical to have the geographic titles together. Done
Numbers less than ten should be spelt out as per MOS:NUMBER. For example, please change "4 newly drawn" and "4 Portuguese" to four. Done
Link Cipangu. Done
Link monkey. Done
The article relies on a range of reliable sources. Gregory McIntosh's work is used extensively. As discussed in the Talk page archive, he is a credible voice and is balanced by other voices. Note: I don't think you're noting this as a problem, but it does make me realize that I've leaned heavily on McIntosh. For some of the recent edits that I've done, I have made a point to cite some of the other scholars in the already existing sources for the article.Rjjiii (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That cannot but help WP:NPOV. simongraham (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two McIntosh 2000 in the references. Please differentiate them (maybe 2000a and 2000b). Done Maybe: all the links were pointed at 2000a or 2000 to separate the two. I made 2000a the visible year in the list of sources. If you think it's more clear to have 2000a+2000b vs 2000+2000a, I can change this.Rjjiii (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel 2000a and 2000b are clearer, but I can find no consensus either way. simongraham (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Done I'll trust your judgement there; no consensus required Rjjiii (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heinrich 2001 seems to be a poorly referenced link to the website that was noted above. Please complete the reference or replace with a more reputable source. Done Heinrich is a subject matter expert as an Archaeological Geologist. I've added a link in the citation to his university's bio. I've also removed Heinrich from the quote citation so that it only cites the book from which it comes.Rjjiii (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some references use ISBN 10 and others 13 (c.f. Nebenzahl 1990 and Hiatt 2012). Please make them consistent. Done 13 digit ISBN across the board using Worldcat.Rjjiii (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add ISBN or OCLC for Akçura 1968, Keel 1971 and Soucek 1996. Done
All accessible sources seem live.
Spot checks of Massetti & Veracini 2016, Pinto 2011 and Soucek 2013 confirm all mention the topic.
The images seem appropriate and relevant. Note: After expanding the history section I have added a photo of the palace where the map was found.Rjjiii (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. That also seems to have appropriate license tags.
The images Blemmyes with monkey.png and ClippedToWorldMap Zekeriya-Kazvinî Acaib-ül-Mahlûkat 1553.jpg lacl US PD tags. Done
All the remaining images have relevant CC or PD tags.
Suggest adding ALT tags for accessibility. Done

@Rjjiii: Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input Simongraham! I think I've addressed all of your concerns and comments. Let me know if I've missed something, Rjjiii (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: That looks awesome. It feels that the Caribbean section reads as a part of Places. Do you think it would flow better moving them together? simongraham (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were quite redundant. Rather than combine them outright, under "Places" I have tried to snip out or merge any analysis and have written a (hopefully) more concise and general description of the map. Rjjiii (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: Great work. I will start my review now. simongraham (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

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;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 17:50, 16 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.