I am nominating this for featured list because, after much hard work, I think it is now up to the FL standards. The subject is obviously of vital historical importance. There are very few monarchy-related FLs, so this one has been modeled after the recently promoted List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Since the image issue is likely to be brought up, I would like to say that I uploaded nearly all the images used in the article, and reviewed each one of them several times to ensure proper sourcing/licensing. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to disturb one of the regular image reviewers as this would be a waste of their time. However, if you do find a problem with a particular image, please point it out. Regards. BomBom (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that I notified members of WikiProject Turkey about this FLC, and asked them to review it (just review, not support). This seemed logical to me, because people from an article's WikiProject are likely to be familiar with the topic and are thus the most apt to do content-related comments. However, I was informed by Truco that this was not OK as it constituted potential canvassing. I was not aware of this and apologize for my actions. I will no longer notify WikiProject members when submitting an FLC in the future. Anyway, even if one were not to take into account the 5 support votes from members of WikiProject Turkey (Darwinek, Gökhan, Chapultepec, CeeGee, WillMall), the list still received 3 support votes from users who are not part of the project and whom I didn't notify of this ongoing FLC (Truco, Quadell, Qp10qp). Regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. "sultan" is not a proper noun (unless "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire" is an official post). The other list should be moved also. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Before I fully review, can some of the paragraphs in the lead be placed into a separate section because the length of the lead is tremendous.--Truco02:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a self redirect to the article, as outlined by the dab finder tool, can that be fixed?
Lead
'The sultans of the Ottoman Dynasty ruled over a vast transcontinental empire from 1299 to 1922.' -- Do not bold something that is not the title, although the bolded part includes some of the title, its not the title so it shouldn't be bolded.
'Although its early days remain shrouded in legend, the Ottoman Empire is generally regarded by most historians to have started in 1299, when Osman I, khan (leader) of the Kayı tribe of the Oghuz Turks, managed to acquire sovereignty for his small Anatolian kingdom from the Seljuq Sultan of Rûm.' -- Remove the comma before managed
'He was supreme military commander and had official title to all land.' -> He was the supreme military commander and had the official title to all land.
'Although theocratic and absolute in theory and in principle, the sultan's powers were in practice limited.' -- Wouldn't it be better stated as were limited in practice?
Done. Your seven comments have all been taken into account.
The self-redirect, which was contained in the navigational template at the bottom of the page, has been fixed.
Unbolded title in the lead.
Comma has been removed.
Sentence has been rephrased.
Sentence has been rephrased.
Unbolded links in the Notes section.
Like I said, I went through each image several times, and am pretty sure they're all PD. Nonetheless, I have asked David Fuchs to do an image review.[2]
I agree that part of the lead should be split off into a section or sections.
There were other pretenders. They don't all need to be mentioned, but there should be a sentence to say that Ertugrul Osman is not the only one to have existed.
I think it would be better to include Glazer's "Turkey: A country study" in the bibliography, spelled out in full... and then the specific references would only need to list the chapter name and an abbreviated reference... like you do for Pearce and Quataert, but with a chapter in the refs.
I would move the "general references" down to combine with the bibliography.
Done. The lead has been shortened. I removed the section about pretenders and replaced it with a more clearly-worded sentence about Ertugrul Osman in the lead. Your recommendations regarding the references have also been taken into account. Thanks for your comments! --BomBom (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All my initial issues have been fixed. Well done! I've given it a thorough reading, and made minor adjustments for clarity, grammar, and NPOV. There are only a few remaining issues.
The statement "people within Turkey generally use the title of padishah far more frequently" in note (a) needs a cite.
The detailed material on the Ottoman Caliphate is fascinating, but it only belongs in this list in so far as it directly relates to the office of sultan. Note (b) should stay, but the sentence in the lead "Such was the importance of the Ottoman Caliphate that it actually outlived the sultanate for more than a year" should go, in my opinion. Because of this, note (c) should only be referenced at the "Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire" section of the list, and everything after "lacking any political power" should be omitted from the note. Does this make sense?
Should "further reading" actually be "bibliography"? I ask because I'm not sure.
The sentence in the lead has been removed, and the footnotes reorganized accordingly. I also shortened the footnote per your suggestion.
You're right. It should be "Further reading" if the books were not used in the writing of the article, but merely given for those wanting to explore the subject in more detail. However, this is clearly not the case here: the article is directly referenced from the books, so I changed the section heading to "Bibliograhpy".
Support, but a question about the dates of the first three sultans. Checking in my copy of The Ottoman Empire by Colin Imber (Palgrave, 2002), he gives the following: Osman I, d. c. 1324; Orhan, c. 1324–62, Murad I, 1362–89. The Wikipedia article gives the change from Orhan to Murad as 1359. Looking around the internet, there's some variation (for example: [3], [4], [5]). The use of circa is always a good get out in these cases, unless you can be very sure. qp10qp (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I put circa for the first three sultans. The dates used are those given by the Turkish Ministry of Culture, which are themselves based on the book Padişah Portreleri. --BomBom (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support.There's more than enough information here. Summaries are of a good length, the lead and the image are also good. It looks fine to me, I'll Support.--Gökhan11:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For me it seems appropriate to be a featured article. I have changed Timur's origin to Turco-Mongol.[6] I have also changed Murad I's nickname from Hüdevendigar to Hüdavendigar.[7] The name may also be spelled Hudavendigar.[8] There is one more petty spelling problem in the second paragraph, it should be şeriat rather than seriat as per Turkish spelling. But I have not changed it since maybe it is preferred to use English characters only. --Chapultepec (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good work. However, I would suggest the partioning of the long paragraphs into smaller ones for better readability.CeeGee (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I divided the third paragraph of the lead. The lead now contains four paragraphs of appropriate length. I don't think it is possible to divide any paragraph more than that, because each one corresponds to a coherent thematic body. --BomBom (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT This is an important topic. The Ottoman Empire sat at the geographic juncture of several states, in several continents, over several centuries. This is deletionist mania to eliminate the list of the sultans. Such an article aids the further exploration of the individual sultans of the empire.
I second the sentiment towards breaking the article into several paragraphs. Again, terminating the article is a terrible act against meaningful scholarship on a vitally important topic.Dogru144 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I grouped comments by members of WikiProject Turkey in a collapse box because of the potential canvassing issue discussed above. Whether or not their support votes should be taken into account is for the FL director to decide. --BomBom (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aramgar
Comments.
1. Constantinople is not in Anatolia. This is a serious error that needs to be corrected. The Ottoman state had three capitals: Bursa, Edirne, and then Constantinople. Only the first of these is in Anatolia. Moreover, the Ottomans are not from the Anatolian heartland, but rather the western periphery of Anatolia. I have read scholars who refer to an "Ottoman heartland" which includes early Ottoman centers like Söğüt, Bilecik, İznik, and Bursa. Aramgar (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Perhaps some of the field names in the infobox ought to be adjusted. WP:UE certainly mandates that we call the Ottoman state, especially after from the 15th century, "Empire", but the sovereign is never called an "emperor". Please substitute "sultan". Footnote #4 is misconstrued: Mehmed II claimed succession to the Roman emperors but not the titles themselves. Aramgar (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I rephrased the first few sentences to make things clearer with regard to geography, and added information about the different moves of the Ottoman Empire's capital. I also removed "Emperor" from the infobox and replaced it with "Sultan".
Not done. I'm sorry, but the Ottoman rulers did occasionally use the title of caesar. The footnote is thus not misconstrued. I added two more scholarly references to corroborate this.
3. I am troubled by the phrase "managed to acquire sovereignty for his small Anatolian kingdom from the Seljuq Sultan of Rûm" and believe it ought to be dropped. The association of the early Ottomans with their illustrious predecessors is based on Ottoman court propaganda of the 15th and 16th century. Though the claim likely has no basis in fact (secondary source here), it is often taken at face value by modern historians, particularly those within Turkey. Observing good summary style, it might be better to emphasize here the frontier character of the early Ottoman state rather than the suspect pedigree.
4. perhaps add Topkapı Palace to the "Official Residence" section in the infobox.
5. perhaps add the nickname Hüdavendigâr in the small typeface below Murad I. Several other sultans bore this name, but Murad is generally known thus within Turkey. I realize that this may cause problems of translation: WP glosses it "the God-liked one"; I have also seen it rendered just "The Ruler". Perhaps it should stay "Hüdavendigâr".
3. The entire phrase about the Ottomans' link with the Seljuqs has been removed. The sentence in the lead now simply reads: "The Ottoman Empire's early years have been the subject of varying narratives due to the difficulty of discerning fact from legend; nevertheless, most modern scholars agree that the empire came into existence around 1299 and that its first ruler was Osman I, khan (leader) of the Kayı tribe of the Oghuz Turks." It is sufficiently concise and neutral. There is also a wikilink to the article about the empire's early days for users wishing to have more information.
4. The Ottomans' three main palaces have been added in the infobox: Topkapı, Dolmabahçe, Yıldız
5. The name Hüdavendigar has been added below Murad I's name.
"Although its early days remain shrouded in legend" "shrouded in legend" sounds unencyclopedic. Maybe "obscure"?
"ceremony which served "-->ceremony that served
"The attitudes of important members of the dynasty, the bureaucratic and military establishments, and religious leaders had to be considered." Considered for what? Political decisions?
"Moreover" This additive term doesn't really help the flow and can be removed.
"On the other hand, " Another wordy phrase that can be deleted; the contrast can be recovered from the context.
Can you move the note about the bold to a separate paragraph so readers can more easily see it?
The whole sentence has been rephrased. It nows reads: "The Ottoman Empire's early years have been the subject of varying narratives due to the difficulty of discerning fact from legend; nevertheless, most modern scholars agree that the empire came into existence in 1299..."
I replaced "which served" with "that served".
The whole sentence has been rephrased. It now reads: "Political decisions had to take into account the opinions and attitudes of important members of the dynasty, the bureaucratic and military establishments, as well as religious leaders."
Removed "moreover".
Removed "on the other hand".
I added a small key below the paragraph to make the explanation regarding the bold font more visible. Is it OK now?
Not done.Encyclopædia Britannica is certainly a reliable source, and is used to reference very non-controversial claims. I thus think it should be kept.
Support Excellent list! Very informative lead and a great table with clear descriptions. I really like that they all have images and tughras. You seem to have taken care of everyone else's remarks, though I agree that a better source than Britannica should be used, if possible. Reywas92Talk19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All your six comments have been taken into account. The sultans' names are no longer in bold to prevent confusion. --BomBom (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support an already excellent piece of work has been improved to an exceptional level during this process. Good work to both reviewers and contributing editors alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
