Talk:Gürdal Duyar/GA1

GA Review

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: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 22:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Citations go after periods and commmas, not before. There are a number of issues with citation placement - please go through and make sure they are placed directly after periods and commas with no space between, and that citations are given in order of their numbers throughout the article (i.e. cite [42] should not come before cite [36] where they are both being reused). Issue addressed. Other things that need checking throughout the article: names of newspapers should be italicized (Milliyet); some words are squished together (it should be "as well", not "aswell"); unusual capitalization ("world of Art" should be "world of art", "Architecture" should be "architecture, etc). Make sure you check the whole article for these issues. "who thinks with his hands and portrays..." no need to italicize quote. Check for this elsewhere as well. One major prose issue to fix - the number of duplicate links. The Manual of Style says that other Wiki articles should be linked only up to twice, once each in the lead and the body of the article (see MOS:LINKONCE). The easiest way to find and remove duplicate links is the Duplinks-alt tool (User:Evad37/duplinks-alt) - if you don't have it installed, please install it and use it to comb through the article for excessive links. Let me know if you run into any issues. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) One other systemic issue to be addressed: generally, citations should go at the ends of sentences, not in the middle. Unless there is an exceptional reason, such as a direct quote from a source or an attributed opinion that is only found in one source, factual citations should be placed at the ends of sentences only. Please go through and move citations accordingly. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Issues dealt with - many minor prose issues fixed - pass!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	External links inside the main body of text (like the one to Leon Perrin) should be replaced by internal wikilinks or removed entirely. Issue addressed. Pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are good, excepting OR from primary sources, which has been removed. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some significant uncited passages that appear to be original research, namely: As Duyar was nearing the age of 40...and removed from its intended location. Duyars legacy is in part interconnected....those to Ataturk. Please ensure that all paragraphs and/or groups of sentences are fully cited to appropriate sources. Big issues addressed, double checking for more subtle issues. Issue addressed, pass. Need to re-check since expansion. Pass, no issues. The list of exhibitions, mostly from primary sources, strikes me as OR, as well as unnecessary and with unclear criteria for inclusion, and has been removed. If you would like to re-add it, I would encourage you to only include those exhibitions notable enough to be discussed in secondary sources. For now, pass on OR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, but no manual spot-check done yet. Hold for now. Pass - nothing found by manual spot-check or Earwig after re-organization.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else significant found in reliable sources. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The 'Legacy' and 'Style and position in sculpture history' sections can be combined. Make sure to incorporate them together without redundant sentences/information. Issues addressed - pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Turkish War of Independence is more neutral than 'War of Liberation' - also fix broken link (should not be a redlink). Issues addressed, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable now, although there was some expansion after the GA nomination. Pass. Recently expanded during GA review per discussion below. Possible copyediting to come? Stable enough to review for GA status. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Abdi İpekçi Anıtı (2).JPG source & author should be fixed (no assumptions!) File:20220620163423!Güzel İstanbul Heykeli.jpg has no actual source (and who is "Mirada", the author?) The artworks should all be tagged with Template:FoP-Turkey' Issues addressed, pass. Need to re-check since expansion/hold. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	If there is an image of Duyar available anywhere to use, that would be excellent. I presume you've already looked but cannot find one, correct? If there's none available, nothing we can do. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Issue addressed. Need to re-check since expansion. I do not think the tiny fair-use images add anything worthwhile to the article - they should be removed. Captions can be simplified across the board - we don't need to give photo credit or sources in the captions, as this information is kept in the photo metadata. Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comment - @Ganesha811: Hi Ganesha811, thanks for taking up this review. I have adressed the concerns you had about apparent original research in certain paragraphs .--Gazozlu (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix! This is a very interesting subject and I'm learning a lot about Turkish art as I review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you for your feedback. I'm glad that the subject is interesting to you. I've clarified the source of the Guzel Istanbul image and have contacted the presumed author of the other image to see if they can confirm that they are the author of that photo. I've also addressed the citation placement issue across the article that you mentioned. Gazozlu (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The author of the Abdi Ipekci Monument photo has confirmed that they are the author of the photo. Gazozlu (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 About your question on an image of Duyar. I have ineed found two good profile images of him, here on the Geni website and this photo of a photo in an online article, I assume originally taken from a book. However I don't know if there is a rationale that would let either of those be used without copyright problems. Gazozlu (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Same goes for photos of his old sculptures that have since been removed/destroyed and thus lost forever if not for some good photos in the two book sources (Elibal 1973 pages 290,293) and (Berk & Gezer 1973 pages 197-200) which have been archived by archive.org, which would be great additions to the article if there is some rationale that would let them be used in the articles. However I am not familiar with what that rationale would be or if it would be allowed at all. Gazozlu (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I would check the images against these two pages on Commons (Turkey guidelines, PD-Turkey) and see if any are public domain or otherwise usable. If you're unsure you can ask at the Help Desk on Commons. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I read about non-free use rationale and uploaded one of the images with a rationale for its use. Gazozlu (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Gazozlu, question for you: as I start to go through this in more detail, I'm seeing quite a few prose, structure, and referencing issues pop up. They're all fixable, but it will be a fair bit of work. Are you available over the next few days to take this on? I understand this is your first GA nomination, so you are probably eager to see this through. However, we could put the nomination on hold for a couple weeks to allow someone from the WP:GUILD of Copyeditors to come and go through the article. That might improve it significantly. Overall, it's a high quality article with a lot of good material, it's just a little messy and disorganized at the moment. 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I think it sounds like a good idea to let someone from the WP:GUILD to come look at the article. Could you initiate such a request to them on my behalf? In the mean time I did end up finding some photos that appear to be usable under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and uploaded them, and also started to navigate the non-free fair use rationale. So i'll be adding some more photos in the mean time, which might be alot of new content all at once, so putting it on hold might be a good idea so that you are not reviewing in the midst of large additions to the article.--Gazozlu (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's best if you make the request yourself - you can do so here. Go ahead and make improvements/expansions before a copyeditor arrives. In the meantime, I'll put the review on hold for two weeks and we can reconvene then. Thanks for your hard work on it so far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Allright I will make the request. Thank you too for your efforts in helping me improve the article. Gazozlu (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Gazozlu, as you work on the article during the hold, here are three featured articles of very high quality you can look at for inspiration: Bronwyn Oliver, Henry Moore, Herbert Maryon - they are all about sculptors. It might be helpful to take a look at them as you structure and shape this article. Happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll definitely check them out. One thing i've been looking for was a good or feature article about an artist with a list of exhibitions. Not only for the format, but i've been wondering if I should mention or include more references to the exhibitions in the "Life and education" section, i'm unsure because there are almost no secondary sources discussing the exhibitions. The "Select exhibitions" section is based largely on primary sources or mentions in secondary sources.

The same goes for including more works from the "Major works" section in the "Life and education" section, I am avoiding that because it would probably be too much repetition, but maybe it is expected/better if every major work gets at least mentioned by name in the "Life and education section"? Gazozlu (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's best to incorporate content about his major works into a single narrative with his life and education, but you can check out other featured biographies on artists (here's all of them) to get some ideas of how it could work. Generally, if there are no secondary sources discussing the exhibition, it's probably not notable enough to be mentioned. This is an encyclopedia article, after all, a summary of someone's life, not a resume. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, that shoudln't be that difficult to swap to at this point because everything in major works is largely organised by time. I think the advantage of having the major works as a separate section is that it allows for more detail per work, such as technical specifications, history, later events (such as a sculpture being removed at a point way later than where in the timeline of the current prose is at), and other details about that specific work that would otherwise mess with the flow of a more general narrative. But I see now that virtually all the feature article examples are in the way that you mentioned. Gazozlu (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Remember that this article should be focused on Duyar the person. Discussing his work is important, of course, but even his most notable works should be talked about not from an art history or technical perspective but from a perspective of him, his career and his life. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Allright i'll start with re-organising the article in that way. I am done with expanding the article and its current state will likely be its most expanded form from my input, at least for a while. I'll note the link to the most recent version with a separate Major works section here for potential future reference. Gazozlu (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"For future reference" this FA: William Burges has a list of works, and these FAs:André Kertész, Makinti Napanangka have a list of exhibitions.--Gazozlu (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ganesha811 I've finished with restructuring the article, i've shredded off parts including the "Major works" section entirely. Also an update on the images: turns out the images from the Salt Research archives are non-derivative 4.0 and thus not allowed on commons so I had to delete them. I have used an image from the Salt Research archives and from elsewhere and uploaded them locally with a rationale. I added quite a few more images to support the article. Also an editor from the guild has stopped by and made some edits although not a full copyedit of the article yet. Gazozlu (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you for your hard work. Let me know when you would like me to re-open the review and dive back in. Otherwise I'm happy to wait until the 2-week hold is up. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! From my perspective it looks like a good time to re-open it, so let's do that. Gazozlu (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ganesha811, quick question, is the "Broken" point at 1b something that needs to be addressed or is this meant to just be a note for yourself? --Gazozlu (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, that is not an issue, just a spare phrase from when I was moving stuff around re: redlinks. By the way, I've slowed down a little - some real life stuff means I will have to do my prose review slowly over the next few days, but I am definitely still working on this review and we should get there pretty soon. You've put in a lot of excellent work improving this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Take your time, I appreciate the quality review. Hope all is fine or will be fine with your real life stuff. Gazozlu (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, there are a lot of prose issues, so I'm going slowly, but so far nothing that would prevent this article reaching GA! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• This article now passes GA! See some final comments above re: the list of exhibitions, but we are at the GA standard. Congrats to Gazozlu and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

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.