Talk:Hatt-i humayun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: One found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The term "hatt-ı hümayun" can sometimes also be used in a literal sense, meaning a handwriting belonging to an Ottoman Sultan. "a handwriting" is ungrammatical.

   The hatt-ı hümayun would usually be written to the Grand Vizier (Sadrazam), sometimes to his replacement in his absence (the Ka'immakâm) "to his replacemnet in his absence" is ungrammatical and unclear, and wrongly spelt.

   Most decrees (ferman) or titles of provilege (berat) were written by a scribe, but those written to a particular official, and that were particularly important, were preceded by the Sultan's handwritten note beside his seal (Tughra), emphasizing a particular part of his edict, urging or ordering it to be followed without fault Very clumsily written

   There might be a clichéd phrase like "to be done as required" (mûcebince amel oluna) or "no one is to be interfered with to execute my command as required" (emrim mûcebince amel oluna, kimseye müdahale etmeyeler). The phrases in quotes need to be attributed. They appear to be very bad translations as they are ungrammatical.

   Some edicts to the rank would start with a praise for the person(s) the edict was addressed to, in order to encourage or honor him. Rarely, there might be threats such as "if you need your head do it as required" This is almost gibberish.

   I won't look at any more prose. Please take this away and get it copy-edited by someone with a good grasp of plain English. it should never have been nominated in this poor state. Please read the WP:GACR to see the criteria for a Good Article.

   The organisation of the article is poor, too many small sections. Many unfamilar terms are used and although mostly wikilinked, they need to be introduced in context in the text.

   Translations should be attributed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   One dead link found and tagged as noted above.

   Refs #10, 14, 18, 19 need author/publisher information.

   I assume good faith for off-line and / or Turkish sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears OK

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image gallery in the middle of the article does not help. Fewer images placed at relevant points in the text would be better.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article requires a lot of work to get it up to Good article standard. First get it thoroughjly copy-edited, then take to a WP:Peer review. then when you are absolutely sure that it complies with all of the good article criteria, please renominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)