Talk:Kitab-ı Bahriye/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 03:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to learning a great deal about this book! When I review, I typically make relatively small tweaks myself and just leave comments about bigger-picture items, though of course as always with editing you should feel to modify any changes I may make. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose

• I think the "History" section might be more accurately titled "Composition", since that is primarily what it explains. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Relatedly, the paragraph that begins with The details in a portolan chart... seems like it would fit better in the next section, since it explains the contents of the book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  Done, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for those changes! I think the "composition" section read more smoothly now. As I evaluate the prose of the following sections, though, I'm wondering if the information could be more clearly re-organized into the sections "Contents" (covering only information true of all versions), "Variations between versions" (covering the differences between 1521 and 1526), and "Extant copies" (covering where manuscripts and facsimiles exist). Right now, for example, the whole first paragraph of the "Versions" section is actually about the extant manuscript copies, which makes it confusing when the second paragraph begins comparing only two versions. I think a re-organization wouldn't take much re-writing, just moving things around, to accomplish a lot. What do you think? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  I started a sandbox to work on this at Talk:Kitab-ı Bahriye/Sandbox. I'll drop a ping when I'm getting close to merging it back, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  The material is reorganized, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I like to check a random 10 or 10% of the sources (whichever is more). For this article, I'll check sources 5, 9, 12, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 35, as they're numbered in this diff. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks much for taking on the review. Let me know if you need quotes or scans from any of the sources. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: pinging because I forgot to {{ping}} on the offer above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and my apologies on the delay here! First, regarding sources — I have access to a quite good library so I am generally able to access sources on my own, but if I have any trouble I’ll let you know. Thanks for offering! Second, regarding my delay — again, my apologies; I had a busier week than I expected, which has prevented me from dedicating time to this review. I now have a quite busy weekend ahead of me so it would likely be Tuesday before I can pick this up again. That’s pretty slow to leave you waiting, so if you like, I could throw this one back in the pool and see if someone else bites. Just let me know. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all good; I can wait a week, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

5. All the cites to this source check out for WP:V. I'm a little unsure about whether this source itself is a good WP:RS-- it certainly does cite good research, but it doesn't seem to have involved editorial review. Can you offer more context on why you choose this source? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn The authors (Salah Eddin Zaimeche Al-Djazair, Salim Al-Hassani, etc.,) are subject matter experts on the History of Islam. The article currently cites it only for factual statements. I try to cite some sources available online with no paywall, but if you feel like this is not quite making the WP:RS cut, I'll go through and find alternative sources for these, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm working in the sandbox linked above to make it easier to do large changes. 2 of the citations have been replaced with Goodrich. The citation in the lead was removed as not necessary. The other two, I need to find a replacement for and will then ping, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've removed all but one citation. For the remaining citation, I've also included the Soucek citation from their work. I haven't yet tracked down the Soucek article, so I can't remove it just yet. That remaining citation is only for a description of the contents of the book, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

9. Not currently able to access this since Internet Archive is down but will return to it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I swapped this out for a more recent source which is online. On page 226 is says, "almost no biographical information exists outside his own works, particularly the Kitab-i bahriye" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

12. This checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)