Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of the Sultans/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2024 [1].

Empire of the Sultans

edit
Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a successful FAC last year for an article about an art exhibition, I invite review of this article about another exhibition: one that visited sixteen venues. As with Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, this article results from my role as Wikimedian In Residence at the Khalili Collections. I make extensive use of paywalled news archives, so of course I am happy to answer any requests for detailed quotes from those sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ghosts of Europa

edit

Hello! I don't have much feedback for the Venues or Reception sections. However, I think the Background and Content sections are under-developed and would benefit from expansion. I also think the focus of the Background section is unclear; it doesn't seem to properly set up the rest of the article.

For the Background section:

  • You cite four sources to cover the history of the Ottoman Empire: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Deseret News, BYU, and the Salt Lake Tribune. The Encyclopedia makes sense, but otherwise this seems like a strange choice of sources. Is Deseret News really the best source for what the Ottomans did in 1516? Why cite newspapers at all instead of peer reviewed history books?
    • Can't do this straight away, but I'll find better sources. The newspaper sources are already used in the article and were written specifically to give context to the exhibition, but their statements can indeed be backed up by scholarly sources. Done: newspaper sources removed, academic books used instead, paragraph re-worded to fit those sources.
  • I think you should explain Islam's views on idolatry and its preference for non-representational art. Without that context, it's surprising that an exhibition covering 600 years of art is so focused on calligraphy and doesn't include e.g. sculptures.
    • This is a good idea; as with the above, I'll have to dig into scholarly sources.
  • In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
    • Yes, the part of that list that relates to Arabia. I could insert "Mecca and Medina" to make it explicit? Sentence now replaced based on academic source.
  • Although officially an Islamic state, the empire promoted a religious tolerance that was unusual for medieval Europe - Is this relevant to the exhibition? It sounds like it specifically focused on Islamic art.
    • I think this is useful context because the sultans did not fully embrace the restrictions of Islam, for instance commissioning portrait paintings. The exhibition combined Islamic art with art made for people who were unbelievably wealthy — maybe the richest family in the world at that time — and liked to show off their wealth.
  • The empire's rulers, the sultans, were keen patrons of the arts, especially calligraphy - This feels overly simplified. Was every single sultan for 600 years a "keen patron"?
    • I don't think "every single sultan" is implied. Sources use "the sultans" as the subject of the statement. I agree it's a breezy generalisation but not sure more is needed to explain why someone would be interested in the sultans' art.
FAC doesn't do "breezy generalistion[s]". Perhaps "Many of the empire's rulers, the sultans, were ..."? Assuming that the sources will support this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion: now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suleiman and the later sultans used this wealth to build large, domed mosque complexes that included schools and hospitals - It's not clear how this connects to the article. Did some of the art in this exhibit come from those mosques?
    • This was included just to underline that the sultans were very rich, but you're right that it doesn't illuminate the exhibition. Now removed. Removed mention of schools and hospitals, and added clause about inscriptions.
  • other objects with secular or religious purposes - This is pretty vague (isn't everything either secular or religious?). I don't have a clear sense of what's in this collection. More detail or examples would be helpful.
    • Many objects were religious in purpose but many were not. Rephrased to make this more clear. The scope of the collection is art from Islamic countries, whether or not that art has a religious purpose or function.
Then why does this, not relevant, split need mentioning? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: It's mentioned to head off the misconception that the a collection named "... Collection of Islamic Art" is exclusively of art with a religious purpose/ origin. This exhibition combines art from a religious tradition with luxury items whose purpose was to show off the wealth of a ruling family. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fair enough then. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Content:

  • The exhibition's curators were J. M. Rogers, the collection's honorary curator; and Nahla Nassar, its acting curator and registrar - This wording is awkward. Its curators were curators?
    • The curators of the exhibition were the curators of the collection, which isn't always true of exhibitions. I agree the repetition of "curator" is jarring. How about "The exhibition was assembled by..."?
  • More than 200 objects were on display, covering 600 years of the Ottoman Empire - This is also a bit awkward. The article on the Ottoman Empire says it lasted from 1299 to 1922, or 623 years. Were 23 of those years not covered by the exhibition?
    • 600 years is the number used by sources, but it's almost certainly false precision. Changed to "six centuries".
  • These exhibits fell into four sections. "In the service of God" displayed texts including the Quran as well as furniture and ornaments for decorating mosques. - The subsection about this exhibit doesn't mention furniture, which makes it feel incomplete after this overview.
    • Well spotted. I've added a sentence under "In the service of God" about mosque furniture.
  • Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the Background section.
    • Seems like I need a new background sentence combining the fact that the sultans built mosques and they decorated them in a particular way. I'll think more about this. Rephrased and moved to background section.
  • The armour, forged from iron or steel, included helmets, chain mail shirts, and a 15th century war mask - This is an abrupt start to this subsection; I needed to reread the overview to orient myself. Consider re-introducing the topic: "This exhibit featured armour, which..."
    • You're right; I got sick of repeating "The exhibition included...". Now rephrased.
  • Other pottery on display came from Syria, among which were a set of twelve fritware bowls from 1860, each inscribed in Arabic with "Imperial Chamber" and "a gift for his excellency Abraham Lincoln". - I feel like I'm missing huge chunks of this story. Why was a gift for Abraham Lincoln in Syria? Did they never send it? Did Lincoln give it back?
    • I have the same feeling, and frustratingly the questions are not answered by the sources! So it's known that they bear Lincoln's name but I don't think anybody knows why these gifts were made for him but did not end up in the USA. I've added a sentence to explain that the curators don't know.
  • In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.
    • Moved.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to apologise for delay with the last remaining point. I've had a celebratory last few days. Also, my search for references about Aniconism in Islam led to discovering problems with the sourcing of that article and Muslim world that I have spent some time digging into. I will come back to the background section of this article this week. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ghosts of Europa are you satisfied with my responses to the points you've raised in your review? I think the last one that needs work is the use of newspaper sources in the Background section. I have spent some time on this and you'll see that I have provided some scholarly sources, but there are still a couple of newspaper sources supporting general statements about Ottoman art. I've had less time than anticipated for wiki editing over the last week but I still intend to improve the Background section. If, looking at what I've done since your review, you feel any suggestion has not been answered satisfactorily, I can work on that too. The article is much better thanks to your involvement, so thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghosts of Europa (and anyone else who wants to review) I've now made substantial changes to the Background section to remove a couple of inadequate sources and to make some points about Islamic art in general. I've had to change and rearrange some statements, but this let me wiki-link a few relevant articles. Is that section now good enough for its role giving context to the exhibition? All feedback welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version looks great! It provides good context for the prominence of calligraphy, and the wikilinks make it easy to learn more. I haven't checked source-text integrity, but the general quality of the sources looks good. Two somewhat nitpicky things:
  • Referring to "Istanbul" seems anachronistic, especially underneath a map that calls the city Constantinople.
  • The New York Times seems like a weird source for Calligraphy was as central to Ottoman culture as painting was to Europe during the Renaissance. I wouldn't expect NYT journalists to be experts in comparative art history. Is there a more academic source we can use?
Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, have you addressed these last two comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ghosts of Europa for the feedback and @Gog the Mild for the nudge. That damn catchy song had me reflexively avoiding "Constantinople" even when it is the historically correct name. Now I have replaced the two references to Istanbul. I've also deleted the sentence sourced to the NY Times and instead used a statement sourced to an encyclopaedia article by Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, a professor of Ottoman history. I hope this makes the Background section fit for purpose. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
Lead
  • "from 2000 to 2004: a period" A colon is wrong here – a comma would suffice
Content
  • Image caption: link horse chestnut? (Only a mild suggestion – your call entirely)
Venues
  • Image caption: "c. 1560-80" should be "c. 1560–1580", per the MOS
Books, paintings
  • "some following a standard pattern": is it possible to explain what the "standard pattern" is, or is that too complex to achieve in a few words?
Venues
  • I'm not sure we need a whole subsection for the US tour, do we? Just making it part of the wider section would be better (and doesn't give excess weight to one of the four countries)

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Thanks for your suggestions, all of which I've implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Since the additions suggested by Ghosts of Europa, this article is now much stronger than it was and up to FAC standards. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I saw this FAC posted in WP:Museums and came to take a look since I've been meaning to get more familiar with the FAC process. I've read the article carefully and I think my only contribution is to wonder whether the lead should be a bit further expanded to perhaps say what objects some of the critics praised were? I really enjoyed reading the comments above too Lajmmoore (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice surprise to see one of my wiki-heroes at FAC. Thanks for the support! Looking again at the summary of reviews, three of them specifically praise the calligraphy. So I've added a clause in the lead to reflect this. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9

edit

File:OttomanEmpire1566.png is unsourced. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing: that'll teach me that I've focused too much on what I've written/added rather than others' work! I've removed the image and replaced it with commons:File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png which does cite sources. Are you happy with this substitution? I also note that there is commons:File:OttomanEmpire1590.png which is extensively sourced, but may not be ideal because the text labels are small. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin,
Thanks. Unfortunately, the new map cite sources but not all of them are RS: "Self drawn, mainly based on Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, Paris: Fayard (1989), also en:List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories, Image:Ottoman 1683.png, [1], and [2]." 1st (Mantran) is OK, 2nd is Wikipedia => not OK, 3rd is an unsourced image as well, 4th: what's the original source?, same issue with the 5th one.
So I would use File:OttomanEmpire1590.png. If you want to improve it (SVG + larger labels) you can ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I've substituted the image in the article. If required by the review, I could paint out the tiny text labels but I agree it would be ideal to have an SVG version of this map, so will make a request. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewers: if we have trouble getting a map of suitable quality, we can swap out that image from the Background section. The information that the Ottoman Empire had territory in three continents is given in the text. Instead of the map, we could have a calligraphic work such as commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art cal 0007.jpg or commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art mss 0239.15.jpg to back up the text's discussion of the importance of calligraphy. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an SVG version of the properly-sourced map, and placed it in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

More than a month in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've just put out calls to the article's four Wikiprojects. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that this morning I put out another round of calls to the four Wikiprojects. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

edit

Just here to note that I think the "reception and legacy" section could use significant improvement: see WP:RECEPTION for the kind of changes I'd like to see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for the input. There are a lot of principles at WP:RECEPTION and they are usually of the form "don't do X too much". Happy to improve the section, but can you be more specific about what changes from that list apply to the current article? One of the principles there is about summary sentences for paragraphs; this is an area where I'm very cautious of summarising what the reviewers said because it's especially important that this section is neutral. All clarification welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course MartinPoulter. From the lead, I can see that you have already identified three prominent themes—the highly positive reception for the calligraphy, the feeling that the exhibition presented a different view of the Middle East, and a general appreciation for the beauty of the exhibits. However, in the reception section itself, these themes are haphazardly scattered through the section: for the calligraphy you have the NYT in the first paragraph, the AP and The Oklahoman in the second, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the third; while for the "alternative viewpoint" you have the New Statesman in the first paragraph, the Salt Lake Tribune in the second, and both John Edwards (with a perhaps too-lengthy quote?) and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in the third. A similar situation is for the last theme. As you have already identified these areas as worthy of summarizing in the lead, I do not think there is any neutrality-related issue with providing "topic sentences" if so required. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point that the John Edwards quote isn't needed in its entirety; I've cut an unnecessary clause. I'll work on reorganising the paragraphs thematically rather than chronologically. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's turned out to be really helpful to look at the reviews thematically rather than chronologically! I realise now that the positive reception breaks into two themes: praise of the exhibition as a diverse collection ("wide-ranging", "impressive sweep") and praise of individual art works ("gorgeous", "gems of real art") so I've separated those into two paragraphs (for four paragraphs total) and added a counterpart sentence in the lead. I've also replaced a couple of colourful verbs as WP:RECEPTION recommends. Does the new Reception section meet all your concerns, @AirshipJungleman29 ? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The rest of the article is excellent (aside from Islam being linked twice in the lead). Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

edit

Image placement is somewhat random but not too bad. I am not sure if we are meant to be strict with tagging photos of historical objects with a copyright tag for the historical object. ([[Jo-Jo - we are.) The galleries could also use some ALT text. Spot-check upon request. It seems like there are differences between the various citation informations - I guess because they don't all have the same information available? Although #14 has a link that seems to encompass a lot of information that's not usually in a piped link. What makes Factiva a reliable source, or more generally, what is it being used for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and thanks for taking an interest in this review. I'll answer in reverse order, if I may. Factiva is not itself claimed here to be a reliable source. Factiva is a subscription database through which one can retrieve old published news stories, similar to Lexis Plus, Westlaw, or Gale OneFile. I've used it to get stories originally published in newspapers and magazines that are too old to be on those publications' websites. The reliable source in each case is the publication in which the news story originally appeared: The Times, The Columbian, The Salt Lake Tribune, and so on.
Ref #14 is a page on the Khalili Collections official site; there isn't a byline or date, so I've used the full title from the web page (same for Refs #66 and #67). Should I be abbreviating the title, or using the exact title given by the web page? I'm not seeing why you mention piped links, so maybe I've misunderstood. Gale Onefile and Factiva give different metadata about the news stories they retrieve, and it's less than what I would get from retrieving an article from the publication's website; that might account for the variation in citations. I've used the same citation templates but not all the citations have the same information.
Apologies about ALT text: I thought I'd sorted that out before nominating the article. I'll fix that now. All the exhibited objects are from before the 20th century, so I'm happy to put the relevant copyright tags on the Commons files (probably tomorrow rather than today). I could put the images in galleries next to the relevant part of the description, but that would leave large stretches of the article without illustrations, so I thought it better to vary the images and dot them throughout the article. I think that's an interesting visual journey for the reader. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT text now added for those images that were missing it, and copyright tags for objects added to all exhibit photographs in Commons. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying about piped links is that the text with the link underneath is a bit too long. "This is a piped link" is more text compared to "This is a piped link". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I see what change you want made, but I'm looking at the documentation for Template:Cite_web and I don't see how to implement it. There doesn't seem to be a way to display "Empire of the Sultans. Ottoman Art from the Collection of Nasser D. Khalili, Musée Rath, Geneva, Switzerland" but not have all of it linked. If I truncate that title, then the link can be confused with other web pages whose title begins the same way, such as refs #66 and #67. Do you want me to do that anyway? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that cite web is the best format here - it's a website, yes, but the citation is a physical collection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm not understanding. The things being cited in refs #14, #66 and #67 are web pages published by the collection, not the physical collection of objects. I'm not sure how a physical collection would work as a citation in Wikipedia. To help me get the concept, can you give me an example of a citation template or citation format that should be used for one of these long-titled web pages? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Actually, upon rethinking, the title does contain the correct information. So nevermind on my link question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the only thing missing are copyright tags for the objects in the images, per Gog's (somewhat misplaced; pings require a signature) comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See my message above, dated 17:08, 9 April 2024. I've just checked again that I didn't miss any objects. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Are your concerns met? Are you okay to do the source spot-check? Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, spotchecking this version:

One general observation is that a lot of the article relies on Rogers 2000; are there any other sources comprehensively discussing this collection? Like, more academic analyses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate your quick and thoughtful reply! Yes, I've relied on the published catalogue of the exhibition for the exhibition's content. Some of the individual exhibits are mentioned or photographed in newspaper coverage, but this is redundant to what is in the catalogue. I haven't found academic analyses specifically of this exhibition's content, though the collection from which it is drawn is discussed in a lot of third-party literature. Though it's not unheard of, it's not often that an art exhibition itself gets academic analysis; the third-party coverage is usually the art columns of broadsheet newspapers, which we have a lot of in this case. Scholarly journals have reviewed some of the published catalogues of the collection, but those are not sources which are specific to this particular exhibition. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like stuff mostly checks out - left some comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this spotcheck passes muster. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Empire_of_the_Sultans/archive1&oldid=1222623103"