Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Istanbul/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by GrahamColm 19:25, 19 September 2012.

Istanbul

 * Nominator(s): --  tariq abjotu  13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This marks the second time, and in some ways a continuation of the first time, putting the Istanbul article up for featured status. After a peer review in May and the previous FAC (closed just last week; more on that in a second), I am confident that this article meets all the criteria for the featured star: it's well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. Major changes, primarily in the form of condensing, were made in June in response to remarks at the peer review and pre-existing concerns about length. Minor changes (rewording, a couple additional references, etc.) were instead predominant in last month's FAC, suggesting the article had begun to coalesce around the featured level target. That FAC was closed as no consensus, ostensibly because of a lack of clear support after a month. However, it seems the more likely reason was simply the spat at the end of the FAC period (referenced by and almost directly preceding the closing statement). Without rehashing the issue, those who are interested can observe that matter seems resolved (from here and here), and that the reviewers agree that, regardless of what happened at the conclusion of the FAC, the article is at or near featured level and is deserving of the bronze star. So, I'm giving this another shot. --  tariq abjotu  03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you get permission from the delegates for such a quick renom? --Rschen7754 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't, but I don't see why I would have to. The rejection of the first candidacy was obviously related to just one issue -- an issue that wasn't really a poor reflection on the article itself -- and now that that issue is resolved, there seems no logical reason for this to be prevented from proceeding. --  tariq abjotu  04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From the top: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." --Rschen7754 04:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Well, I overlooked that. Nevertheless, I will leave it as is, and allow a delegate to decide whether to remove it. Obviously, anything can happen, but this seems like a case where the two-week window constitutes an unnecessary delay, given the source of the last FAC's outcome. --  tariq abjotu  04:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing this nomination - please wait until two weeks have elapsed since the previous FAC before re-transcluding it. Graham Colm (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? The instructions do not compel a delegate to remove an additional FAC if it's in the two-week window; it says they will decide whether to do so. And, so I would like to know why you decided to do so. As I stated above, this seems like an unnecessary delay, as the issue that led to the last FAC's failure has been resolved and had nothing to do with the article itself in the first place. My understanding of the two-week window was to ensure people take some time to address issues presented during the first FAC (usually of substantial nature or else they would have just been addressed during the FAC itself) and don't abuse the FAC process by repeatedly and unnecessarily nominating articles for FA status time after time.
 * This doesn't fall under either of those cases: there's absolutely nothing further I could do over the next week in regards to issues that have to be resolved to achieve featured level (as there were none) and calling of this an abuse of the process would be absurd. So this removal seems like an unnecessary adherence to the letter rather than the spirit of the rule (even though the letter even provides for exception). Perhaps as a punitive measure, perhaps because you truly felt -- that issue aside -- there was no clear consensus, but either way I want to know why. --  tariq abjotu  08:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Supporting Graham on this one, FWIW. Graham will explain better than I can. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I'd just like to know why. It's only five days, but I'd like to know if there's something you're expecting me to do in the interim or whether this is just delaying because you all can (the latter of which is a bit unfortunate). The fact that you believe it's complicated to explain piques my interest even more. --  tariq abjotu  16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'm just noting that the first one was archived two weeks ago today, so the timing is fine here ... that wasn't clear from the nomination statement. Glad to see this one back for another round. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the best way to note that. Rewrite the statement and change the timestamp of the comment? --  tariq abjotu  14:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Closed just last week" will suggest to some people that it hasn't been two weeks; I was just clarifying. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Images
 * Commons suggests that Turkey has freedom of panorama for works in public streets, but this would not seem to extend to 3D works indoors. Therefore, File:Patriarchate_Constantinopolis.jpg should have its licensing reviewed
 * I don't know enough about licensing (anyone?) to perform the necessary review. But am I understanding that something in the photo would have to be considered copyrighted for this to be ineligible? What would that be, especially since the room is very old to begin with? --  tariq abjotu  15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In all likelihood it's all PD. The problem is that without FoP, you actually have to demonstrate this, and include appropriate licensing tag(s) for the 3D artwork. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the photo, so this is done. --  tariq abjotu  01:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Map_of_Constantinople_(1422)_by_Florentine_cartographer_Cristoforo_Buondelmonte.jpg needs a US PD tag and a non-Wikipedia source
 * Done. --  tariq abjotu  15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Sultanvahideddin.jpg needs US PD tag, and source link returns 404 error
 * Replacing the source link is not a problem, but I believe I need to prove this was actually published before 1 January 1923 for this to be eligible for PD status. I'm doing my best, but this may take a bit of time. If I can't find such evidence, I'll replace it with another image. --  tariq abjotu  15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It might also work to demonstrate this was PD in Turkey on the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the source to a link from the same archive site. The image was certainly taken in 1922, most likely November 1, 1922. An important image like this is also likely expropriated as "national heritage" in Turkey, removing copyright. If it must be replaced, I'd suggest an image of Atatürk from around the same time period, like this.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the photo was taken on November 17, 1922. The New York Times published an article on November 19 (dated November 18) saying "The Sultan left his palace by the back door, known as the Malta Gate...", the precise scene depicted in this image. As I noted in an inquiry at Commons, this image was almost certainly published before the end of the year. If The New York Times can publish an article noting the scene the day after, the photo had to be published somewhere. But this is a guess, and I have no proof of it. What's this "national heritage" exception you mention? --  tariq abjotu  22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got zero response from Commons on this, so I'll probably just replace the picture. I really think it's a useful, iconic photo, but after searching extensively a couple weeks ago, I have no proof that it was published anywhere in the month and a half after it was taken. In addition, I cannot think of any way in which this can otherwise be taken as an acceptable, free photo. --  tariq abjotu  20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Peramuzesi_nighttime.jpg: there's a claim that this image was "received for inclusion" from a museum, but there's no OTRS tag or other evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replaced this image, so this is done. --  tariq abjotu  13:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Support All my comments at the previous FAC and on the talk page have been addressed. This is an excellent article that is informative, comprehensive, and fun to read. It is an example of what is best about Wikipedia. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment On a quick look, it's odd to see the architecture section doesn't mention the city walls or Topkapi Palace. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why those in particular? We can't mention everything. --  tariq abjotu  00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Topkapı is mentioned several times in the article, including in the Cityscape section right before "Architecture". I unfortunately think that Topkapı isn't particularly original architecturally. It was built erratically by different Sultans to emulate palaces in France and Austria, but without a coherent style of architecture. The city walls might be more significant, not many cities on this scale have preserved theirs. Like Topkapı though, they could be mentioned with either the parks or museums.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So just like the Vatican then? Well I'm not going to argue the toss, except that most of Topkapi was built when sultans still intended to conquer "palaces in France and Austria" rather than emulate them. The WHO don't seem to agree with you, but what do they know?  The "Anadoluhisarı and Rumelihisarı fortresses", which are mentioned in the article but are not in the WHO World Heritage Site, are utilitarian military buildings, though prettily sited.  Topkapi is only mentioned indirectly in the museums section, via the Istanbul Archaeology Museums, which have 1 of 3 collections inside the palace.  In terms of its collections, though not maybe the displays, the library etc make Topkapi arguably the most important museum in Istanbul. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Topkapi is incredibly historic, but you'd just asked about the Architecture section. Though I do feel that Topkapı was covered under the two sentences mentioning Ottoman palaces and how European styles were brought in, I've added an additional one to mention the wide variety of styles employed in Topkapı. Thanks for the suggestion.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

'''can you make the lead section more brief?" thanks Waveclaira (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is just fine as it is, myself. I would have preferred a few more details in it in fact. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Four paragraphs is within the admissible length, as defined at WP:LEAD, for leads in articles with more than 30,000 characters (a benchmark this article certainly exceeds). Is there something that you think should be removed from the lead? --  tariq abjotu  01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lead needs to provide a summary of the most important information in the article and I can't see anything in it that I would like to see removed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead length is fine for me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments - reading through now ...I will copyedit as I go (Feel free to revert if I accidentally change the meaning), and jot queries below... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * is it worth adding the descriptor "promontory" to Sarayburnu in the lead?
 * Done. --  tariq abjotu  20:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Using "draw" in that manner looks odd to me (though I agree it is nice and short) - I'd say "drawcard" or "attraction"
 * This is a matter of preference. Note that "drawcard" is not used in American English, the variant used throughout the article; in fact, I had to look it up. --  tariq abjotu  06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating the English variants that still pop up to surprise me from time to time here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * you've got "transcontinental" in the lead and "bi-continental" in the Geography section. Might be worth aligning these. Is one more significant than the other?
 * They mean the same thing here, obviously. I doubt anyone would really be confused by that. --  tariq abjotu  06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * is it worth adding anything on pollution? Is istanbul particularly over- or underpolluted? Not a dealbreaker as the article is pretty big and if it is not egregiously low or high possibly not more important than anything already in the article.
 * I think someone else may have mentioned this at some point, but Istanbul's pollution issues are not especially unusual for a city. --  tariq abjotu  06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall, cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose, very nice well rounded article which seems to have struck balance of everything right. Nothing jumps out as omitted or in too much detail, and the prose is nice, no obvious clangers anywhere. I have not checked the sources and defer to others who have more familiarity with the city (my only experience is as a tourist many moons ago....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.