Talk:List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:50, 15 March 2011

Military history: Ottoman Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ottoman military history task force

Former countries: Ottoman Empire List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Turkey List‑class Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

1532 campaign

According to notes editted for the fifth campaign (1532) by Kebeta (who has also created the article Siege of Güns) Suleiman led an army to besiege Vienna. Ferdinand I withdrew his army, leaving only 700 men with no cannons and a few guns to defend Koszeg. After prolonged Siege of Güns (Köszeg), Suleiman withdrew and went homeward. However, this claim is not supported by my sources. So without any reference to Güns, I reeditted the note. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added references.--Kebeta (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Karlowitz

The contributions to this article (especially the sources and the images) are fine. Thanks. But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable. For example the last sentence in the introduction (which is sourced) is clearly incorrect. It reads The stagnation lasted to the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, in which the Empire lost much of its European territory. (I have deleted this sentence on the ground that Treaty of Karlowitz has nothing to do with Suleiman, but my delete was immediately reverted.) Anyway, much of territory may imply most (more than 50 %). However, in any map, the Ottoman losses can be found to be about 20 % of the former European territory. I didn't change the wording , but I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but we have to use sources, especially if this is going to be a FL as I have planed. The same goes for names of Campaigns, which I am going to revert soon, since you deleted names of campaigns which are cited. I don't have any problem with alternative names of the campaigns, if they have source to back them. Anything within the article: notes, names, campaigns, years...and son, will have to have a citation. As for 'Treaty of Karlowitz', and everything else in the article, I made a request at Peer review, to get some help from more experienced editors. Personally, I am OK with, or without that sentence. My only concern is to make this article the best it can be, in order to achive FL status. What I can suggest to you, is that you elaborate the Treaty of Karlowitz in the article (like you did here on talk page), but you have to cite that with realible references. As far as I know, Austria received all of Hungary and Transylvania except the Banat, Venice obtained most of Dalmatia along with the Morea and Poland recovered Podolia. But I didn't write that because I didn't look for the references for all that. Because, I am expecting some feedback from 'Peer review'. Maybe all that is redundant, we will see. --Kebeta (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:51, 15 March 2011 edit Nedim Ardoğa (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 69,709 edits m →‎Treaty of Karlowitz ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:50, 15 March 2011 edit undo Kebeta (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled 10,591 edits →‎Treaty of Karlowitz: - reply Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	The contributions to this article (especially the sources and the images) are fine. Thanks. But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable. For example the last sentence in the introduction (which is sourced) is clearly incorrect. It reads ''The stagnation lasted to the [[Treaty of Karlowitz]] in 1699, in which the Empire lost much of its European territory''. (I have deleted this sentence on the ground that Treaty of Karlowitz has nothing to do with Suleiman, but my delete was immediately reverted.) Anyway, much of territory may imply most (more than 50 %). However, in any map, the Ottoman losses can be found to be about 20 % of the former European territory. I didn't change the wording , but I'll call the editor. [[User:Nedim Ardoğa\|Nedim Ardoğa]] ([[User talk:Nedim Ardoğa\|talk]]) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)		The contributions to this article (especially the sources and the images) are fine. Thanks. But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable. For example the last sentence in the introduction (which is sourced) is clearly incorrect. It reads ''The stagnation lasted to the [[Treaty of Karlowitz]] in 1699, in which the Empire lost much of its European territory''. (I have deleted this sentence on the ground that Treaty of Karlowitz has nothing to do with Suleiman, but my delete was immediately reverted.) Anyway, much of territory may imply most (more than 50 %). However, in any map, the Ottoman losses can be found to be about 20 % of the former European territory. I didn't change the wording , but I'll call the editor. [[User:Nedim Ardoğa\|Nedim Ardoğa]] ([[User talk:Nedim Ardoğa\|talk]]) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
			:I am sorry, but we have to use sources, especially if this is going to be a FL as I have planed. The same goes for names of Campaigns, which I am going to revert soon, since you deleted names of campaigns which are cited. I don't have any problem with alternative names of the campaigns, if they have source to back them. Anything within the article: notes, names, campaigns, years...and son, will have to have a citation. As for 'Treaty of Karlowitz', and everything else in the article, I made a request at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review Peer review], to get some help from more experienced editors. Personally, I am OK with, or without that sentence. My only concern is to make this article the best it can be, in order to achive FL status. What I can suggest to you, is that you elaborate the Treaty of Karlowitz in the article (like you did here on talk page), but you have to cite that with realible references. As far as I know, Austria received all of Hungary and Transylvania except the Banat, Venice obtained most of Dalmatia along with the Morea and Poland recovered Podolia. But I didn't write that because I didn't look for the references for all that. Because, I am expecting some feedback from 'Peer review'. Maybe all that is redundant, we will see. --[[User:Kebeta\|Kebeta]] ([[User talk:Kebeta\|talk]]) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)