Jump to content

Talk:Regency of Algiers/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Quotes

I'm re-checking quotes to make sure they are identical with the sources, especially Arabic and French ones. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

good idea Elinruby (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

PRG

Hi @Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: How much more work are planing to do to the article? The reason I ask I think it fairly complete now. I think its the law of diminishing returns now. I was wondering if we can submit it to WP:PRG this week and perhap schedule a copyedit. I have an editor in mind, Polygnotus, who might not mind doing a run through on it. What do you think? scope_creepTalk 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

depends on whether Nour is done. I see some copy editing that could be done, but I don't think I have to be the person who does it. But let's respect Polygnotus' time, hmm? I also think we should do Mathglot's Earwhig hack. It was suggested for good reason; apparently some past editor had trouble with the concept. Bottom line, good idea, when Nour is done rewriting. Fresh eyes would be good. Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello i think i'm done rewriting, i'm still not sure about that long de Grammont quote in Legacy section though. Hopefully i have fixed the issue with quotes and i'll sure give it another check. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
please do because that would be a serious problem and it would be embarrassing for someone else to find it. Same with copy vio. Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You're good to go Scope, it's okay for me if there are still some mistakes, since i have worked on this the best i can. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: That is the whole point of external review to surface any work, to spot anything that needs fixed. I do know it will take some time before it kicks off; it could be a week, it could a month or longer. There is a fair sized queue there. If we can do the Mathglot Earwig hack first and then kick of PRG and see what happens. Put it in on Saturday, give a couple of days to do the Earwig report. scope_creepTalk 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Nour, what are you unsure about with the de Grammont quote? If it is length, then that is not necessarily a problem as long as the quoted material is important. And exact, but you have been checking for that, right? Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
It was about length but if it’s important and descriptive enough of the general 19th century view of Algiers then I’ll leave it. And yes I have been checking for this and other quotes to make sure they are accurate and identical to what’s in RS. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

-- scope_creepTalk 07:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats it added. A bot will post it to the list in an hour or two. scope_creepTalk 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks scope ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

PRG Returns

@Nourerrahmane:, @Elinruby: A reviewer @Z1720: has left a set of comments we need to have a look at. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello scope, regarding the feedback I guess we can work on everything he listed except reducing the article to 9000 words, according to WP:articlesize, the article should probably be trimmed unless the scope of the article justifies otherwise. The current state of the article gives a comprehensive look about the regency of Algiers, i just cannot agree to remove what’s already summarised. Everything in the article is an important element in the regency history. Up to him to decide what’s not that important so we can discuss it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I think you should expand and then split into two main periods. No trimming on what is an extremely wide period of history. scope_creepTalk 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@R Prazeres was against a split, since in fact the regency remained the same entity for 300 years with little modifications in its political system and foreign policy and even its relations with Constantinople unlike Muradid and Husainid Tunisia and Saadi then Alawi Morocco. The Regency history should be understood within the transformation of the Ottoman Empire as a military governed Imperial state that gradually broke loose from the Ottoman Empire because of divergent external intrests, without renoucing its formal affiliation to the latter. Splitting may confuse regular readers and make them beleive there are two seperated states when in fact it's the same autonomous military governement (Odjak of Algiers) that characterised the over 300 years old Ottoman Algeria.
That is why i beleive this is the best we can do regarding trimming and summarizing the article, we just cannot ignore the slave economy of Algiers, its government composition, relations with constantinople, foreign policy, wars in breif, soceity (urban and rural), culture, and the different views of specialized historians about it. Since this period of Algerian history was subject of many misconseptions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree, we should preserve some unity on the matter. One possibility that's radical but also fairly simple and common would be to transfer the large "History" section into a new History of the Regency of Algiers article; similar to what already exists, among other examples, for the Ottoman Empire (History of the Ottoman Empire) and to what we are currently implementing for the Mamluk Sultanate (History of the Mamluk Sultanate) due to similar concerns. That would mean condensing the history section here, but preserving all the work done so far in one still-unified history article that would be linked in a hatnote at the top of the section. R Prazeres (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Condensing the history section to a maximum and include it in Political status section ? that seems like a possible solution. This also means i can expand the history section (Article) a bit... I like this option. @Scope creep @Elinruby @Riad Salih @Mathglot @M.Bitton what do you guys think ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Minor clarification: to preserve clarity for readers, you still keep a "History" section in this option, but just condensed and linking to the full version in another article. Whether we should potentially also include the "Political status" section in this process could be discussed (e.g. you could choose to copy some of it into the new history article too, in order to provide the full context there as well). R Prazeres (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, i was thinking about this possibility, since both these sections are linked in this article, the Beylerbey period corresponds with the wars against Spain and Morocco, the Pashalik period is linked with Algerian opposition to the Capitualtions traties and the Franco-Ottoman Alliance,resulting in the weakness of the Pasha (Ottoman regent) and the rise of the military elites to power. The Agha and Dey periods are linked to the wars against France, England and the Dutch and the Maghrebi wars before stabilized relations were established. The decline of Algiers in the late period might need a paragraph about the political decay of Algiers in the History Article.
The history section here will be like a summary for the History Article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This is very standard procedure at articles that grow to this size, and have subtopics that are easily worth an article on their own. Please see WP:Summary style for a description of this, and some recommendations of how to proceed. There are standard terms such as WP:G#Parent article and WP:G#Child article that’s are used for this. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I think splitting off the history section is the natural move and putting back summary blocks here to cover the main points of the history. I think it will be quite a substantial series of paragraphs, as 300 years to summarise but fixes the problem. It does seem the logical move with some scope to expand. scope_creepTalk 09:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Nourerrahmane has gone ahead and created Draft:History of the Regency of Algiers. I'm getting the sense that there we are indeed all leaning towards this option? R Prazeres (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
And I agree with Scope Creep; the summary can still be substantial in order to be fair to the topic, but as long as it's comparatively much shorter, I think it'll go a long way to reducing article size. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Summary is done. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Please check the peer review for the additional changes Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
"check the peer review..." — link? Mathglot (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Here it is: Wikipedia:Peer review/Regency of Algiers/archive1 Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Hi @Nourerrahmane: Are you planning to make a start on creating a summary of 300 years of history. scope_creepTalk 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Scope, i started doing this today, i'm planning to pix history and poltical status period, and how history itself influanced political status in short sentences. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Why are you moving the political status to the new article? M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the political section needs to be moved. You need the history in its own article with the summary of history here to link with main article links, perhaps subsections links but nothing more than that. scope_creepTalk 20:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Fine, thought i could merge the two sections here and summarize them, but i'll just summarize the history section alone, could use some help though. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
It might leave this a bit empty. When Elinruby comes back, she might end up doing some of it. I'm up for it. scope_creepTalk 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
OK! I should have looked here first before I wrote those questions on your talk page ;) so disregard those, and let me do some reading and catch up. At this time will be doing essential copyedits only. Elinruby (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Alright I did a fast pass through the History section. I did a little more than the strictly essential as I also got some repetition and awkward structure, but I stuck to doing the English only because I am not sure Nour is done. Overall summary is very good. I kind of agree that it could be combined with the political status section but only if he wants to do that in which case I will be happy to come back through. If not, I don't particularly want to rejuggle all that in my head at the moment, definitely not tonight anyway, and it sounds like there is some disagreement about whether to do it. I left comments about some content issues in the edit summaries. My biggest concern is that we have words that English speakers will find controversial in quotes -- "holy war" and "renegade" for example -- but unattributed. Please make super double extra sure that those exact words appear in the sources that follow them. If not they would be what we call scare quotes and we don't do that. If they are not in the source, they don't exactly need to be if they are not in quotes -- it is the quotes that say they are in the sources -- but as mentioned, english speakers may question them, so they should be attributed the way you did with "nest of pirates". Does that make sense? If not feel free to ask a question, Nour, this is really important for you to understand. I will check back in a day or two. Going to go tie up some other loose ends right now.
And by the way, you did a really good job on that summary. I am pretty sure I could not have done it so well after being down at the granular level for so long. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a ton of references that are no longer used. I'll take then out today. Excellent copyedit. scope_creepTalk 11:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The History of the Regency of Algiers has now been reviewed by myself and is now in mainspace. It needs categories first. It also needs some on refs again. I'll do that this afterrnon. We will need to decide what we are doing with these further reading sections in both articles. Whether we do the work to put them into the article, probably ideal for FA or remove if they are not in use, or superceeded by another ref(s). scope_creepTalk 11:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I added a few categories. I am sure the effort can be refined but at least it won't get tagged for that now. Please feel free to rework as seems good Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Elinruby, I'm glad you're back, this article reached its current status thanks to your massive contribution, also, i'm sorry for sabotaging your work and the misinderstanding that happenned afterwards, since i was adding more content to the article, i didn't pay attention to your modifications, which might well had discouraged you to keep doing the same work over and over again, sorry for that.
I worked on the summary and i would like to thank you for the excellent copy edit and the feedback, i will work based on that of yours and scope and sure explain in the TP each additions i might do.
Speaking of the Political status section, after a previous disagreement, we agreed that this part doesn't need a summary, it's pretty important as it is to understand the political developpement of Algiers, also it's not nearly as big as the History section. The article is at 8500 words right now, which fixes by far the article length issue.

I'm glad i could add that fundamental pact into the article, it's basically the constitution of the regency of Algiers, you may want to read this page[1] Hamdan Khodja also mentions it as a "relic containing the rules of the regency, a charter". It's held by the Agha of the army who was the president of the diwan of Algiers.[2] Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sabotage is too strong a word, because it implies you were doing it on purpose. I never thought that. Thank you for the apology however. We were all tired. I have about a million open tabs and a couple of RL problems I need to look into, but I am around if any questions arise about something I said in the edit summaries. If it is burdensome to switch back and forth between the talk and article pages the maximum amount of text allowed in an edit summary is actually quite large. Note that this may not be acceptable in all circumstances; we seem to have some mutual respect going on here and in a more hostile environment communicating in edit summaries only might get you into trouble. Just a word of warning as an aside. But for the next round of work here I think that would be fine; at least it would be fine with me. You might want to add those references about the pact into the section. The fact that there was a constitution is actually very important. Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Worked on the controversial terms you listed by givin explanatory additions, and added refs and some informations about the Agha-president of the diwan and the charter of Algiers (Fundamental pact). Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
yeah I saw what you did for "renegade": exactly. That is what I meant. I may come back with a quibble about the reference or the wording but yes, that was great. Really. Not really available at the moment but wanted to say that.
So are we reaching a stable version, it looks like? I will be gone all day today but could do a final edit pretty soon. One comment that I don't think I flagged before: One of the alts said someone was dressed in "an oriental outfit". The word "oriental" can be offensive if applied to Chinese or Korean people, for whom it is recommended to use "Asian" instead. I am less sure about its use for Turkey and the Middle East, but on the other hand I don't think I have ever seen the word used about that area in English, and even in French I think it might be coming from some of the 19th-century French sources, which as we have discussed are pretty chauvinistic. That alt should say the man is wearing robes, or if it is important that the clothing is Turkish or what it is exactly (I don't quite remember but think not) we should use a more specific term. I have to go like right now, but can fix that in the copy edit -- I just am trying to prevent the term from reappearing elsewhere in the text. This article is currently my top priority if it is ready for a final copyedit. Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Further reading

Evening Folks!! @Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: I've taken out the references that are not used in each article. I guess there will be some cross-referencing that will need to be done to remove those refs that were used in the main article and found they're way into the history article and vice-versa. That will remove some of them but there is that expectation for FA that those references will be used, if applicable. I will do the cross-ref now, for example Bachelot 2012 is used in the Regency article but is in FR in the history article, so can be removed. scope_creepTalk 17:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be one ref: Allioui, 2006 that is both fr sections but is not used in either. @Nourerrahmane: can you check it and see if there is anything in it that needs added in somehow. I've removed every other ref that used, so the fr sections have now shrunk. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref 142 needs looked at

PRG has more comments for action. One of them, fixing the Brill ref which has incorrect author info, which I've partially fixed. Ref 142 which is on page 947 isn't in the first volume so needs a new ref entry in the bib. Page number in vol 1 only go up to 565. What volume number was that ref taken from? scope_creepTalk 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey scope! thanks for all your work! the ref is actually vol 2 p 947 [3] Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Morning @Nourerrahmane: The history article also has the same problem. Can you check for the brill ref. I think a couple are good around page 268 )or so), but the rest are not. I'll create a ref for this later and the history article. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Morining scope, i'll work on it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

History of the Regency of Algiers

I'm assuming the history article will be reviewed for GA/FA at the same time, as its two parts of the same article. Taking cognizance of that, the lede needs some work. scope_creepTalk 08:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, however i dunno how to fix to multitarget issue. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Multitarget issue? I will be available for at least a couple of hours this evening PDT but let me skim what's going on here to see if anything else needs clarification. As it is so fat, lede on History, yep, will copyedit and whatever multitarget means. Elinruby (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't see anything else I am confused about. If there is anything I should particularly look at please leave me a note here. The edit I am proposing to do will be less aggressive that the early ones, which were intended to get rid of any ancient cut and paste wording that might have still persisted since before any of us were involved. Going to be focusing on readability and does-it-make-sense. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the lede slightly to formalise it and encapsulate the meaning and added a short description. scope_creepTalk 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Used old refs

Old refs from fr section

These are used in either both or one of the articles and don't need to be in the fr section. scope_creepTalk 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you remove them? Or does that need to be done? I have a version of the infox map that says "Sahara" in two places if that is of interest to anyone.Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

word order of lead sentence

I would normally not flag this change, but it is the lead sentence of the article. The change in emphasis results in the Regency of Algiers being a subsection of early modern history and not just of the Ottoman Empire, also, so this is also a slight shift in meaning. Please advise if I appear to be misunderstanding something, otherwise I think it is an improvement and given the international trade aspects is only due. imho. Article's discussion on international trade may be lacking however as I recall. Anyway. I changed the lead sentence. Let me know if people do not like the change. The main point against the rewrite is that it creates a big descriptor stack, but I think "early modern largely independent sovereign military republic" is perfectly understandable. It is also however possible that I have read this material once too often. LMK.

Also, the very next sentence says it was a military oligarchy, which isn't really the same thing. I realize it was both at different times, but this is not clear in the writing and I don't think we need to be so wrapped up in using oligarchy in a sentence that we have to do it here. There will be plenty of opportunities to use the word oligarchy. For purposes of the summary it can be a republic because that is what it was at the end.

All of the above is up for discussion.

could say "autonomous" rather than "largely independent" Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that all of this is addressed in subsequent edits, which are also up for discussion if not considered improvements. Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's what we need to know about the rulers of Ottoman Algeria:
- They were Ottoman regents; they ruled in the name of the Ottoman Sultan who was nominally King of Algiers but not an effective ruler.
- They were sovereigns in all but name, means they were largely independent, i'd prefer this than just autonomous, as this can cover only the internal affairs. Largely independence means nominal suzerainty, though still important for legitimacy of the Algerian deys, it didn't not prevent them from adopting an independent foreign policy.
- They were appointed regents before 1659, then elected after this date, that's why we're talking about a stratocracy, but they remained regents nevertheless.
- Starting from Dey Hadj Chabane until 1830, they had to be native Anatolian Turks who were drawn from the janissary odjak of Algiers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I see these points and think they are good ones. I am having a little trouble wrapping my mind around the elected regents, but I note that this does mean we need a wording change, and I see what you mean about largely independent. That one is about euphony so the accuracy problem definitely trumps that. So rewrite of the rewrite to come I guess. Let me take a look at what Scope just did. Will work on this. Elinruby (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Elin. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I did a reword of the lede, what do you think about it ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I am pretty happy with the lede right now as I remember it and I am pretty sure it was after your re-write. Was this about oligarchy vs republic? Have done a fast and superficial copy-edit in the body, not really done though. The spot checks on sourcing are coming up perfect so far. Is there any way we could get another source in the Crafts section? Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
OK I took another look at the lede, which had in fact been re-written. I didn't like themed and changed that, otherwise I think the lede is good. You are ok with the word order change? I put largely independent back in. Elinruby (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
lede looks good and I approve your word change thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking about the Craft section and will try to find another source. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Nourerrahmane I am under the impression that when you objected to the rewrite of the lede, I fixed two of them immediately and the other two were fixed to your satisfaction in your rewrite, which I agreed with, Just checking on that. Putting it another way, are the issues with the lede resolved or does something need to be done?

Barbarossa brothers

The Ottoman corsair brothers Aruj and Hayreddin Barbarossa came to North Africa[16] when the citizens of Béjaïa asked for help in 1512,[17] then those of Jijel in 1514.[18] In 1516, the brothers were able to take Algiers,[19][20]

This is pretty picky but there is no context for the decision to take Algiers. This can be just a word or two. Elinruby (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY I realize this is due to the extreme condensation of the material. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

American shipping

Not seeing a link between the War of Independence and increased American maritime trade. I do recall one of the sources saying that the Americans were no longer considered "British shipping" and therefore were not covered by treaty. This could be me and I may clear this myself later, just want to note it Elinruby (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, i added some context in lede. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY that tells me what I needed to know. Will work on how to say that. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

think this is done if anyone cares to check me Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Still not sourced

"Istanbul viewed the idea of integrating a territory so far away and so close to Spain as a risk." A sentence was added afterwards and sourced to Kaddache. Is this sentence also Kaddache? If not could we either remove it or source it please? Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY It looks like Nour has added another cite to Kaddache at the end of this sentence, so it is no longer unsourced. Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I know it's excrutiating but we have to talk about standardization

Out of sheer exasperation with crickets I am going to apply the following conventions:

  • words that might be unfamiliar wikilinked if possible, but let's not italicize every mention of "dey" and "bey" and the like. I realize that I am the one who did this but I didn't realize at the time how much these words appear in some sections
First problem: "beylik" is a dab page and does not mention either Algiers or Algeria.
beyliks is mention twice as provices. I've removed the 2nd one. The dab page. I would put a small bracketed sentence stating its an administraive province and bypass the dab page. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • title should be capitalized as part of a name, only. Some names incorporate titles for disambiguation (Hassan Pasha for example) where the title should then also be capitalized. So for example, the King of France but the French Bourbon king. The Dey of Algiers, but the janissaries assassinated the new dey and others weren't willing to stand for election.
  • We have I think agreed on a spelling of Diwan with an accent circonflexe on the a and not on the i. I see its been changed to "dîwân". I would leave it at that. Let the GA editor decide if it needs change, since this is about the 3rd time we have looked at this. Green tickY scope_creepTalk 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless I left the Ottoman Odjak rank titles (master of horse etc) italicized because they are pretty unfamiliar and also only occur once. (But are linked). Again the GA editor will look at this. Green tickY scope_creepTalk 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If anybody disagrees, this is the time to speak up. At least it will be internally consistent this way, and it looks like there is no standard MoS.

RE "council of powers" in edit summaries, that's great, so if it is a name or a nickname, it would be capitalized and not in quotes though. Is source for this name in English?
I can see why you wouldn't capitalize it then. Let me look at the source and see if I can make it work. The goal here is to underline that they are important? Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's in English in Wolf ref p 290 Speaking of the Beylik, there is already the word (province) next to it that explains it. Dunno where the problem is.

nothing with the article really. It was just that I tried to make a general rule and already had to make an exception. But the only solution I see to that is making a beylek stub that can be an entry on the disambiguation page and I am not volunteering for that at the moment, are you? It is something to come back to later.
by the way, you have the part about "the dey" vs Dey used as a title just right. But I was saying let's *not* italicize the more common titles like Dey and bey. If you on the other hand would like to use italics then er why? Assuming there is a reason I will probably be fine with it, but don't do it because you think that is what I said. Er? Let me know. Not doing anything with italics until I hear from you about this
getting back to Wolf, did *he* capitalize it? That is why I asked whether it was in English.

I think there is no need to link the word 'beylik' since there is a short explanation for it next to it, it's the litteral word for provinces of the regency of Algiers. Also all three beyliks of the regency are linked. Green tickY I agree. Its done. scope_creepTalk 11:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Italic was used for such words of Ottoman terminology "dey, bey, Pasha, diwan" when they were first mentionned in the article and when they were succeeded with their detailed explanation.

Wolf writes: "This made the council of the "powers" (ministers) into a cohesive and structurally solid force" 11:05, 6 June 2024‎ user:Elinruby Sig added by scope_creepTalk 10:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought I answered this bit apparently not. In that case it's a quote indeed but I find it confusing so there may be a different way to write it. Will work on it.

scope creep no if you are seeing an accent circonflexe anywhere but on the a, that is the one that we are trying to standardize away from. I will get these on the phone later when I have the widget to make diacriticals. The 'sabove comment is not me by the way. I thought it was Nour.Elinruby (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: Remember to sign your name. Elinruby, Is that is diwan your talking about? scope_creepTalk 11:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)editors tha
right. There was an agreement reached, I just had to ask more than once and that's what you are remembering Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Lowercase. A elite but common soldier and nothing special. scope_creepTalk 11:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
OK good then this should mostly be done. Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Algerian autonomy section

we have a failed verification: source does not say golden age of corsairs. It does say golden age of Algiers. Consider changing the text to match; otherwise you need a different source. I am also not convinced about the capitalization Elinruby (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Carr p. 43 is talking about the Inquisition and says nothing about Algiers Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

reference 122

When you get an author like Algerian Historical Society you don't split the name up into first and last, you just call them author. Needs fixing.Elinruby (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go fix this one. There may briefly be a no-target error. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done in this edit. See: ibn Bekir (1860). Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

ben Gana family mentioned in Tribal aristocracy section

Si Bouaziz ben M'hamed ben Gana [fr] is the closest I have been able to come, though that article does mention an ancestor with a more plausible time frame. It does seem to be a big sprawling political family. Is there really no article on the family itself? It seems notable. At the moment doing nothing about it because not sure what,Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so unfortunately :( a member of this family is my doctor actually and we spoke about this time period. They were related to Ahmad Bey of Constantine. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Ps: @Elinruby I might not be available today also just like yesterday because Wikipedia is inaccessible in Algeria during Baccalaureate degree exams. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. I need to knock off for now. Elinruby (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Solid copyedit

@Elinruby: That was an excellent copyedit today!! scope_creepTalk 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Alt tags

will look for this on my pass through. Anyone who wants to make a start on this, please feel free Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

There is a discussion relating to the main map used in this article. Your input would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Carr p.43

This is about the inquisition says nothing about Algiers. I removed the sentence. Can return if adequately sourced Elinruby (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have corrected the page number, Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref 16

Is gubbed for later fix. scope_creepTalk 20:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

done. scope_creepTalk 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes and nowiki entry

@Nourerrahmane: Your introducing spelling mistakes and why did you put {{Interlanguage link|Mustapha Pasha|lt=|fr|Mustapha Pacha}} links around this? scope_creepTalk 06:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for that but I found it like that, thought I fixed it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Now fixed Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Coolio. Both ill and Interlanguage link are the same thing. Ill is shorthand. scope_creepTalk 07:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
That was me that introduced the mistake. Sorry. scope_creepTalk 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Images

Added two more images about 17th century naval battle and a coastal battle. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: Its mos:sandwitched that section with those two new images. Possibly a multi image block would fix but is a clear fail at the mo. scope_creepTalk 07:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Shall i put them in gallery ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a better solution. One of each of gallery level. Will still need to address the latest WP:PR comment. I've not looked at except to read it. We can do this weekend. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I recognized some of them as things I had already fixed. The untranslated titles were really discouraging since this was at one point done. Can we please process that adding new foreign language sources require not just an entry but also a trans-title? Also, Nour, I have begged you to accept help getting a spell-checker installed. I am not available for infinite rounds of copy-editing. I am trying to quit Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I’ll add it. Sorry for that. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby what additions are you referring to just so I can check if I may ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The thing is, I want to move to other related articles like the Odjak and the corsairs, and I want to learn how to take care of ce myself, what you did was really great and I don’t want to bother you with this in the future especially that you’re interested in this period of history :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Recentered images, hopefully this is now fixed.
I will refrain from adding anything more to this article to avoid any misunderstanding or deletion of previous work.
same thing with the History article. I will now move to the Odjak article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a long answer and deleted it. If you are saying that you do not understand some changes and would like to, please feel free to ask questions. Some of what I am doing in the name of readability is quite subtle and could be backed out if it introduces errors because I have forgotten something I learned while doing this. Should be backed out. So do not be afraid to ask questions. But I have noticed that you are no longer writing bombardement for example, and thank you for that. However if you had spell-check installed we could eliminate about 75% of this sort of stuff at the point where you are writing it, which would be a lot less nerve-wracking for the copy editor.

Can we talk about that? I get a red line under words the spell-check doesn't recognize. It does this with your user name and mine of course, but I know those are ok, and it can at times be wrong about other things, but it does really well at picking out typing mistakes, which is the problem that *I* have. Maybe this is just a setting you have to enable. It would probably catch about 75% of the problems that distract from the value of your work, which I, again, consider significant.

Ok, it's not a setting in preferences. Maybe it is browser based. But I am pretty sure there must be a way to turn this on for you.Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

PR

Hi @Elinruby: If your still aboot, the WP:PR has been updated with another comment by Matarisvan. scope_creepTalk 16:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m ok with an expansion of the lead Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't (around) but am now. I will look.Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference urls

Some new references were added without urls. I have a sudden RL deadline and will probably be gone until at least tonight Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

PRG entries

How are we getting on with processing PRG list. I've checked a whole bundle of that have been done. The following needs done still

  • The last two entries in the craft bullet list needs refs.
  • The Igawawen flag entry. Has that been checked?
  • Administraive changes after Baba Abdi. Has been done?
  • The inflation template entries need to be done.
  • Were the tribute values yearly or paid over the years? Specify as such?
scope_creepTalk 11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not yet.
- No idea what this is about.
- Done
- Done
- Done Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: Inflation templates are in then I'm not sure how they work. scope_creepTalk 11:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I just had to type FR in the index as most of these values are in French franc, i added the original dates of those values then converted the current day value from French franc to USD. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't find it, so couldn't verify it. Thats done. Also, I've sent a clarification message to Matrisvan about that flag entry. I don't know what it is either. scope_creepTalk 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC) scope_creepTalk 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
First point done. Btw i found this 16th century map of the regency. do you think we should include it in the article ? [4] Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Removed the flags per [[MOS:FLAG]] Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any of that, but I want to check the craft section anyway so I will sign up for the first bullet point Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just saw Nour saying he did it. I am not against the map but where do you want to put it? My main thought about that map is that i don't want to write alts if you are still replacing images, is all. But I don't have to do that right now and yeah, it's a very high-resolution image. Attractive. Would you crop it? Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I donnno how to crop it, and i'm thinking about adding it in the beylerbeylik period or Algerian expansion sections Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Nah i won't replace anything lol Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I can crop it if you want it cropped. I wouldn't go in too close but I could produce an image that was cut to just the white background for example. Elinruby (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Great ! please do it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I just saw this but I could to that right now, actually. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY It is cropped and in the section. I don't know if you want it to be to the right like that, but you know what to do from here, right?
Nothing back from Matarisvan yet about the flag thing. I think its the only thing thats outstanding. Is it near a GA entry now. scope_creepTalk 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the rest that has not been marked as done yet is also fixed. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no other responses in PRG. I don't know if we will get anything more, although something might appear on Sunday. @Elinruby: How are you getting on with the copyedit to the history article. Matarisvan has been in all day and not commented to my talk page message. I guess ignore it for the moment. It might come up at GA. How close are we to submitting it then. scope_creepTalk 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Matarisvan: Hows the new map getting on. It needs to be in a placed with alt tags before submission. I can reduce if need back or speak to my map guy if help is needed. I sound as though I'm champing at the bit. scope_creepTalk 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The infobox map? Looks well, you just need to mark the Sahara Desert so readers don't confused why the regency never expanded south. Matarisvan (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Matarisvan: That comment was for Nourerrahmane. Must have made a mistake on the ping. I left a talk page message regarding the PRG comment "The Igawawen flag on the article and here are very different, consider using the former? There was some confusio on it. What was that about, exactly? scope_creepTalk 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The Igawawen flag used in the infobox and the one on their article was different. However Nourerrahmane has removed the flags so it's not an issue now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
If you or Elin can crop it that would be great ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
we're talking about cropping the map, right? I was not able to easily find a source for the Igawawen flag, if that's the other thing going on. I would be sort of surprised if it was real but I am not completely ruling it out. Going to go crop the image if it isn't already cropped. On how are we doing? We are submitting both articles together, right? I could use some help with photo alts. I am finding little bits of stray French in the rewrites. As far as I can tell it might as well...well wait, I thought the listing was suspended? Are they asking about it? I think that if it were reviewed right now they would find at least those problems, but it does such a fine job of pulling so many threads together that I dunno, I would send back a list of fixes rather than fail it. But I am not exactly unbiased at this point. Nourrerahmane certainly carries the day on sourcing, though.Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I will check the alts on the history article today. No I don't think so. When its submitted for the GA the next time it won't fail, I can assure you. scope_creepTalk 08:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) ,
@Elinruby: The Igawawen flag has been done and checked off. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY ok this is me not worrying about it then Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: There is missing images alts on this article. scope_creepTalk 09:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Arabic name of the Regency of Algiers

Hi @M.Bitton, i have found that this name "نيابة الجزائر" is widespread in these Arab RS: [5] It's referred explicitly as the official name of the Regency and i think it falls in the WP:COMMONNAME. Do you beleive it should be put in the infobox ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: correct me if I'm wrong, but the common name is simply "الجزائر" (that's the name that should be in the infobox if a change is needed). M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It is, but Algiers alone could be confusing as it doesn't emphasize the political aspect of Algiers, especially that we had socks here that claimed that Algeria was not a state literally...But since this is no longer a matter of debate. I beleive we can add something more formal. Just like for people's democratic republic of Algeria. I honestly think this is by far the best Arabic name for the regency, a state or a kingdom ruled by a formal representative of the Sultan. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I hate to be That Editor but what do the sources call it? Elinruby (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby Arabic sources agree on “نيابة الجزائر" (Arabic: Nyabat Al-Djazair) literally Regency of Algiers. This name sets Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli apart from other ottoman EyaletsHowever this is not a wildly known name among regular or even confirmed Algerian or Arab readers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure that commonname is supposed to over-ride sources, if that is what you are saying. I am also emphatically not qualified to opine on what the name is for things in Arabic. But I think COMMONNAME is the common name *in the sources* Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
That's what i meant by bringing COMMONNAME in here, but i believe this has to go through a consensus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I would say it would be good to do that although I don't think it is a requirement. But if you are getting grief from people who learned another version of history, probably wise. But we are talking about Arabic sources, right? You might be able to get a couple of well-considered opinions at the Reference desk on the Community Page. Otherwise you probably know better than I do how to find Arabic speakers, no? Do you have a list of places where it is used? That would probably help. Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
PS we didn't have this referenced? I haven't looked at the infobox much but why not just source Regency and leave it at that? In any event I bow to the better topic knowledge of Arabic speakers. Buut..RfC? Why though, if it is sourced? M.Bitton might know how the procedures work, or R Prazeres Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Slight wording strangeness, checking

About electing leaders in the Dey section: absolute equality by unanimous vote

Yeah everyone should agree among the senior officers (Bulukbasi) of the armed forces so that the Dey is elected. (They have a sort of Veto) Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OK Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No universal and unanimous are not the same. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I answered this. I understand the distinction and you are right, then, the change should not be made. I am just thinking about the wording, since "absolute equality" isn't exactly right then is it? As of right now I have changed nothing, mind you. It's just a little bit of a readability porthole.

Another one, and let me stress that these are both very minor quibbles: Pasha;[1] a regent with the title of beylerbey.[2][3] (from Hayreddin's consolidation) <-- this still needs an answer Nourerrahmane Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY Wasn't pasha a title? If not it should not be capitalized. I think this should be read in the sense of the emperor's representative, no? Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and lowercase pasha. Other text remains unchanged Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wolf 1979, p. 9.
  2. ^ Dewald 2004, p. 20.
  3. ^ Julien 1970, p. 280.

doneElinruby (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Left a message on Adam Cuerdens talk page. Hopefully he will get back. He does have regular requests for work. I mentioned we are going for FA, so it might cajole him a bit to act scope_creepTalk 09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's no longer displayed in the museum website unfortunately. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Spoke to Adam. That banner image hasn't got a valid source so can't currently be used. It would knacker FA and GA review I think. We should probably remove it at the moment. I plan to do a search for it. I think Adam is going to look for it as well. It should be documented as Hugo was quite famous by that point, but at the mo its duff, unfortunately. scope_creepTalk
But it's still mentionned, sad they replaced it with another picture. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby and scope, I found this Maghrebi flag however [6]. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: It was taken in 1958 so won't be public domain. It has a non-commercial licence, typical museum response. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright, in that case i won't mind adding the flag of the Barbarossa if we have to remove the poorly sourced flag of the dey. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If we need a flag I guess that is the one that we've got. Not against it. Not excited about it either. Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

[7] might be a couple degrees off true. Or maybe the uneven upper edge just needs to be cropped back. I can check into this at some point, or someone else can. Easy fix if so, noting in passing Elinruby (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It's gone. I am deleting all changes to image templates. I have added alts to some of those images at least half a dozen times. If you must move images around, don't use visual editor to do it and at this point don't do it at all. Peer review said center multiple images and align single images to the right. I just spent a couple of hours doing all that AGAIN. If there is a problem with an image placement we talk. No move moving images in the visual editor, Nourerrahmane. That is the last time I am going to fix that Elinruby (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright, i'm good with this. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Let me know if you need help not using visual editor. I don't mean to be mean but I can only do some things so many times before I lose my mind. In fact I need a break, h=back in a few minutes. Elinruby (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

404 error on Carr now

Carr 2009, p. 139. Elinruby (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
thank you much Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Pashalik period: minor wording doubts

There are a couple of places where the wording is ambiguous and I need clarification that would take me a long time to look up. I think @Nourerrahmane: possibly can clear these up with a short answer off the top of his head:

  • In 1596, Khider Pasha [fr] led a revolt on Algiers: should either be "an attack on" or "a revolt in". What I need to know is if the revolt started in Algiers.
  • either could refuse orders from the sultan or even send back appointed pashas. "could" is ambiguous here. Does it mean that they had this formal power or that they might at any point do it anyway, ie that this was possible? Put another way, this could be translated to French as "risquaient de" or "pouvaient"? Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Ils "pouvaient", they were allowed to do that, especially the janissaries, they removed any pasha they didn't like, this was done early in the regency period starting with Hasan Pasha son of Barbarossa and Uluj Ali i think, Muhammad Kurdogli, the one that came after Hasan Corso was executed by the janissaries. In the pashalik period this was done so frequently that the pashas were regarded as mere figureheads and the Diwan of the janissaries was the real authority in Algiers, that's why it was called a republic even before the Agha revolution period, when the janissaries had enough of these appointed pashas and wanted to formally rule the country. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
ok I will change "could" to "had the power to" and maybe add that they did on several occasions based on your text above. Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
actually I will just say that they did, since clearly if they did, they were able to. What about Khider Pasha? Did he revolt in Algiers or mount an attack on it from elsewhere? This is just a small idiomatic issue, no need to rewrite. Just need to know which one to correct it to. Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
According to the source. He fomented a revolt against the janissaries using the coulouglis and the inhabitants of Algiers, this failed however. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I or someone else has changed this to "in". Which is fine with me, but I wish someone would tell me that it is accurate. Otherwise, the idiomatic problem of "revolt in" vs "attack on" is resolved in that someone has picked one or the other. I know this is excrutiating, but is that right? <=Second fact check request, probably routine

Do not rewrite the section. It is fine, just needs a couple of touches. I will come back to this.Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the sentence about "risquaient de" needed a mild copyedit. I don't think I introduced any errors, but feel free to check. Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for all the copy edit, there are some IPs and editors who do some changes from time to time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I know. I got a bit frustrated with the alts last night is all. Minor idiom issues are to be expected but we are trying to get rid of them for a run at featured, right? OK so. Per the above if "in" is correct then this is DONE no more rewriting without discussion please. Rewrites are usually improvements but usually require new copyedits is what I was ranting about. And please lose visual editor, not for me, but to keep other people from yelling at you about the same things. Visual editor is only really good for allowing people to make small corrections without learning the coding syntax. I am currently explaining this to someone else as well so it isn't a 'you' problem, it's a 'Wikipedia sets new editors up to fail' problem. Try not to be part of that, is my emphatic advice Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY as far as I am concerned this is resolved unless someone has a problem with what I did there Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Unused ref

*<!--Everett-->{{Cite book |last=Everett |first=Jenkins Jr |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TxAkCQAAQBAJ |title=The Muslim Diaspora: A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas |date=2010 |publisher=McFarland |location=Jefferson, North Carolina|isbn=978-0-7864-4689-6 |volume=2, 1500-1799 |oclc=1058038670}}

untangle me these Hasans please

Aided by the corsairs, the pasha murdered Hasan, but was in turn murdered by the janissaries.[180] The instability prompted Suleiman the Magnificent to send back Hasan Pasha,[181] who relied heavily on native troops like other beylerbeys.[182]

Seems like either there are two Hasans or the sentences are out of order. Noting here because I don't have time right now to examine the sources. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Done.Green tickY checked and agree Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
btw Elin what do you think about these two banners. [12][13] ? would you like them to replace the banner of the dey since they are in higher quality ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

To replace the orange banner? I am back btw. About to edit the Agriculture section as per the list i posted somewhere Elinruby (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw I have improved images of the palaces, mainly color correction to make them less orange . Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

On the banner of the dey: I like the current image very much but it is very dark. I have tried brightening it but unfortunately the pixels just aren't there. At least, it is beyond me and my two photoshop classes. By the time it you bring the gold thread out the colors are wonky in other places. I like the first of your images better esthetically, but it is still pretty pastel, and we don't know whose banner it is, apparently. Of those two, I therefore prefer the second. I am assuming that the maritime museum in Algiers is a respectable source and we can believe them if they say that's Barbarossa's flag? I hope that is not an insulting question. I ask because in the United States there are tourist traps that say they are museums but are mostly about the gift shop. Elinruby (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha you're actually giving them credit, they should expand that museum since at its current state, it does not do justice to a once maritime state such as Algiers . Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: OK then are you sure that is actually Barbarossa's flag? On the basis of esthetics I prefer the other one but we don't know whose banner it is. And I would like to look at whether it is possible to brighten it a little if we use it. Or, I have several versions of the current image -- would you like to look at the others? Maybe I just didn't pick the best one. And you didn't answer my question about the palace images. If you are busy I am pretty sure they are an improvement over the current image, so do you want me to just upload them? Also let's agree to tell each other significant changes from here on out, because we are almost done. I just added content from that source I asked you about, but to the section on the deyerlik period. Pretty sure it's uncontroversial, as it just says that there was prosperity under Baba Mohammed, but I did just add some textElinruby (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden is really good at improving images to FA standard. Should we ping him. scope_creepTalk 11:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Please do Scope creep. Do you know the image we are talking about or should I put it here also? Also he schould probably start with the original not the one that is in the article. That one is better than the original but... he will know why I am saying this. Just makes sure he knows there is an original Elinruby (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for those additions Elin, and yes i will sure add here everything i might add, though i don't think i'll add anything on my own. So regarding the Flag; it's indeed Barbarossa's flag, it's pretty well sourced. The other is "North african but taken after the siege of Vienna" so not sure this is Algerian. I'd chose the green one. and i haven't looked at the question about the palace images that g |you wanted to add, can't find it.
Right now i'm trying to find some sources about your suggestion regarding wheat production and Christian naval labor Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nourrerahmane: ok then. Let's see what Adam can do and if not I would say the green one. If we need to have a banner. Do we? What do you think, Scope? On wheat production, I don't think we ever used the really excellent-looking source M.Bitton gave us about wheat being part of the dispute with the Americans. That would be in the archives. Also what about the source for the Jewish merchant that was assassinated? Supposedly he caused a famine with his wheat monopoly, so it probably talks more about him than just that or I would have complained before now about passing mentions. As for slave labour, as one point in the slavery section is says that skilled shipwrights could not be ransomed at any price, what source did we use for that? Just thinking out loud Elinruby (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
What one in particular. Can you post a url link to it here. scope_creepTalk 12:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
You want the link to the commons image? hang on. I can do that. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Merouche and Garrot for the rescue ! I made some additions based on these two RS. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, in what sections please?Elinruby (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Manufacture and trade. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
thanks. on it next. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Scope creep OK so this is a link to the current image, which has been matched up to the original, it looks like: [14]
@Nourerrahmane: I messed up your username above but there are some questions there for you. The palace images I was talking about are these. I will upload the proposed replacements and put them here.
Three levels of galleries surround a courtyard
Courtyard of the Diwân of Algiers, later the Palace of the Dey, known by the French as the "Pavilion of the Fan"
Janissary headquarters, Henri Klein (1910)
File:Pavillon coup d'évantail CasbahA.jpg

About the above images: I think the edit to the Palace of the Dey image is a clear improvement, but you guys tell me. I might be able to get the edited Henri Klein image to be a little less blue, but I don't think I will be able to make it any less faded than I have, just using contrast and colors, etc. Filters seem to pixelate it, but I am only semi-smart when it comes to image editing. Scope creep do you think your mate would have a go? PS I saw the comment about going straight to featured and am all for it, if people think it will pass. One last big push. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby:@Nourerrahmane: Is that image on [15] that you want improved? scope_creepTalk 14:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I cannot get the modified palace of the dey image to display. It is however at Commons under that file name. I made a post at the help desk. Probably I made a mistake along the way, but right this instant I can't see it to save my soul. Elinruby (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
they got back to me, fixed now Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about these images, a bit brain-dead since its very late here. Its been a week since I looked at the article. Is it top one in [16] that seen to? or the original one in the permissions field? scope_creepTalk 22:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
the one at the bottom is the original. The one at the top is one of several edited versions I made, and the one I picked as the best of these. I am not really happy with it though; it's a little over-edited and I am not sure I have time to play with it some more. But yes, any further editing should start with the original. Consider mine a proof of concept, and look, there is that forked symbol thaat is on the Barbarosa banner. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes if possible yes, also Elin, i think the two images are good and fit for the article Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: not sure what you are agreeing with here. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby i agreed on adding the modified pictures of the courtyard and the janissaty headquarters to the article. and i did a small additions about why the Algerians were against the bastion of France in this article and the history one. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The paragraphs in lede, manufacture (Christian labor) and trade (regarding wheat) are done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby The addition you added is really good, i have displaced it to the trade section, i have recently made additions there based on your suggestions, with this added, i think we have a little trade overview, especially that trade covers important aspects of the Regency history, it deserves a comprehensive section like the current one. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Expanded the trade section with a view on jewish monopoly in foreign Algerian trade. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: added a couple of words about the role of pastoralists in trade. Probably should make it "summer pastures in the Tell" instead of just "summer pastures", to make it clearer Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: how do you feel about the statement in the lede about piracy spreading across the Atlantic? We don't get into that in the article body and while the linked article does briefly mention North Africa, it's really about the West African slace trade mostly. I am not against keeping if it's true (and important) but I think these two trends overlap very little really. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC

Replaced pirates with Barbary corsairs and added the Spanish Empire as the target of the corsair attacks in the 17th century. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Removed the link to that article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
All this sounds exactly on point. checking now if new copyedit needed. Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Sahara is now labelled on the map

Please verify that the labels do not need to be moved. This is easily done if so. Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea since it departs from the source it's based on (I don't know if you remember, this this map has been the subject of various edit wars). If other important labels are needed, then they need to be based on the published map. M.Bitton (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't overwrite the original, and peer review suggested it. But if it is determined to be a problem I can back the edit out rather easily. I do remember what you are talking about. @Scope Creep, Nourerrahmane, R Prazeres, and Mathglot: I do not have the user name of the reviewer at the top of my tongue but will come back to ping them unless someone else does it first. What I was wondering though was how factual that leftmost label is, in other words I am hazy about the western edge of the Sahara Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
If the only change is adding the label "Sahara", that seems innocuous enough to me. My only stylistic suggestion would be: instead of three small "Sahara" labels interspersed, just add one "Sahara"/"Sahara desert" in the lower middle; that should be sufficient to get the point across, and maybe reduce the temptation to make any POV claims regarding Western Sahara, if there is any. If M.Bitton and/or others still object to it, I'm fine with the original as well; this map doesn't aim to show any topography, climate, etc, so it's reasonable to let readers look this up anywhere elsewhere. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep, Matarisvan, and M.Bitton:

Happy to do whatever people decide. This is not a difficult task, just a little fiddly. Elinruby (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
(pokes thread) @Scope creep, Matarisvan, and M.Bitton:@Scope Creep, Nourerrahmane, R Prazeres, and Mathglot: should I implement the suggestion from R Prazeres? Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Prazeres, one big "Sahara desert" should be enough. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Morning @Elinruby:@Nourerrahmane:@R Prazeres: The labels aren't a problem. One saying Sahara desert or Sahara would fine. The key may be a problem since its taking up almost 20-25% of the image, and its obscuring a land-mass which your never do. Its too big. I would reduce by about 50% and ensure its still readable. The light-green area isn't marked, although I don't know if it matters. I see if marked in the key. Thats fine. scope_creepTalk 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Moving the key or resizing the key would be difficult a tricky kludge for me with what i have, but if someone like perhaps R Prazeres has a draft with the layers where the key was added it would probably be pretty easy for them. Supposing that's the case: The concern about the Western Sahara sounds like it has life experience behind it,and that was why I was asking. But if the key moved flush left, we could get rid of the leftmost Sahara label and avoid that problem, then center one label between the where the other two are now. Does that make sense? I can easily change the edits I made. I suspect we can figure out who added the key. Elinruby (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes it makes sense, but it still a leaves huge key that is far too big for that map. It should be about 30% of its current size. That is fine, we will get it sorted. I'll can ask Goren-tek have a look. Morning @Goran tek-en: Are you available? We have got a problem with this map. I think the key is currently too big and needs to be reduced by about 50%-70%, sufficiently so that its still readable and the "Sahara" labels need to be changed to perhaps a single "Sahara desert" or "Sahara" would be ideal. scope_creepeTalk 08:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)×
I can easily change the labels because I have the layers for that. I am pretty sure the image has already been flattened though, which makes moving the key a fiddly select against a colored back ground that would then have to be matched plus a sizeable transform to do without distorting the font. For anyone, especially if it is unnecessary. @M.Bitton: do you have an unflattened version of this map? Again, there is no plan to overwrite the original. Elinruby (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
That wouldn't present a problem to Goran-tek-en. He's a professional and it will done quickly. scope_creepTalk 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it this map?
@Scope creep You can't write I can do it quickly when I just told you things take time for me right now.
@Elinruby is the uploader and should in first hands do this, if that creater/uploader is fine with it I can edit it if needed. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Sorry, I'm expecting it to be scheduled as normal and didn't expect you could do it immediately. But I've been in this situation before in a previous talk page discussion, where there was is lots of folks with their finger in the pie, where it took more three weeks to resolve who was going to do it, and finally it wasn't done until everybody had left the article, and it finished. I couldn't believe it. I like to get things done in timely manner by those who are able to do it best. Elinruby, who is my core collaborator on Wikipedia says it may difficult, hence the reason I called you. Is she says ok you can crack on, then that fine with me. scope_creepTalk 14:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

to whom it may concern: It sounds like R Prazeres has an earlier version of the map that still has all the layers, and he is on this. But in case it comes up again, I am not the author of that map. I merely produced a modified version of it for discussion on the talk page. I have no objection to the version I uploaded being swapped out or even overwritten. In fact, over-writing is preferable from my point of view since Commons admins told me that I can create as many alternate versions as I want of whatever images as long as they have unique file names, but could I please put those that are definitely eliminated up for deletion when we are All Done Discussing. So if somebody wants to overwrite that file name it would save me some work. Other than that, I added it to the article because nobody was answering the question on the talk page about whether I should add it to the article. If it doesn't get over-written please let me know when it has been swapped out so I can nominate it for deletion over at Commons. I am delighted to see that there is a conversation here, please everyone decide what to do. I am absolutely ok with map modifications Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Noting that we haven't heard from the PR editor that wanted the Sahara labelled in the first place. @Matarisvan: do you have an opinion about this? Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: If the idea is simply to add the word Sahara at the bottom, then that can easily be done (I will simply overwrite the original map). M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done you might need to purge your browser's cache to see the change. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks M.Bitton. For the key: I have no objection either way, but in the interest of workload, does it really need to be smaller? The size of the box was inherited from an older file template I used, so it's not a preference on my part, but a larger key does make it easier to read in thumbnail. The other thing is that the key is covering part of the political border for Tripolitania, so if you make it smaller you might have to consult the original source ([17]) to fill in the vacated space. R Prazeres (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@R Prazeres: It doesn't have to be smaller and it can be adjusted to whatever size others think is appropriate. I only moved the bottom corner as to avoid touching Tripolitania (the vacated space was empty). To be honest, I'm still not very keen on introducing concepts that aren't mentioned in the RS, especially given the various disputes that occurred over it before achieving consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
How about now? I kept the size of the box and made the sahara label slightly smaller. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
That new image looks ok to me and also looks like it would take care of the concern about the Western Sahara. I don't have any strong feelings about the map or the labels and am ok with whatever consensus turns out to be. Just trying to check off a peer review item whose purpose was to help explain what the problem was with expansion to the south Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
PS I do not know if Scope creep's issue with the key is addressed. I will let him speak for himself on that. I am crossing this off the list of things that I personally need to worry about Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I've only looked at this map today, for the first time. Its not been really been addressed. The key needs to be smaller, certainly. You can't have 25% of the map being the key. Its a straight obscuration of the map itself. I think its currently an FA fail as the reviewers will ask for the map to be removed and something better found. But there is another factor which may be important. This is major historical article that covers 300 years of Algerian history and is a level-5 vital article, both factors that probably demand a really accurate map and of much higher quality. Not what is currently there, unfortunately. I don't know that is important. But I suspect it probably is, a higher-scale article with certain expectations there. scope_creepTalk 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep: it can be reverted to the previous one which has a smaller key. I'm not sure what you mean by higher quality. Are you referring to the quality of the drawing or the quality of the map itself? M.Bitton (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
No. Its map we have to use after looking at p.68. When I looked at it originally I thought it was fairly basic as there is missing details. But it does follow the original map exactly on p.68. The borders are perfect. It needs a map scale bar added and the key reduced. The ocean/sea area could do with being labelled if there is space. scope_creepTalk 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Other than adding a scale bar and possibly labelling the ocean, is there anything else that needs changing or adjusting in the current map? Also, do you have any idea when the article will be up for review? M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: That is all that is needed for the map. A map needs 6 things to be a map, otherwise its a diagram. If the scale and labels were added, that would take it to four, which while not ideal is probably sufficient for illustrative purposes. At least a week before submission I suspect, possibly more. scope_creepTalk 11:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
so.... is this done? I ask warily. I am taking it I can MfD the one with three labels, right? Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: No its not done. The key is still too big and its not got map scale bar on and several parts are unlabeled. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep, M.Bitton, and R Prazeres: can we work something out here please? I'd like to emphasize that this does not have to affect "the" map if that is a problem in terms of something like edit wars about something. We can just add some numbers after the filename to make it unique, and if someone has a version of the map from before the current key was added, then we use that to make an alternate version that has a smaller key. It looks, however, like we did have a meeting of the minds on where to but the label "Sahara" so I am going to request deletion of the draft I made for discussion as no longer needed. Meanwhile this issue with the key remains outstanding. Do you guys have what you need for that? Can you do it? I was hearing yes, before. Elinruby (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) @Matarisvan: you said something about just a few more changes to images, and I can't find that now. Was it on the peer review page? Elinruby (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. I've uploaded an updated version of the file with a smaller legend. I had to fill in the Tripolitania border a little based on the source atlas (it's rough but these borders are approximations anyways). As for a scale, I don't know how to go about calculating that, but I don't think that's necessary. There are plenty of featured articles, for example, with infobox maps that don't have a scale (e.g. Byzantine Empire, Parthian Empire, Empire of Brazil). R Prazeres (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

seriously, almost done

  • It looks like all current outstanding issues with the text are resolved.
  • I am having trouble switching the palace images, probably something to do with the file name. I am aware of the issue and that's next on my list, unless someone wants to tackle this while I am eating lunch.
  • Nourerrahmane seems to want to keep the bloody Jolly Roger image. I am not adamantly against it, just skeptical. I will look at his sourcing and we can discuss here.
  • Are there any current issues with image placement? There are a couple of places where a single image to the top right of a section is immediately below a multiimage template at the end of the section above. Is this a problem and should those single images instead be invoked at the end of the first paragraph for example? How is sizing?

I am currently on a laptop with a very wide screen, about to switch to a phone to check this. One comment is that the image of the treaty that I said I didn't like before is much more visually interesting when it isn't a tiny thumbnail, but it may be *too* big now, thoughts? I plan to reduce the width setting a little. Not saying that what we have is perfect or can't be discussed, just that moving images in the visual editor seems to be what keeps happening to the alts. At least that is my best guess.

  • The Legacy should be moved up as its impact the section header.
  • The Tribal aristocracy image needs moved to the right.
  • The image with caption "Sultan Charardin of Algeria" should be moved to the right as its impact two section heads, but may be problematic positioning it.
1. Unsure what this means, will go look.
on wide-screen laptop do not see the issue. What needs to be moved up? Which headers are affected? Will get back to this on phone, or e;se please elaborate Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2. No per MOS:PORTRAIT. Said that before. If something over-rides that lmk
3. Is that the full-length oil portrait? Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
never mind, it's not. it's a right-facing portrait in profile, see above. Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On the history article:

Scope creep I need more information; do not see the problem here Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I think the last two images that are on the left, should be moved to the right or into a multi-image template, although MOS:PORTRAIT may overide it. That is probably why those images are still on the left. It may be case they will need moved. When you look at FA article there seems to be few on the left. scope_creepTalk 15:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Ignore this comment. Images are allowed on the left and MOS:PORTRAIT drives where they site. scope_creepTalk 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
{aye}} I have no strong feelings about this but that is why I did not move them. Except for those two images, all other single images are now to the right. Elinruby (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The conquest of Oran seems to be sitting in the wrong place.
@Scope creep: this is the part I need more information about. Elinruby (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: On the "The conquest of Oran". The image has been removed for some reason. I can't locate it. This can be closed. scope_creepTalk 16:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • In "Hayreddin's successors (1534–1580)" there is a multi gallery and then standalone image on right. Can they be amalgamated into a single multi-image gallery. scope_creepTalk 11:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  1. maybe?
Can't find a section called "conquest of oran." There was one though, what year Elinruby (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep: not understanding this one either Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I think it has been moved. Ignore this. scope_creepTalk 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY happy to ignore this Elinruby (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  1. Green tickY probably Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Moved this image. This is done. Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Nourerrahmane trade section looks pretty good. Want to add in the source M.Bitton gave us a while ago. I added a couple of words about pastoralists and would like to expand trade routes and date plantations just a little. Question Holfsinger talks a lot about the Mizab (Mzab). Are they representative or is this just the source I happened to find?
  • Also where is that mention of an onion? I never checked that for idiomatic English.
  • Anything else? Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
    About your recent deletion in lede, i think we should add something in it place, like, Europeans launched naval attacks against Algiers in order to obtain favorable peace treaties that could guarantee the safety of their merchant ships and Algiers took advantage of their rivalries to limit their threat and maximise profit from privateering. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
deletion in lede: I answered this and did not get an answer back. Just making sure -- did you put the stuff back in that you were saying should not be deleted? I am not really finding much wrong in the lede so the question is whether this is the way you want it or you think it needs another sentence or so about maritime strength. Pretty sure you were saying that at one point, so did you put it back in or do you think the version I am looking at needs more see battles? I do agree with what you said above. Oh I know what, this is the sentence that said "strong maritime attacks" or something like that. Elinruby (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Lede is good for me, I just want to add this in place of European powers negotiated directly with Algiers and took military action against it. with European powers combined direct negotiations with strong maritime attacks against Algiers, which met little success but still secured peace for their merchant ships. I think it's much more faithful to the storyline and more precise. and makes up a good cause for the change in foreign policy of Algiers in the 18th century. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh I remember this now. I probably should have moved it to the talk page. Probably meant to. The problem I have with that sentence is that I don't know what it means. "Strong maritime attack" for one thing is a really unusual formulation. I know from reading the rest of the article that we are talking about bombardments, right? That's actually a strange work in English also, a little, but if the French is bombardement then that is how I would translate it also. But you know how in French "je t'aime" and "je t'aime beaucoup" are not at all the same thing? It's like that. The strange adjective totally dilutes it. How about "pounded Algiers withe their cannons"? there are also too many things happening after "combined" Also "met with little success" sort of clashes with "but still secured peace". So this is saying that the "strong maritime attacks" secured the peace? I have no object to you saying any of what I think you are trying to say, but I got stuck on how to fix it, actually. Elinruby (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I see, and yes European powers launched bombing campaings against Algerian coastal cities, mainly Algiers and Bejaia, and although this didn't make Algiers submit, it convinced Algiers to accept tribute rather than hunting merchant ships of these states from the get go. So they launched bombing campaings against Algerian coastal cities, which met little success but still secured peace for their mechant ships. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks a lot more interesting. Elinruby (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
sorry I got distracted by something. Expanding trade is a good idea. I noticed the rewrite on the lede and I like it. Making some tiny idiom tweaks that have to do with the word "the" and when to use it. Bottom line, it is good, I like it a lot and I am polishing it. After the lede is there anything special you want me to look at?
Trade, right. I wanted to add in maybe a sentence more about the caravans. I had a question though, sorry if you already answered this: the source I added, is it good for the topic? I realize it is French and basically starts after 1830, but it is still an interesting discussion of trade as the French found it. The question is though, is that he is writing based on M'zab (sp?) records and I wanted you to tell me if they were typical in their trade relations with Algiers and what you thought of the using of that one French journalist in 1839 at the time. Or essayist or whatever he was. And ok, Nourerrahmane I am not sure what deletion you are talking about, however so far I like the lede. Is the change you are talking about already in it? I am not against anything about the above statement you want to put in except that doesn't it already say that? I probably was thinking repetitive if I took out something that said that, because I agree that it is an important point. If what you are saying is that that is why it gets an extra sentence, hehe fine, if you don't think the lede gives due weight to maritime warfare then you conceivably could have a point. But there is some stuff we should talk about there. Bottom line, ok with me as long as sufficiently specific. Has any one taken a good hard pencil to the Crafts section yet? Elinruby (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
the Italienischer Meister von 1580 001 image, does that display well for everybody? It's very long but I like it. That's the fill length portrait of Hayreddin in a gold surcoat. Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The source you added (Holsinger) is great. Intrestingly it correlates with my recent additions in the trade section, especially the mizabi links with Tumbuktu, the Mizabs also sent tribute to Algiers as shown in muhammad ben othman section, and they were represented there as shown also in the society section. Thanks for this additions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Lede looks goot to me btw. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh good you like the part about the M'zab! that is the part I want to write a little more about. Maybe a sentence. I will figure out the date plantation thing. I know I saw it in a discussion of some tribal leader setting up vast date plantations, I'll find it. I doubt the water systems connect. The distances between oases are pretty big, right? Did they dig wells? Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

update

  • Still finding references that fail verification. Mostly, although they are somewhat related to what they are sourcing, they do not say what the sentence in front of them says. Trying to remediate from sources. This is going to take time and probably will not be finished today. In a lot of cases that sentence is also very vague, although I hesitate to delete good sources just because they were erroneously invoked. It may be better to rewrite the sentence to reflect what the sentence actually says. I am working on this and request no more rewrites as copy-editing is most done.
  • Since all of the images in the culture section have been found anachronistic, I removed them per PR feedback. I may try to look for others but that is not a priority at the moment.Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    I added two pictures in the culture section as a replacement, do you think they fit there ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
    Elin, sorry for this but your comment made me take a look again at agriculture section, where i added few more informations and removed unsourced claims. Hopefully this section is better now Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Sigh, the content is better. Note to myself to explain passive voice one day. I saw the clothing pictures you added but have not examined their sourcing.Someone has moved the Jewish man to the right. I think MOS:PORTRAIT applies there also. It's a fine point. His head is turned as if to look at the viewer but his body stance has him moving off the page. I will delete my crankiness below. Did the water systems in the oases connect with one another/ I am thinking they were set up individually for each date plantation? Also can you provide a quote from the zellij source, please? Pretty sure someone along the way is going to ask for that. Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
No idea about the Oasis system, as far as i can tell, the Sahara brought animal products, unlike in Tunisia where date cultivation was more proliferent. I'll try to find something regarding the zellij, i wouldn't mind adding a removed picture of the blue tiles used in the palais des rais. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I think tiles could go in Crafts, or maybe we should change the title to culture. I was actually thinking about moving the kasbah bath image and the outer tilework of the courtyard in that one image pile-up at the end of architecture. In fact, go to town in the Crafts section as far as I am concerned and to avoid image conflicts I will just make sure I am not in that section until you tell me you are done. We have to re-do the images there anyway. I was thinking of cutting something like -- maybe the embroidery because it wasn't specific to the period (?) But you might be able to find more information. Also apparently tesselation is important? Also that section needs to be re-checked for close paraphrasing. I edited it pretty hard and it still cites the source a lot but it's no longer word for word translation. I think. Check it. The part about the rugs is a good point in that it shows a cultural adaptation, maybe it we could build on that. I really didn't find much about Ottoman ironmongers in Algiers. As far as I can tell your new images on clothing look legit and the named artist has an article on French Wikipedia. He is an army officer who did a lot of mapping just after the French invasion. So maybe put those with the Jewish man? Have fun. I am going to work on the caravan trade. Just a little. Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: we already have at least one source for zellij, in Arabic though. But you were telling me it is the pattern that is important, right? Anyway, the source is transliterated as Laa'ra, or something like that. Just need a quote from why you think the source supports the statement. I should probably do the French ones also. Pretty sure some one will eventually ask. Elinruby (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) hottest op
I added a quote but i also corrected some informations. Square ceramic tiles with floral motifs replaced geometric and polygons decorated tiles. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
trying to wrap my mind around doing the copy-edit all over again. Maybe tomorrow. It has been too hot to move away from the fan all day. We were the hottest place in Canada again but fortunately no spontaneous combustion this year so far. Maybe six months of rain did its job there.Elinruby (talk)
Alright, early morning and temperature is decent. Nourerrahmane let's try ot get through a copy edit with out any rewrites ok? So here is a question I would like you to answer here. I get the part under Foreign relations about jihad conveying internal legitimacy in the Regency but how does it do so internationally while still being considered a est of pirates? I think there might be too much to unpack in that sentence. First question, if I would like to avoid repeating the word 'legitimacy, could "respect" be a good synonym here? ALso, we have an exact quote so it would be better to just attribute it to the author my name, since another author might have said the same thing, but he probably used different words, right? Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Elinruby, I added a small explanation with an RS, hopefully it answers your question. (Respect is a good synonym indeed and i have now replaced 'legitimacy with it) Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Going to look at the Agriculture section now. It was definitely looking better the last time I looked at it so we are not doing all this fpr nothing. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Final copyedit

I have an in use template on the page and will do a big push on this tonight. This will take a while given the new source verification problems. I hasten to add that none of these problems seem to be substantive or affect meaning, and that they all revolve around the distinctions between a paraphrase, an indirect quote and a direct quote.

I will take the template off if I go to bed before I finish. I will also compose a short tutorial on the use of quotation marks sometime soon. I have seen this problem in other articles originally written by speakers of scripted languages, but the goal there was not to get the article to featured status. Nour, I really apologize for explicitly calling this out, but the problems have persisted despite gentle hints. You really need to learn what is a quote and ask any questions that you may have. Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PS If anyone who is not a native English speaker notices a problem or sees me making a mistake, please say so on the talk page. I promise to respond and take action as soon as I see the post. Elinruby (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

regarding the infobox

Has anyone taken a good look at it lately? I have not gone through it much at all, but I just noticed that Baba Mohammed, Uthman wth the long long cannon (see image), is not listed there. We do devote a lot of space to him in the article, so that seems surprising. I am not especially versed in infobox requirements and really don't want to study them, but does the infobox reflect the body of the article, I ask cautiously?

Even more cautiously I ask if the matter of the legend size of the map in the infobox was ever settled.

@Nourerrahmane: peux tu, comme on dit, verifier the stuff going on in the infobox? I was sort of struck by the fact that Titteri is mentioned there also, but not all that much as I recall in the body. I am definitely not going to be working in there anytime tonight or tomorrow if you want to tackle that, Nour, plus there is no question that you have a better overall grasp of the chronology. Elinruby (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scope creep, M.Bitton, and R Prazeres: I believe the last I heard on this was no, and that Scope said it should be about 75% of its current size. The matter of the label for the Sahara Desert is resolved, however, yes? Btw, I have afaik deleted or had deleted all of versions of the map that had more than one label.

I do understand that there is a border dispute between Morocco and the Western Sahara. Is uncertainty about that the issue here? Would it alleviate anyone's concerns if we cropped the left-hand side of the map to to remove the Atlantic coastline? Then we don't have to parse bioregions or look up conflict status either, as a bonus, and we can let the people who are arguing about the Western Sahara do so in ... whatever. LMk.

The other possibility that just occurred to me -- let me start by stressing that the proposal is to make a copy as many versions back as possible then do the following edits, leaving the current version untouched -- but I was thinking, if the problem is the aspect ratio once you start cropping, you could also move the legend into the caption, couldn't you? Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby I might reply to you tomorrow, I’m at work Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
no rush. I just want to know if/when it can be called done Elinruby (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PR

Latest PR work completed. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work scope, for the images i'll let Elin take care of it, she's been working on them for a while now. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I nominated the edited version that was in the article for speedy deletion. As far as I can tell, it has been taken out already. Is that right? Because apparently the sourcing doesn't meet FA standards, as I understand it.

Could we please check the sourcing on the images please before any more work goes into cropping them or tweaking them or moving them around any more? Thanks. In particular I was wondering about authors like "School of Antwerp" -- I gather the reliability is from the museum? So anonymity doesn't matter? But something was said about auction sites -- you mean like Sotheby's? Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Don't use any current image that come from an auction site. They are taken on the day for the catalogue, so are current and still under copyright. They are entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. This is the Antwerp school. If its from a museum they are known for ensuring provenance. scope_creepTalk 15:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
OK so I am just saying, at least some of our images come from Sotheby's. This is a high-end auctioneer, yes? Elinruby (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
As for Antwerp School, I have it linked in the caption; I just wanted to confirm that anonymous works are ok if they are on a museum website? Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: What images from Sotheby? scope_creepTalk 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I see what you mean. That first one I came across is from Bonhams. Definently in the public domain. Each image uploaded is checked for pd by the image team, when the tag says its pd, set when uploaded, so I'm assuming its ok. For anon works I don't know. I would assume its ok if the tag is pd. We could ask MarchJuly? scope_creepTalk 17:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I am just saying that if we have any more problems with sources of images it would be good to find out now, before a whole lot of image editing gets done. Elinruby (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep: did you ever ask MarchJuly? I am also of the opinion that we can assume that a holding of the British Museum is attested to. Just not sure about seaside pirate museums and the like. And I also think that the article has too many pictures of sea battles, but Nourerrahmane likes naval battles, and it is certainly true that this is a significant theme in the history. In other words it is not really the case that we desperately need the two paintings attributed to schools, and as far as I am concerned this is academic and I just want to know how many images I am trying to fix the layout for in the section. They are both in a multiimage template so it is not a showstopper. Elinruby (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Not at the time. Nour left a message saying you were doing the images. I would assume if they come from the British Museum they are good. If the image is taken by a private individual at a auction for example, the source attribution is valid and there is a valid PD tag, then it will be good to use. If the source attribution is missing or damaged, and can't be traced back then I'd say remove remove it. There are looking for completeness and correctness of process as well as suitability of the image within the paragraph context. I've seen images taken out in the past, because the subject is only tangenitally linked. It may be a case that the image is what you would consider perfect, but for various reasons, new folk reading the text, they want something different, so its hard to tell. On the naval battles, if the context mentions it, then it may be suitable, but certainly if there is too many of them, it will get some of them pulled, certainly. Its not a naval battle article. Only if the battle was particularly special, i.e. a turning point in history, a major figured ransomed, a change in government or leader, major economic, military or political change would you want to see them. Certainly a 1 to several at the beginning of the article, even a series, because it was pirate civilization. There is dozens to hundreds of naval battles not mentioned so that is the core context, but not overkill. Balance is needed. scope_creepTalk 17:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • not sure what he meant by "doing" the images". The part that I just now said was done was trying to get to a reasonable layout from the last image shuffle One issue *I* have is that I would like the image of a man on a horse in the tribal aristocracy section to be about 50% bigger.
  • You did not answer the question about whether your issue with the legend of the map his fixed Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

might be an anthology

removed but preserving link to famous atlas, may just be a bibilographic mislabelling (see also talk page at history of the regency of Algiers) [[File:Atlas Van der Hagen-KW1049B13 058-The City of ALGIER.jpeg|alt=Ships at harbor before a walled and built-up city ascending a steep hill behind a citadel at the water's edge|thumb|City of Algiers, 17th century]] Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Auction sites

Is this a case in point? File:Bombardement of Algiers 1784.webp

We are also still using the file from Sotheby's Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Take it out. It will be a potential fail. scope_creepTalk 15:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The one above is gone. I will go find the Sotheby's one. 04:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sotheby's image located and removed Green tickY Elinruby (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Stumbled across this

  • official French version of Algerian copyright law as published in the Journal officiel.
  • Haven't tried to look up the earlier question about government websites yet, but it seem potentially useful to someone. Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, i'll read it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review closed

Per suggestion, Peer review is now closed. One step closer to FA. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC) We are getting there. Still going through new images and figuring out where to put them. I see daylight maybe. Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Added images

I added few images to reflect the time period of their sections, added an image of the ship with oars fighting a spanish galleon next to the square-rigged ship image to reflect both the naval technology upagrade of Algiers and its corsair attacks on Spanish vessels in the 17th century. I also added an image of the Dutch Algerian negotiations in 1620 (if the image could be cropped that would be good) and also the image of the death of pere levacher next to the English attack on Bejaia image, as these wars resulted in change of Algerian policy. The Barbary states image was displaced to the Maghrebi wars section since it dates back to this period. If anyone here doesn't agree with these additions he can just revert them. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Changed title from 18th century: Regional power to Decline of privateering Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Argh. Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the the changes on multiple aesthetic grounds. I know I have been absent for about 36 hours; I have been trying to convince myself that this article is not an endless waste of time. I do not blame you for impatience. I do blame you for STILL not having absorbed that single images go to the right, and that what you created at the end of the Foreign policy intro is a GA fail. I can't even. I will review the sourcing on the new images tomorrow evening (PDT) and go from there. The caption on the Dutch envoys image isn't great either. If you want this process to go faster please start reading the talk page. I am going to go bang my head on a wall now. I know you never ever answer questions, but supposing you choose to do so, I would love to know why the header change. I was supposed to be working on a stable version, remember Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I will revert it but I do like to have an opinion from @Scope creep. The only thing I got from your comment is that you don’t like them. The map of 1707 can be moved to the right and that’s it.
the sourcing of the images in fine. I have checked them. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I am glad that you thought to do that unprompted. Look, I will look at that version and maybe take some from there. Or better yet, tell me specifically what you have, where you think it should go, and why. We just removed some images, it's true, but remember that we had too many, before. I thought that what we were doing with the previous list was working, but apparently not? If not, let me know and I will stop annotating what happened with each image.
I suspect that the additions are good, but as I was trying to tell you once on your talk page once, even when you are 98% completely correct that 2% can be disastrous at times, and there is a lot that can be done with the 98% that can take it from "understandable with a little determination" to "a pleasure to read". Not to brag or anything, but they tell me I am good at that and that is part of why I am here.
The other part is that I really think this is an important article. It will change some preconceptions, maybe, or at least put a little more on the record than "they were just barbarians" stuff you are mad about. Which is another reason I have hung in here. Some of the stuff the article touches on (jihad, the attitude of the French) is really sensitive and while I am not knowledgeable I have learned enough to be respectful of these topics, I think.
But I am losing my mind over this and have started dreaming about this article again.
I am trying to keep this article as dispassionate as possible though. Not altogether successfully, I admit. You and I have had some disagreements where you just removed the material, which was not what I had been suggesting.
The price of a slave vs the price of an onion is one thing I would like to put back in. Do you have a reference for that handy? If not, I can probably find it, but it is the looking for things that has been taking some time here, and this is for things that you probably know off the top of your head. Does that go in the Golden Age section?
Does the fact that you reverted mean you are done with the article? Truly done? I am serious, I am so tired of the article that I am having trouble bringing myself to finish the article. I have one more iteration in me and forget it. Interested as I am in the topic, I can't keep endlessly copy-editing it. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

In fact fuck it, submit this thing. Maybe the next GA fail will get you to listen. I am tired of edit-warring with you to get you to accept help. Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby you can just undo the changes in one single click…just revert it.
Well I won’t be present this month of August I’m off to China and as you know we can’t edit in Wikipedia from there Nourerrahmane (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane:@Elinruby: I think in this late stage, adding images outside consensus is problematic. We are trying to get to FA. When you add stuff like that, its like still active development instead of the final stages of finishing the article and getting it ready for review. I don't and we don't have an infinite period of time available to continue working on this article, tweaking it all the time. We should be in end stages. The continual tinkering destroys the finalisation process and takes us back to square one, every time. You have look at it, discuss, review, reach consenus, copyedit, all again. I have my own articles to work on, which i've been largely doing for the last three weeks, because of the previous delays that is burning up and wasting time. But its been 5-6 weeks on these images and we are still not finished. I think you should probably revert and use what we have agreed on. scope_creepTalk 09:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC
@Nourerrahmane and Scope creep: I think Scope has verbalized my feelings quite well. And yet. These changes are usually improvements from the point of view of content. Here is my suggestion for getting this freaking done. Since we are starting over again, let's start over and get everything this time. Nour, take some time, add whatever you were thinking of with the economy sources you identified. They do look highly pertinent Tell me when you are done, completely done. The RL stuff that has been an impediment for me the past week goes away tonight, but don't consider that a deadline. Finish,and tell me when you are completely finished.
I will make ~48 hours available to copyedit. No more. I know I have quit before but this is really the last rodeo -- I am done. I am still willing to spend that much time on this (which is what I originally signed up for, months ago) but if you waste my time again no more will be available. Period. Tell me when it is ok for the time to start. Note, I am not saying 48 hours in one stretch.
Now. Since I have the attention of you both, I do need an answer to a couple of things. Most notably, the monopoly of Jewish merchants on wheat sales to France. How pertinent is it really that these merchants were Jewish? I do not question that they were -- that seems clear from sources -- but as I mentioned, although I was not involved in this, I was a party in the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case where someone was questioned at extreme length about his thinking in creating Jew with a coin and yes, that article was highly sourced, with Polish and possibly antisemitic sources. Unless the Jewish identity is somehow important, I think we should simply remove the adjective, since as far as I can tell, the story would have been the same whether he was Jewish or not. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Please answer the question about Jewish merchants, thanks. Also does the constitutional document we discuss bear any relation to the current constitution Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I added Spanish engagement with Barbary pirates RMG BHC0747.tiff to the 17th century section, tentatively. It could actually be in itself the illustration for both the sailed ships and the oared ships, no? Placement is tentative and image order may get flipped based on gradations of pink. I am proceeding on the basis that the issue of needing to illustrate the transition of oared ships to sailed is now taken care of. Please let me know if anyone has an issue. I am currently nibbling around the edges. I would prefer N acknowledge that he is done for now. Otherwise, please, I can do this as long as I don't have to keep starting over. I do think this is an important article. Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Evening @Elinruby: Solid work. I will take a look on the Jewish term question. scope_creepTalk 20:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Well the reference is pretty clear on it and more on it, a lot more Jews in Algeria. I would leave it in. It is clear as day in the text. There is an article History of the Jews in Algeria which may provide additional context. scope_creepTalk 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I want to say something about can and should be on wikikedia, but it is also possible that I am just gun-shy from experiences on other articles. I will take another look, and maybe discuss some more. Meanwhile it is another hot overcast day of uncertain air quality. I actually have two air purifiers and am about to plug one in, but probably no actual work until several hours after nightfall (currently 17:14) today. By the way, there was another failed verification but it was in the manufacturing section, mostly untouched by any of us, so I am unfazed by that, but do think that I still need to go through that section with a fine-toothed comb. The stuff I did yesterday was mostly fidgeting, though I think the copyedits were good. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Morning @Elinruby: I know what your talking about. Baggage they call it in the uk. You can't avoid it. It stains you and changes you. For extra context on the Jewish term, the reason I added the wp article on is that it states: "Jewish merchants did well financially in late Ottoman Algiers". Its not referenced but its all there, and in well written about. On the copyedit, it may be fidgeting but it adds up. I think you mentioned the manufacturing section about 4-5 weeks ago. I never checked those sections when I was doing the ref checks. If you want to expand/change it a wee bit, while Nour is away, I can do the copyedit on it and check the refs. It would be ideal if we could get it ready before the months out. I don't think we have done baseline on it for a couple of weeks, to see exactly what is still needing done. We can maybe do this weekend. It can't much now. I don't mind spending a full a couple of weeks on including weekends, to get everything finalised. I'm just a wee bit worried that Nour has taken some reading to China and comes back with a whole bunch of new ideas of what needs changed. scope_creepTalk'
Most of his ideas are really good as far as I can tell however... I kept (keep?) finding sentences that didn't quite make sense. Some of it is me being a little terse and cutting a bit too much wordiness when we were cutting for lenth, which I am fixing, mind you.

Random rework thoughts:

  • Passive voice to active usually improves readability -- writing in bureaucratese and it's actually quite a useful skill, but I am trying for smooth colloquial english. But like I said before, there is "is grammatically correct and parses" but "weird in context". Wrong synonym chosen from dictionary. Somewhere along the line.
  • I did a surface copy-edit of this article about two years ago before I ever heard of Nour and was fuming about the number of little "Expedition to x" articles on which I could find no further information. This article links them up and a lot of that work, if you look, is Nour and M.Bitton. There I think I actually asked him to do this article.
  • Anyway, getting this written is important but going forward theoretically if we are saying it is a featured article then one of the criteria for that is "comprehensive". He said he was going to go work on "Barbary corsairs", which seems like a good idea to me.
  • Odjak and Djenina Palace and the Harbormaster all also really deserve articles. A bunch of deys, beys and pashas are ILLs.
  • Do you want to do another checklist? It would be cool to have a place to write things like "first source in this section does say exactly that"
  • There is a question about tile. There was an extensive discussion about tile already which I plan to look up before blowing fuses by asking it; you may recall the many commons images?
  • types of mosques in Algiers. Something not quite parsing in Architecture section.
  • Manufacturing section: it was assigned to me but of course there is an immense learning curve and I was bogged down in what is zwellij (sp?) and then.. I'd rather not remember, honestly, but yeah, the reason you didnt get to it is I signed up fopr it 162.216.189.67 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regency_of_Algiers/Archive_5&oldid=1243730571"