Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Istanbul/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 21:18, 8 August 2012 [1].

Istanbul

[edit]

Istanbul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): tariqabjotu 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After putting a couple years of work into this article (on and off, of course), I believe this article is ready for its close-up. This is on the long end of articles presented here (60 kilobytes of prose; not unprecedented at all though), but I think this article needs it. It is a very large city—among the largest in the world—with a very long and significant history. I did my best to condense out a lot of extraneous information, add more vital information, and pepper the piece with relevant sources (compare this to an April 2010 version prior to me working it). I hope you'd agree that the prose is "well-written", "comprehensive", and "well-researched". The article is incredibly stable; save for one mildly disruptive editor (who was indefinitely blocked in May, and probably was a sockpuppet), the article sees very few edits (other than from me). Honestly, I'd write several paragraphs and then be able to pick up where I left off many months later as no one really makes changes there (compared to two of my past FAs, Israel and Jerusalem, which couldn't maintain FA status without constant supervision). Given the wide scope of the subject, I imagine someone will find some issue with the article that I overlooked (but I love the challenge of broad articles). Unfortunately, a peer review in May was the epitome of fruitless, but I hope you take a look for yourself now and agree this is ready for the FA star. -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm sure this will be a great article. Some issues to address (up to end of "religious and ethnic groups" section):

  • History. Refers to "artifacts ... found in Kadıköy that date back to the Chalcolithic period." No-one is likely to know when that period is, and the linked article doesn't readily enlighten us. Do the sources give us a particular millenium?
    I'll look into that. I may find a more current source as well, as it's not so easy to confirm sources from 1969. -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about wikilinking "final caliphate" to "Ottoman caliphate". Should the link not be of the word "caliphate" alone? Otherwise, I am expecting the article I'm linking to, to be about just this one caliphate. Yet there is a separate link to "caliphate" earlier in the sentence. It is a bit confusing to a person with little knowledge of what these things are.
    I'm not sure I understand the issue. From what I understand, it seems you like you're "expecting the article I'm linking to [from final caliphate] to be about just this one caliphate". But that's what it does. The final caliphate is the Ottoman Caliphate, as opposed to the final caliph (the final leader, Abdülmecid II). -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reforms that aligned the city along Western European standards". I have no idea what this means.
    It's explained in the following sentences: "Bridges across the Golden Horn were constructed during this period, and Istanbul was connected to the rest of the European railway network in the 1880s. Modern facilities, such as a stable water network, electricity, telephones, and trams, were gradually introduced to Istanbul over the following decades, although later than to other European cities." That being said, I understand if that's not clear (especially as the connection of the city to an international rail network and construction of a bridge isn't exactly a European innovation). I'll change that and let you know when I've finished. -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cityscape: "While officially part of Istanbul, much of the Asian side of the Bosphorus functions as a suburb of the economic and commercial centers in European Istanbul, accounting for a third of the city's population but only a quarter of its employment". This doesn't really make sense. What is meant by "while officially part of"? It is part of Istanbul. All cities have areas that are suburbs, and areas that people travel to work in. There is nothing unusual about this, it is how cities work. At the very least, the sentence should omit the phrase "While officially part of Istanbul", and simply state "Much of the Asian side..." etc.
    I'm gathering you're Australian so maybe this is just my American perspective of cities kicking in. As the suburb article suggests, suburbs in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK are residential areas inside a city (yes?), but in the U.S. and Canada, they're residential areas within commuting distance (and, as implied, outside) the city. I was trying to draw the distinction between cities -- I'll specifically say U.S. cities here, as that was my frame of reference -- where highly residential areas from where people commute are outside the boundaries of the city. This is far from the case in Istanbul; in fact, some of the city limits of Istanbul are in fairly rural areas, beyond where one could reasonably commute to the city center. That being said, there are areas in U.S. cities as well (e.g. Brooklyn and Queens) that are far more residential than commercial. But then again, they aren't considered "suburbs" and one could apply the same sentence ("While officially part of New York City, Queens and Brooklyn, etc, etc, and people from those boroughs often refer to just Manhattan as the City."). I can change this to a wording that's better understand outside North America though. -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be a good idea to include a reference under Toponymy to what the people of Istanbul call themselves. Seriously, is it really "Istanbulites" (stated later)?
    It's actually İstanbullu/İstanbullular, but I don't think that word is accepted in English. Furthermore, if you think "Istanbulite" sounds strange, that would be even more bizarre and probably wouldn't be understood by the average reader. I can find sources for both words and put them in somewhere. -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm quite surprised to see Garner's recommend "Istanbullu", at Denizen Labels. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that was genuine surprise or a sarcastic surprise suggesting I'm wrong, but I am genuinely surprised to see that. That may be about the only English-language book written by a non-Turkish author that uses Istanbullu. Even many Turkish authors use Istanbulite in English (that's the source I was going to point to in fact). -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never sarcastic on Wikipedia. I wish I had time to investigate the demonym question further. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my edits, in case I've made any revisions that concern you. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but I saw most of your edits as you were making them and they seemed fine. -- tariqabjotu 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I just switched "fuelling" to "fueling" (as the whole article is written in American English). -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tariqabjotu for rapid and considered responses, and thank you Dank for weighing in. I will try and come back to other elements of this soon. I'll have another look at the 'caliphate' issue - i suspect i wasn't reading sufficiently carefully. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration: "as well as seventeen designated towns up to 52 square kilometers (20 sq mi) in size". Can you reword this, to clarify whether the seventeen towns total up to 20 sq mi, or that any one town can be that big. Not sure of the significance of the physical area as a fact, incidentally. May not be needed?
    I'm trying to emphasize that the towns are small. I'll reword. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to just remove the piece of information as I imagine this'll be extraneous information when I tackle your other task below. So, done. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administration: I feel this section lacks any sense of history, in contrast to, for example, the education or culture sections. How was Istanbul governed prior to this current arrangement? There also seems to be a paucity of independent third-party sources in this section - almost all of the facts rely on the official websites. Has no-one written anything independently about the city's politics and administration?
    I'm not sure history is very important here, but I can provide some information about the structure before the 1980s. I remember coming across such information and intentionally not writing about it. But, okay, that can be done. About third-party sources, I can diversify them, but I can't imagine how/why someone would write a book on present-day government. Maybe trolling through some news sites. Either way, I don't think there's actually a problem with official sources being used to reference statements about governmental structural and very general information about its responsibilities. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On historical stuff - I'm thinking one short para tops. But to me, there is quite a high level of detail here about current arrangements. As I hinted above, some other stuff might be able to trim (eg. physical size of suburbs or districts), but I expect it would be very hard to trim, I accept that. On sources - there's a lot of academic writing about contemporary politics generally, but I accept there may be little about sub-national level. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a great source that provides a window into the reality of Istanbul's administration, not just how it works on paper. Is also a useful source for it being a two-tier structure. I think, given the person is a professor and the paper is published by LSE, it qualifies as reliable. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have to tackle this tomorrow, as this isn't a quick thing to fix. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, i realise this is a bigger issue than the others I've raised. If I find some time I may try and help, but like you that may be a few days off. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I will eventually get around to this, likely before the weekend (maybe even tomorrow?). I just have a lot of things competing for (and requiring) my attention, as I have two major and complex travel plans I have to attend to. -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made some significant changes to the section, adding a bit more history and chopping (and correcting) information elsewhere. Let me know what you think. -- tariqabjotu 08:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recent re-write is great. It has taken the section from being pretty average and given it a core of historical perspective and scholarly analysis that puts it on a par with other early parts of the article. My main query is mostly one of clarity. It now has this sentence: "With personnel representing different departments, its partner committee, the Metropolitan Executive Committee, makes some decisions but primarily advises the Municipal Council." I am not sure what "with personnel representing different departments" refers to, not what the "its" is in the second clause, nor what is meant by "partner" here. Can you try a redraft of that sentence? But this is looking much much better.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying not to abruptly introduce the Metropolitan Executive Committee, but obviously I wasn't successful. To answer your question though, the personnel representing different departments refers to the partner committee (i.e. the Executive Committee). Anyway, I've reworded the sentence. -- tariqabjotu 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that work. Much better. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demographics: "even though its metropolitan area—roughly equivalent to the city proper's population...". This somehow needs to be reworded, as an area cannot be equivalent to a number of people.
    Sigh, okay. Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this is looking more complicated than I thought. You will need to explain what makes this a reliable source. And I'm not sure the current wording is clear either. I will try and apply my mind to clarifying this. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not changing the sentence further. It now means exactly what it is intended to mean, provided the reader reads the entire sentence – something I expect them to do. The metropolitan area is roughly equivalent to the city proper, and the metropolitan area ranks below twentieth in population. That's what I meant, and that's what it says.
    As for the source, you're twisting my arms here. As there is no one worldwide organization that carries out censuses or defines the boundaries of cities, pinpointing such a golden source is hard to come by, if not impossible. If the aim here were to get the reader to a source that provides the most accurate and up-to-date information, that relies on the respective cities' legal boundaries rather than some arbitrary limits, and that uses data from some point in the last five years, I would go with the source that I intentionally selected for the article. I maintain confidence that the writer of that site based his/her/their information off the plethora of references it has stated it has used. If the aim here, however, is to use a source that—albeit outdated, inconsistent, and arbitrary—flies under the banner of an ostensibly reliable name like "Oxford" or the "United Nations", well, that can be done as well. So consider it done. -- tariqabjotu 06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I conceded this change, although I'm not sure that was the source of your confusion. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now that is a significant improvement, thanks. The other reason I found it tricky to read, was that I had never heard the term "city proper" before - so I was puzzling over the distinction between a city proper and a "metropolitan area". But your latest edit gives a good cue to the distinction, and the wikilinks resolve it for the reader if they are still unclear. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demographics: why is the paragraph on historical demographics located after the current data? In most other, later, sections, the historical stuff seems generally to come first. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the chronological approach doesn't work well here. I mean, can you imagine waiting until the third paragraph to hear about the population of the city? No other section seems to have such crucial information, but, as you'll notice, the chronological approach isn't strictly following in the Economy and Transportation sections either. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I did with the section -- basically moved the third paragraph to the top as a compromise. Hope that works for you. -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood your point, and wasn't going to press this, but I do like it in its re-ordered form, as it has added benefit of reinforcing just how important this city (and article) is. Good compromise. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public services: Image caption states "The Silahtarağa Power Station, now the art museum SantralIstanbul, was Istanbul's sole source of power between 1914 and 1983." However text states it "was the sole source of Istanbul's electricity between 1914, when its first engine room was completed, and 1952" and that it was shut down in 1983. Presumably between 1952 and 1983 there were other power stations constructed? Can an editor check sources and correct whichever text needs amendment? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The year is definitely 1952. Done. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    Um, ok. Well is ISBN 9781841505671 good enough for you? Otherwise, I'll just remove it. -- tariqabjotu 04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No response, but I've replaced it with the source I mentioned. Done. -- tariqabjotu 08:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations, and in whether you abbreviate state names
    Example? I didn't put the locations for websites, because that is the most useless piece of information ever, if one could pinpoint a location at all. And are you suggesting I spelled out some state names, or omitted state names? I generally omitted the state or province or whatever from very well-known and unambiguous cities (like Los Angeles, New York, and London). Otherwise, I put it in. I'll take a glance at them again later. -- tariqabjotu 04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a magnificent article and I just have a couple of minor suggestions.

  • I think for clarity you should specifiy "military forces" in the sentence "Various economic and military policies instituted by Andronikos II, such as the reduction of forces, weakened the empire..."
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might want to mention the construction of civic improvments, in particular the Hippodrome of Constantinople, in the sub section "Rise and fall of Constantinople". Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why this is so important. Is it not enough to say "Mehmed II repaired the city's damaged infrastructure"? The Kırkçeşme water supply network is also mentioned in the Public services section. We can't mention everything, and I think the main point has already been conveyed. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The hippodrome is uniquely important to the history of Constantinople and indeed to the history of the Byzantine Empire; the factions that formed based on support for different teams of chariot racers there became political factions of major importance, and the hippodrome was often the starting place for riots and other episodes of civil unrest that threatened the political stability of the empire. As it sat more than 80,000 people, Roman/Byzantine emperors used it for political purposes (for example Theodosius I) just as they had earlier used the Coliseum in Rome. It was arguably as important to civic life in Constantinople as was the Hagia Sophia, which you appropriately mention in the section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Rusty, provided there's a reliable source or two for the sort of material Rusty's mentioned. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but I may have to address these issues after August 5 (see the comment I'm simultaneously posting below the nomination statement). -- tariqabjotu 07:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I well understand how hard it can be to find the time to get an article through FAC and how schedule conflicts can arise. I no longer have my copy of Norwich's history of the Byzantine Empire where first I read this stuff, but here a few on-line sources I was able to find by looking at the references cited by some related articles, Hippodrome of Constantinople and Nika riots. These two talk about the political and social significance of the hippodrome: [2] and [3] and this one discusses Constantine's renovation and expansion of the hippodrome [4]. Here is more of a primary source: [5]. I realize that since this article is primarily about Istanbul rather than Constantinople the mention should be brief. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a stab at a solution. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much like Rusty's text. If anyone can improve the quality of the references, that would be good. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced the CLIO article with a better source, an article at Smisonian.com. I will continue to look for a better replacement for the other source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are approved h2g2 articles like this one [6] considered to be reliable sources? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I believe I have provided good sources for all the hippodrome material.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one more minor quibble in this section. The phrase "During most of the Middle Ages and the latter part of the Byzantine period" seems clumsy and is a little confusing as with the use of "and" you are implying that these are two separate periods, where as they almost exactly overlap. Some historians even consider the fall of Constantinople to the Turks as the end point of the middle ages. Maybe try something like, "During the Middle Ages, which corresponded to the latter part of the Byzantine period, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city on the European continent... " Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a stab at fixing it. All of my comments have been addressed and as soon as some of the other open issues are resolved I look forward to supporting this outstanding article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unless I am missing something there are no significant issues outstanding and this is an outstanding article that represents Wikipedia at its best. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Straddling the Bosphorus—one of the world's busiest waterways—in northwestern Turkey, between the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea, Istanbul is a transcontinental city, with one third of its population living in Asia and its commercial and historical center in Europe." - poor parallelism at the end there. I'm not the biggest fan of "with... [verb]ing" to begin with, but you have one half of that clause acting as a phrase and the other only as a noun. The entire sentence is a bit long, so I think you could split it somewhere. Also, the sentence implies that two-thirds of the 13.5 million live on the Europe side. Does that two-thirds represent the second highest population in a European metro area, or is it the entire 13.5 million?
    I've reworded the sentence. The entire 13.5 million represents the second-largest metropolitan area. I thought of a way to clarify or avoid that but none of them seem good. Saying (including its population in Asia) is bizarre, since Asia is not mentioned until this point. I thought about saying in the Council of Europe, but I don't think that's a particularly well-known organization (and will easily be read as the European Union). I could go with in a European country, but something sounds off there to me. If you have any suggestion, I'm all ears. However, despite its transcontinental status, Istanbul is generally considered a European city (just as Turkey is considered a European country even though 98 percent of its territory is in Asia). -- tariqabjotu 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better now. And I'm not too concerned about the entire 13.5, since that is the entire population. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before the Ottomans conquered the city in 1453 and transformed it into an Islamic stronghold from which the last caliphate ruled" - bit of a run-on (namely with the "from which..." onward), and even after clicking on that link, I'm not really sure what "last caliphate" means :/
    That's not a run-on sentence. This seemed to confuse Hamiltonstone, and I'm not sure why. I suppose this speaks to the question of how much background information needs to be provided in a summary article. I should point out, by the way, that there are many other complex historical topics (e.g. the Crusades) that are mentioned in passing, and are unlikely to meet a request for clarity. I would begrudgingly state that these types of questions reflect a systematic bias that exists throughout much of the Anglosphere -- namely, a surprising ignorance of very basic Islamic history. If even, as you say, after clicking the link, the meaning of "last caliphate" is not clear, we have a problem. I would hope, and maybe this is too much to ask, that the reader would be aware that there is no such thing as a caliph in 2012. And even if they're not aware of that, I would hope he or she would click on the link saying "last caliphate" and observe that the (very short) lead of the target article says Abdul Mejid II, who lost the Sultanate, kept the Caliph position for a couple of years, but with Atatürk's reforms, the caliph position was abolished (emphasis mine). Do I really need to repeat this statement in the Istanbul article? (Honest question.) If so, it's not going to be in the lead, but in the History section. -- tariqabjotu 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think part of the problem is that the sentence does not read naturally and that makes it difficult to understand the context for last Caliphate. I do know a little Islamic history and even I found the sentence awkward. It is common English usage to say "the King ruled" or "the Caliph ruled". It is less common to say "the kingdom ruled" or "the caliphate ruled". I think people would have less trouble with it if it read something like: "before the Ottomans conquered the city in 1453, transforming it into an Islamic stronghold and the seat of the last caliphate." or maybe even better than "seat", "the capitol city of the last caliphate". I think then the sentence would read more naturally and the meaning of last caliphate would be more obvious from its context, which would make wiki-linking it enough. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, Rusty's suggestion is much clearer, based on the sentence structure. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The population of the city has increased tenfold since the 1950s, as migrants from across Anatolia have flocked to the metropolis and city limits have expanded to accommodate them." - "as" is a poor connector here. It'd be better to have something like "because", "while", "after", whatnot.
    "Because" is okay, but it sounds worse than "as" to me. Using "while" or "after" changes the meaning. In other words, I'm not changing it. -- tariqabjotu 17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's ambiguous what meaning of "as" you mean, since that could mean any of those three words I said. It's not an ideal conjunction for that very reason. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's ambiguous at all. "As" is a perfectly valid word for the intended meaning, and all other possible interpretations of "as" in this context don't make sense. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seven million foreign visitors arrived in Istanbul in 2010, when it was named" - technically the antecedent for "it" could refer to "visitors" or "Istanbul". I think the "it" here should be "the city" since you also use "it" later in that sentence.
    I've changed the second "it" to "the city" to get rid of the repetition. No one is going to think the first "it" refers to "visitors" because (a) that doesn't make any sense and (b) "visitors" is plural. C'mon. Being meticulous is fine, but several of your comments here have been just absurd, relying on the idea that the reader is a two-year-old who can't understand anything unless it's explained with the utmost precision. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just making sure - everything in the lede appears elsewhere in the article, right?
    Almost everything. The Silk Road is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The global city point may not be mentioned anywhere else. By WP:LEAD doesn't require that absolutely everything be mentioned in the body; with such minor points, which really need no elaboration, I see no reason to repeat them. -- tariqabjotu 17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But is the Silk Road bit cited by ref 8 or 9? I had assumed those were to cite the increase in population since 1950s. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A source saying what? That Istanbul was on the Silk Road? -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Recently, Aleppo has been in the news, and the Wiki article says that was the end of the Silk Road. Istanbul being further west, I was confused. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Silk Road is more a concept than a real road, so I don't think there's agreement on what its termini are (especially at its western end). However, finding a source that Istanbul was on the Silk Road is not difficult. (Why Aleppo would be considered its western terminus is beyond me; it's not in Europe and it's not on the sea.) -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7th millennium BC and uncovered by archaeologists at the beginning of the 21st century" - just checking, but should 21st century be clarified that it's AD, given the first half mentions BC? It's obvious, obviously, but for standardization and featured article stuff-ery, it might be needed. Also, since it's so recent, maybe say what year?
    The source is from January 2009, so it's not clear whether the find was in 2008 or 2009 -- and the precise year isn't particularly important anyway. That also doesn't fix the issue anyway, as the same reason for adding "AD" would still apply. So, I decided to just add "AD" and be done. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem then. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it through the first section of History, will get more later. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During most of the Middle Ages, the latter part of the Byzantine era, Constantinople was the largest and wealthiest city on the European continent and, during parts of this period, the largest in the world." - just to clarify, it was one of the largest cities in the world? That's what the wording implies, but I wasn't sure whether it also meant largest economies, or something.
    Yes, that was what was meant. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the Latin Empire was short-lived, and the Byzantine Empire was restored, weakened, in 1261." - two things. First, sentences shouldn't start with "However" when they mean "nevertheless", and I think a word is needed before weakened, such as "although" (perhaps put "although weakened" after 1261?).
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting off a sentence with "however", and it's a synonym of "nevertheless". One could argue that "nevertheless" might sound better there and draw more emphasis to the point, but that's not the point you made so I'm not going to address that. I don't really think an additional word is absolutely necessary before "weakened", but I've added one. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and its population had dwindled to a hundred thousand from up to half a million during the 8th century." - I see the note, but I don't see clarification whether you mean in the hundreds of thousands or "100,000". Perhaps you should clarify by saying "around 100,000" (since it is not exact), as well as "around 500,000". Seeing "half a million" written out doesn't seem quite right to me.
    I meant "100,000"... as that's what the text says. I don't know how one could possibly interpret that as meaning "in the hundreds of thousands", especially since half a million is also in the hundreds of thousands. The word "about" is superfluous. There is no reason for us to be so explicit; people will generally understand when such a round number is given that it is not exact. "Half a million" written out looks perfectly fine to me. So, there's really nothing to change here. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I doubt it was exactly 100,000. The half million is preceded by "up to", so we know that is inexact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing else to do here. No one is going to think that the population was precisely 100,000, and it is clear that I meant 100,000 when I said "a hundred thousand". -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking from someone who (admittedly) doesn't know much about Islam, perhaps "imam" should be linked under the "Rise and fall of Constantinople" section?
    I don't know. Should it? It seems like a rather basic term to me. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know it and had to look it up. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doesn't mean it's not a basic term. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But people who aren't familiar with Islam (like myself) might not know it. A link couldn't hurt. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. It doesn't meet any of the reasons for linking an article. Its relevance and importance is tangential. Even if you were to replace "imam" with "someone", nothing of value would be lost. The point is someone -- an imam, in this case -- proclaimed the shahada (and note that I avoided using that foreign term). Imam is not a particularly esoteric Islamic term (to put it lightly) and is an accepted term in English. Its meaning could be easily inferred from context (although I gather from other comments here that you don't like inferring information). But if the reader still doesn't know what it means, and cares to know what it means, they can go pick up a dictionary -- as in all other situations where there's a word unknown to a reader. Sorry, but I am not linking a basic and tangentially relevant term whose meaning should either be known, inferred, or just ignored by the reader. -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the fall of Constantinople, Mehmed II immediately set out to revitalize the city, by now also known as Istanbul." - given that it's past tense, I think it should be "by then" instead of "by now".
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ottoman Dynasty claimed the status of caliphate in 1517" - again, pardon my ignorance, but I don't get how an empire could claim a system of government (which is what I got out of the first sentence of Caliphate).
    The caliphate article gets there soon enough. The caliphate is more than just a system of government. In fact, it's barely a system of government; it's more a title and a position of power. Compare, for example, with the concept of the papacy (in its meaning as "the succession or line of popes", not "the office of the pope"). There, obviously, can only be one pope, but let's pretend that Queen Elizabeth were to claim tomorrow that he, not Pope Benedict XVI, is the real pope (just go with it). So, what's the best phrase that includes "British monarchy" and "papacy". Is it "the British monarchy claimed the status of papacy"? Well, that's what I was trying to go for here, except there really was/is dispute about who the caliph -- effectively the leader of Islam (particularly Sunni Islam) is. In 1517, the Ottomans claimed that was them, despite there not really being any religious basis for doing so. They were just the largest Muslim empire at the time, and there was no one to challenge the claim. -- tariqabjotu 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I get it. I just think there should be a bit more explanation about that in the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll think about it. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not elaborating on this. The explanation desired would be far too lengthy, and the issue over claiming the status of caliphate is explained in the caliphate article if you manage to get past the first sentence. -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " More recently, in 1999, an earthquake with its epicenter in nearby İzmit left 17,000 people dead, including 1,000 people in Istanbul's suburbs." - there should be indications that the death tolls are estimates. (add an "about" would be fine)
    Again, this is a rather standard inference. No one is actually going to think exactly 17,000 or 1,000 people died. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But the writing implies that, and there could theoretically be exactly 17,000 dead. There's nothing wrong with including "about". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Forget it. -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious, what year were the record lowest and highest temps? Your call if relevant in including or not.
    These years (I believe something like 1928 and 2000 for the low and high, respectively) were actually originally included in the article, but I removed them since I didn't think they were so important and there was no easy way to work them in. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob. I'm a weather geek, and yea, it's not really appropriate for the main article (it'd be better in "Climate of Istanbul"). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Farther inland, between the First and Second Bosphorus Bridges, are Levent, Maslak, and Mecidiyeköy, Istanbul's primary economic centers." - this is unsourced
    I've sourced the fact that Levent and Maslak are Istanbul's primary economic centers, and I've corrected the location (as Maslak extends north of the motorway that goes over the Second Bosphorus Bridge). I'm not going to source the location though, since the reader can just look at a map to confirm. So, this should be done. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "serving as tranquil outposts with seaside yalıs and gardens. " - I see yali linked in the image, but I think it should be linked in the prose as well.
    I disagree. I assume some people will look at either the text or the images without looking at the other. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But some people might not have images shown, captions disabled, whatnot, per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. You should include it either way. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread your point, and you didn't catch that my response didn't make sense based on what you said. I thought you said that the term was linked in the prose and the caption and that it only needed to be linked in one of the two places. I might have misread it that way because the term is linked in the prose already, in the second paragraph of the Cityscape section. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it up through the end of "Administration". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the highest among the seventy-eight largest OECD metropolises" - numbers that high should be in number form, and given that's the first usage of OECD, I think it should be spelled out.
    I'll spell out OECD, but I'm not changing the "seventy-eight" to "78". MOSNUM permits numbers that can be written in one or two words to be spelled out, and that's what I prefer. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I miss be misreading, but where does it permit that exactly? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh... yeah... it's in the first sentence of the section I linked to, with lovely examples in green: numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The names of the neighborhoods of Arnavutköy ("Albanian village"), Polonezköy ("Polish village"), and Yenibosna ("New Bosnia")—among others—also recall some of the ethnic communities that formerly thrived in Istanbul but have since decreased in population and significance. - needs source
    From WP:VERIFY, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. What here is likely to be challenged? None of these ethnic groups are discussed in any detail earlier in the section. Seriously, I don't get the Wikipedia community. A couple years ago, I was told I had too many sources in an article and that not every little thing needs to be sourced. Now, there are things like this that I have to cite. You know that any source sufficient to corroborate this point would be esoteric, simply stating that there are very few Albanians, Poles, and Bosnians left, and the last thing I want to do at 4:00 in the morning is waste time searching for crap like that. If this bothers you so much, just remove it. And, let me repeat that: just remove it. Don't ask me to remove it -- because I won't -- and don't tell me you've removed it -- because I honestly don't care. -- tariqabjotu 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that three places have decreased in population and significance, despite the growing significance and population of the city in general? I just abide by a rule of thumb to source every statement in the article. How else can you prove everything has been verified? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm not touching that sentence, so your further attempts to convince me are pointless. Again, if you have a problem with the sentence, just remove it; it's not crucial to the section anyway. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you were so aganist sourcing it, but fine, I removed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you use %, instead of saying percent?
    Because I don't want to. And because MOSNUM (you should read it some time) says Percent... is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bring in 55 million TL (US$30 million) of revenue each year" - much of the rest of the "economy" section uses US$ first, so why the sudden switch?
    The source uses Turkish liras, but since MOSNUM permits me to, I've moved that figure to the source. So done. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other Turkish versions of U.S. networks, including Fox Türkiye and MTV Türkiye, have their headquarters in Istanbul as well." - source
    Since MTV went off the air last year, I've decided to just remove this sentence. It wasn't that important anyway. So done. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally an Islamic school, at the time of the Turkish Republic's founding the university was secularized and new law, medicine, and science departments were established" - poor sentence structure. Try something like - "Although originally an Islamic school, the university was secularized at the time of the Turkish Republic's founding, and new law, medicine, and science departments were established."
    Done. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Let me know if there are any questions. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll probably work on this tonight (in about twelve hours). I have Internet access (unlike last week), but I'm still doing some traveling, and don't want to spend all my vacation time on the Internet. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of all of this! I responded to a few outstanding things, but in general I'm quite happy with the article. Enjoy your traveling, too :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say for the record that the replies I've just added are the final remarks I will make on your review above, even if you choose to respond to them. So, don't bother -- I will categorically ignore all remarks you make in regards to points you made above and will ignore without explanation any additional points you choose to make that are similarly inane. Half of your remarks (as I've indicated as you went along) have either been personal preferences -- rather than actual issues -- or bizarre, unlikely, or otherwise illogical interpretations of sentences. I see no reason why I should have to cater to such nonsense, and I couldn't care less if you oppose this candidacy or if this fails because I refuse to address your frivolous wishes. Frankly, if it were to fail on account of your misreading of content or the need to have every number in figures or denoted as approximate, I would have no interest in spending anymore of my time bringing articles on Wikipedia up to featured status. There are far better things for me to do with my time than aspire to meet increasingly unnecessary and impossible standards on a website. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I spent a good few hours reviewing this, and you call my comments nonsense? I just told you, right above this comment, that I was quite happy with the article. For the personal preferences, that's fine, I didn't really care about that. But there is no reason to say that those "are the final remarks". You have been great in responding to most of my comments, and I was planning on supporting, but not now, considering it seems you can't be impartial to your own efforts. I really don't appreciate comments like "I'm not elaborating on this" or "No. Forget it." There's no need to be uncivil, and it's comments like that that makes me no longer want to review FAC's anymore. You refuse adding a simple wikilink that would be helpful for someone unfamiliar with the subject matter, making it clearer about the caliphate, adding a source to a sentence I removed that could've been useful, accepting the possibility ambiguity about the Bazaars, and accepting that you are flat out wrong about the earthquake's death toll. The source clearly says the earthquake killed "more than 18,000 people", so your "17,000" is wrong both in terms of its number and in terms of its exactness. You're on vacation, you could be a little nicer when responding. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very incivil to just "categorically ignore" a reviewer who was nice enough to give you a review on your FAC. The fact that you choose to ignore them and leave the oppose is not only inappropriate, it's just going to start drama. FAC lacks reviewers period, and while you might disagree with what the reviewer wants, it would be worth more to get a second opinion than ignore the editor who is trying to do you a favor. Sometimes details by number are important, for example, when a tornado hit Elmira, New York on July 27, It rendered 16 homes uninhabitable. You need 50 to get FEMA assistance. These numbers do matter in the long run. I feel like Hink is asking you is respectable enough just to add a word for clarity. The fact that you claim its "increasingly unnecessary and impossible standards" and yet refuse to try finding other opinions shows that you don't want to hear what is being suggested. A second opinion is a valuable thing to ask for. That's all. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and you are entitled to feel that way. But if that was intended to make me feel bad about or retract or otherwise reconsider my statement, it didn't. And you can't. I have done my best to communicate the point that my decision is final, and that I am not interested in being swayed or convinced to alter my remarks. I have no need to discuss this further, so any "drama" that arises will be a tempest of other editors' creation. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Areas around İstiklal Avenue were filled with grand European embassies and rows of buildings in neoclassical style, which went on to influence the architecture of a variety of structures in Beyoğlu—including churches, stores, and theaters—and official buildings such as Dolmabahçe Palace." Now, the only former Embassy (now consulate) which is in neoclassical style, is the Greek one. Most of the others are neorenascimental. Moreover, the characteristic style of the architecture in Pera/Beyoglu is Art noveau, not neoclassical. One can check it in a good guide as Freely.
    I have no idea what neorenascimental means -- a Google search indicates it's not even an English word -- but my best guess is something like neo-Renaissance. This style is also mentioned extensively in the source, alongside the neoclassical style, so I've added it into the article. So, I believe this is done. -- tariqabjotu 17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, this was a mistake of mine! Alex2006 (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early Byzantine architecture followed the classical Roman model of domes and arches..." I would rephrase as "Early Byzantine architecture followed contemporary Roman models", or something like that. Constantine consciously tried to replicate Rome on the Bosporus, bur many elements, for example his Forum (elliptical, and not rectangular), use elements typical of the roman cities in the eastern part of the Empire (see Krautheimer, "Three christian capitals"). Alex2006 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said nothing that contradicts what the article currently says. If anything, you want more information added. I don't think it's necessary to go into more detail about other Roman architecture considered, but should you choose to add it, be sure it's sourced. Preferably, sourced in English. -- tariqabjotu 17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Krautheimer should be a good source. Despite his German origin and his residence in Italy (with the abject habit to write his last works in Italian :-)), his works are available in English too. Alex2006 (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comments - The central tenet of FAC is achieving a consensus. This done by the nominators and reviewers working together. Comments from the nominator such as "I will categorically ignore all remarks you make in regards to points you made above and will ignore without explanation any additional points you choose to make that are similarly inane" are not appropriate. After over one month at FAC and no clear consensus for promotion, I have decided to archive this nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Istanbul/archive1&oldid=1065872530"