Wikipedia:Peer review/Regency of Algiers/archive1

Regency of Algiers[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

In the last six weeks the article has been comprehensively updated to make it ready for GA. Its undergone a complete reference check and update, several sections rewritten, several sections added, images added, infobox updated and lede rewritten. We are now wondering if it ready for GA. We would like some general feedback on its state, any problems with the size of the article, the number and placement of images, problems with prose and other standout problem that come to mind. Its not had an external copyedit yet.

Thanks, scope_creep^Talk 17:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim.

• There are some list items in the "Crafts" section that need citations. Y
• WP:ARTICLESIZE says at above 9,000 words, the article should be considered for a trim. This article is at 13,000. You might want to consider what can be removed or summarised. Y
• "Allioui, Youcef (2006)." There isn't an inline citation pointing to this source. It should either be used as a citation or taken out of the Bibliography. Y
• Why aren't the sources in the "Further reading" section used in the article? Consider using these or removing them from the article.Y

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for posting that. Interesting reading. Do GA or FA articles not have further reading sections? I didn't know that. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: GA articles will commonly have Further reading sections which are not a big deal. However, reviewers at FAC will question why potential sources are listed in Further reading and not used in the article, as if a source is valuable enough to be in further reading it should usually be used as an inline citation instead. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I never knew that, but at the same time never taken anything to FAC so I guess its a learning experience. We will address it. scope_creep^Talk 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan[edit]

Hi scope_creep, some comments:

• The Igawawen flag on the article and here are very different, consider using the former? Y
• Corsair, Aruj and Hayruddin are linked in lead, consider linking in body on first use? Y
• Translate Beylerbey using lit/trans templates? Y
• Link to Peñon (de Velez de la Gomera)? Y
• "vanquishing Andrea Doria's Genoese": consider rephrasing to "vanquishing the Genoese fleet of Andrea Doria..." in order to avoid SEAOFBLUE? Y
• Consider including the Algerian casulties in the Algiers expedition, so that readers can get an idea of the proportional cost of the battle?
• "twarted": "thwarted"? Y
• Link to Ottoman Fleet (Navy)? Y
• "went so far": "went as far"? Y
• "Lapento": typo I believe. Aldo consider removing the link, which has been used here for the second time.
• "praying": "preying"? Y
• "naighbors": "neighbors"? Y
• Link to Alawi? Y
• Link to Moulouya River? Y
• Link to spahi?Y
• Link to Constantine on first use? Y
• "In 1775 Irish-born": "the Irish-born"? Y
• "Spectacular": reword to something more neutral? Y
• "with and": remove the "and"? Y
• "he in fact": remove the "in fact"? Y
• Explain timars as land grants? Y
• Were there no administrative changes after Baba Abdi, or do we not have any surviving sources? Y

Will add more comments tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I have worked on those points. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Matarisvan: much appreciated. scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nourerrahmane, some more comments starting from where I last stopped, the Administration section.

• Link to Commodus in note f. Y
• "charged of": "charged with"? Y
• "accomplished in": "accomplished through" or "achieved through"?
• "council the "powers" to govern": "council of the powers who governed"?
• Clarify what Khaznadar is in one or two words per NOFORCELINK? Y
• "muftis (Islamic jurists) as the...": "... to the ..."?
• "country's country's": Fix the repetition?
• "forefront of": just "forefront" would be better? Y
• Provide current day values for the tribute amounts using the {{inflation}} template? Y
• Were the tribute values yearly or paid over the years? Specify as such? Explanation provided. Y
• In the Gaid quote, link to Miliana, Mila, M'Sila and Ain el Hammam; instead of in the manufacturing section? Y
• Link to Tenes and Dellys? Y
• Remove the double link to Bab el Oued? Been removed. Y
• Link to Blida? Y
• "wordings descriptions": use "phrases" instead? Yes. More accurate. Y
• Add the language parameter for Abitbol 2014, El Adnani 2007, de Grammont 1887, Golvin 1985, Chenntouf 1999, Boyer 1973, Boyer 1970b, Ben Hounet 2009, Jörg 2013, Kouzmine 2009, Leon 1843, Marcais 1955, Merouche 2002, Panzac 1995, Plantet 1889, Plantent 1894, Terki Hassaine 2004, Turbet-Delof 1973, Vatin 1982. Y
• Translate the titles for Boyer 1970b, Daumas and Yver 2008, de Grammont 1887, Golvin 1985, Jörg 2013, Khoja 2016, Leon 1843, Marcais 1955, Merouche 2007 and 2002, Panzac 2020, Planter 1894, Tassy 1725, Terki Hassaine 2004, Guemriche 2012, Meynier 2010? Y
• Remove the capitals from Braudel 1990? Y
• Remove EJ Brill as the author for Brill 1987? They are publishers and not authors. Y
• Remove the capitals from the journal name for Gorguos 1857? Y
• Why are Jillali 2007, Jörg 2013 and Trono et al 2023 repeated in the Further reading section when you have already used them in the biblio? Y
• Why are the remaining 5 sources in the Futher Reading section not used in the article? FAC reviewers will in all likelihood ask you to remove them if they are not being used.Y

Matarisvan (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: I'm looking for comments on the associated history article, if you have time. scope_creep^Talk 08:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane and @Scope creep, I'd recommend changing the image alignment for the multiple images templates to centre alignment, and for all the other standalone images to right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC. Also consider moving the 1575 map a little down, its current position is creating an MOS:SANDWICH with the infobox. Also the lead is a little short, you could expand it, or if both of you are ok with it, then I can expand it to a full 4 paragraphs myself. Matarisvan (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane and @Scope creep, @Elinruby has already significantly expanded the lead. You should consider nominating for FA now. PRs sadly don't attract many comments, GAs somewhat do but there is a huge backlog, FAs however get a lot of quality comments very quickly. Matarisvan (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some changes I still need to suggest, you should wait for a bit before nominating for FA. Most of the issues are with the Inflation template being used only once in the table, and location of publication included for some sources and not for most. Matarisvan (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara is labelled on the map now. Elinruby (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: I never realised you can go straight to FA like that, but that would be handy. I was a bit worried about having it sitting GA for potentially weeks or months. Please post your new comments and we we will address post-haste. I saw Nour did the lede. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby, @Nourerrahmane and @Scope creep, the last issue I could spot, which is the location of publication. Only the following sources have publishing locations, the others which are the majority don't. Either you could add locations for all sources or just remove them from the ones listed below, that is up to you. Here is the list in alphabetical order:

Abun Nasr 1987, Al Jilali 1994, Al Madani 1965, Ben Hounet 2009, Denny & Krody 2012, de Grammont 1887, de Grammont 1879-1885, de Haëdo 2004, Garrot 1910, Ghalem & Ramaoun 2000, al Mufti 2009, ibn Bekir 1860, Kaddache 2003, Khoja 2016, Konstam 2016, Koulakssis & Meynier 1987, Marçais 1955, Mercier 1888, Merouche 2007 & 2002, Plantet 1889, Rouard 1906, Saidouni 2009, Servantie 2021, Tassy 1725. This is just 25 sources of the 136 total we have use here. FAC reviewers are highly likely to flag this and may fail the nom due to this too.Y

Also Braudel 1995 and Burman 2002 have different formats for the Uni of Cali as a publisher, in the first you use the full "University", in the second you have only "Uni". Consider standardizing on one, preferably the first, and also do this for other instances I may have missed. Y

Also, what are these BABA BEG, BABA FIGHANI - DWIN etc. capitalized random words doing in mostly the Brill sources? Are they vandalism? Props to you for the hard work, see if you can get these done soon. Matarisvan (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: I'll start on the locations for both articles now. I'll do the main one and check cross-compatibilites for naming e.g. uni. The Brill entry are the volume numbers, e.g. BABA BEG, is BABA-BEG and is so named. I don't know how we'd change that? scope_creep^Talk 16:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should remove these volume numbers, they are just a distraction and may irritate the FAC reviewers, especially since we already have the ISBNs. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]

@Matarisvan: I think this is done. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Done. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, the only remaining sources which need locations of publication now are: Abitbol 1979, Chenntouf 1999, Coller 2020, Egilsson 2018, Galibert 1843, de Lange 2024, La'raj 1990, Lowenheim 2009, Martin 2003, Saidouni 2020, Shaler 1826, Shillington 2013, Ward et al 1905, Zahhār 1974. Y

Also, I think there is an error in the location for Plantet 1894, where Paris comes up two times. Matarisvan (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Y[reply]

@Matarisvan: That is them done apart from Egilsson 2018, Lowenheim 2009, Shillington 2013 that can't identified. I've fixed Plantet. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor changes to the images that are needed, paging @Elinruby, @Nourerrahmane and @Scope creep.

1. The two images in the Administration section, namely that of the Palace and the Admiralty will not be considered valid at FAC or even GAC. This is because the sources have been listed as online auction platforms, which do not allow copyright release. You will have to find the original website sources and list them here.
2. Two images in the culture section, namely the photos of the Arab embroidery school and the coppersmith at Casbah are not valid here, as they are from 1899 and the 21st century respectively. The period we are dealing with here is from 1516-1830, so you will have to find something from this period.

Also the time period of the Karakou image needs to be listed as per comment no. 2. All other images seem to be ok. Also I will have to look into the alts and image sizes, I will add comments on this by day end. Matarisvan (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

online auction site you say? There might be more like that. What about Sotheby's?