Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian occupations of Beirut/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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 [1].

Russian occupations of Beirut

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers an unusual series of events in the history of Beirut. In both 1772 and late 1773-early 1774, the city came under brief Russian occupation as part of a wider Russo-Turkish war. It marks the first occupation of its kind for an Arab city and the first time Beirut falls to a European power since the Ottoman conquest of the region in 1516. With the exception of a German-annotated map in the lead (which I hope is not a serious issue), I believe it meets all the FA criteria. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an English version of the map. Credit goes to Don-kun. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support Comments: G'day, interesting topic and nicely done. Makes me realised there is so much I don't know about history! Fascinating. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there are no dab links, and the ext links all seem to work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the map
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, suggest adding the years that the occupations occurred to the first sentence
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "small Russian squadron": suggest wikilinking to Squadron (naval) here and on first mention in the body
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead of providing soldiers to the Porte...": as a lay reader, I wasn't sure what "Porte" meant here. Could this be linked, or explained? (Potentially in a note?)
Done. I linked to Sublime Porte instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done (plus alt text). But it reads as "Battle of Çesme" in the caption instead of "Battle of Chesma", as it appears to be an officially given name to the painting. Hope it's okay. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine with me, although potentially a note might be added explaining the difference in spelling. Not a warstoper for me, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added a separate note group within the caption. Tell me what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "550,000 qirsh worth of loot": per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Suggest maybe changing it to "A total of 550,000 qirsh..." or something similar
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Marti work. The cite book template supports "|trans-title=" as a field, which could be used to format the translation
Not done. I don't feel comfortable adding my own translation or that of Google Translate, as I'm not an Italian speaker. Do you have someone in mind who could help with that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mariomassone can verify a translation from Italian? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bear with me, it's 18th century italian; "History of the war in Syria in the year 1771: From the arms of Aly-Bey of Egypt and the further successes of the aforementioned Aly-Bey to the present year of 1772" Mariomassone (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
My first one, yes. I was actually talking to Ameer a couple of years ago about Ali Bey, asking whether he had relevant sources that could be used to expand articles in this topic area. Too bad indeed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response to Russian violation of the Ottoman border while suppressing a Polish uprising, among other factors" Kind of long and confusing sentence. Who was suppressing the Polish uprising? I of course assume the Russians, but the wording here could go both ways.
Done. But in doing so, I had to expand a little, which some might consider a bit off-topic. Sources treating the occupations wouldn't mention the casus belli of the war. In fact, Persen intentionally omits it: "For reasons which are outside the limits of this paper, the Sultan declared war on Russia in 1768." Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good with this extra context. This is not a research paper after all, but should be able to stand alone. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ali Bey and other things only linked in the intro (like Druze and Beirut) should also be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Battle of Chesma" This is spelled "Chesma" in the linked article, and "Çesme in the adjacent image caption. Perhaps there could be consistency, what is the most common spelling?
The battle article calls it "Chesma", but the town's name on Wikipedia is Çeşme, which also appears in the name that was officially given to the painting, either by Aivazovsky himself or by the Feodosia gallery hosting it. A bit like Gdańsk/Danzig. No idea what should be done about this though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this solves the issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could maybe be good for orientation to show an image of how Beirut looked at the time, if such are available. Perhaps under "aftermath".
There are none on this project that I'm aware of. But it would be great if someone uploaded the maps analysed and recreated in this initiative. One of them can be found here (second map in the bottom second row of the gallery); it's from the Atlas of the Archipelago. Another one, which is the main subject of this study, is the von Palen map that is currently in the Russian State Navy Archive. Thing is, the image policy and I don't seem to get along that well. So there isn't much I can do about this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maps that old would definitely be in the public domain by now, see the PD Russia template:[2] I think one of them could be a great addition to the article, they don't have to be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can upload the one from Atlas of the Archipelago. I prefer the von Palen map though. But I couldn't find it on Google Images (the one in the PDF I linked contains a blue frame and removing it may disrupt the map's quality). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what you think: File:Beirut in the Atlas of the Archipelago.png. I hate the quality though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing, I'll see if I can extract it in better quality, otherwise someone will probably do it down the line if they see it in the article. There is a way to download full res images from those weird tiled flash things, but I never got the hang of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maghrebis" links to Maghrebi Arabic, which I'm not sure is appropriate (we're talking about people, not a language). Maybe a link to Maghreb would be better.
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Persen played down", "Perminov" Why not give full names to all historians?
Persen's first name is already mentioned in the 'First occupation' section. That said, done. As for Perminov, I honestly don't know his full name and Catlemur (see the GA review) couldn't explicitly figure it out either, apparently. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described it as an early manifestation of modern Soviet assistance" This could need a date for context. Also, how exactly does he phrase it? Seems a bit strange to give the Soviets credit for something that happened long before they existed...
Regarding date for context, I mentioned the Cold War, per the source. I felt like the article needed a Russian/Soviet perspective, and this is probably the only prominent one I could find throughout my research on the subject. Since the scholar's full name is already an issue, do you think the sentence should be removed altogether? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to keep it for perspective in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular template do you have in mind? This one? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think an additional tag like the one here[3] is what could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here. Didn't notice "additional" in your comment. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

An interesting read, some comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • imprisoned and died a few days later— how? No indication whether he was executed, already injured, ill or whatever
  • Hard to confirm. He was most likely poisoned on the orders of Abu al-Dhahab (du Quenoy, p. 135). Wouldn't it be a bit off-topic to delve into such controversies in this article? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abu al-Dhahab to turn against Ali Bey and that he would be made ruler of Egypt in his stead.—I'd try to avoid he... his when they are different people
  • Perhaps mention that the Druze are not Muslim in any standard sense?
Butting in here, I was almost about to ask why you even had to mention their sect, as this is not mentioned for any of the other actors, but I guess in this sense it is more like a "tribal" designation than of strictly religious significance. But as such, I don't think it has much relevance whether they are considered Muslim or not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not a big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you can forgive me for this. Druze is already linked twice in the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you linked to Google Books in your refs? Unless free full text is available, it's annoying for readers and reviewers to click through and find nothing worthwhile, and you are just linking to a sales site that's giving nothing back in return. Even if there is some preview text (not the case for me in the UK for those I checked) accessibility varies from country to country and isn't permanent, so personally I don't even previews in my own FAs
  • Anderson is fine, thanks. I'm thinking of links like eg Khalaf and Solov'ev which link to pages that have no actual text, just links to sales sites, in one case complete with a price. At best a waste of time following the link, at worse links to sales sites. I'm not going to oppose on this point, the fact that you do it and I don't doesn't mean I'm right, but I'd be interested to know your reasoning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added links with search results. I used the Solov'ev and Mariti books only because they contained the full names of the admirals (Kozhukhov's and Alexiano's respectively). I couldn't find a Solov'ev version that has a good preview besides this, which I added. The Khalaf e-book I found doesn't have page numbers, so I replaced the link in the article with this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the point I'm getting that is that hard sources like books and journals don't have to have a link because they can in principle be verified elsewhere. My just-promoted Ham Wall had only three of seven books courtesy-linked since the others didn't have full free text, similarly some of the journals were unlinked, eg refs 4 and 26-28. Anyway, I said I wouldn't oppose on this issue, so changed to support above, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I like the idea of having no links at all. Most of them are useless previews anyway (even the Anderson book I feel uncomfortable with), and there is of course the possibility that you'll encounter some copies with different/invalid/lack of page numbers. Okay if I removed the whole lot of them? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said, I'd only keep any link if it gives permanent free access, which mostly applies to out-of-copyright material and some reports not controlled by the academic publishing companies. But your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to delink them all except for Mariti's book, because it has two volumes that can be easily mixed up by readers (happened to me during this review). I don't trust e-books to remain freely accessible forever. And, like you said, the validity of such sources can be easily verified elsewhere. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I've no access to these sources. From my perspective they look reasonably comprehensive, many of them recent studies, and thus appear to be of the appropriate standard of quality and reliability.

One tiny presentational point: the page range in ref 2 should have a ndash not a hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo

[edit]

Read for: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," gender, plagiarism style check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check, 3 (quotes, tables, illustrative narrative digressions) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1b: Comprehensiveness reflects the source basis.
  • 1c: I'm happy with the research completeness, it looks like English language exhaustion, and given the Russian historiography noted I'm not sure other languages will prove fruitful given they've been addressed in historiographically commenting recent articles.
  • 1c: HQRS basis looks good. Khalaf's publisher seems to be letting him down in terms of printing quality, in contrast with his previous outlets for Expert works on Lebanon in Colombia UP for example.
  • 1c: Similarly the use of a variety of HQRS with a recent paper central. Given the size of the literature I think this counts as reflecting the scholarly consensus.
  • 1c: Historiography good weight, oh Russian historians I understand the limits you have worked under, but. Well done.
  • 1c: Checked for appropriate use of PRIMARY: appropriate. No Tertiary sources.
  • 1c: I don't see a "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht" risk, due to the detached nature in time and place of scholarly myths, and the up front nature about pillage and hostages in the narrative.
  • 1c: Query: As far as the social history trio go, I think gender may be the concern. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers gendered in terms of weight in the HQRS source basis?
  • 1c: Plagiarism style check. Checks out. Consistent voice and style throughout.
  • 1d: Neutral tone follows scholarly basis.
  • 2b: Structure and basis seems to follow literature mapped onto MILMOS conventional article styles.
  • 2c: Fixits: citation check
    • fixed dashes / en spacing for you in two footnotes
    • I don't know what you mean to fix it for you: "{{Harvnb|Solov'ev|1991|p=102}}{{rp|endnote, p. 287}}", do you mean {{Harvnb|Solov'ev|1991|p=102, endnote at p. 287}}?
      • This is what I meant, yes. I wanted to include Kozhukhov's full name in the article (other sources only mention him by his last name or by "M. G. Kozhukhov"). I found his last name on p. 102 of the Solov'ev book while p. 287 has his full name, both of which confirm his involvement in Beirut. And I didn't feel comfortable citing the endnote alone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably a pretty printing issue?: There's a mix of references to the template for your short-footnotes of sfn and harvnb. They're ALMOST but not quite the same style, "Template {{harvnb}} inside a <ref> span can be used to create a Shortened footnotes that is linked to the full citation at the bottom of the article. Template {{sfn}} (without the use of <ref>) has the same effect and it also combines identical footnotes automatically." sfn count: 41; harvnb: 23.
      • It's just a visual preference of mine. I don't like seeing more than one reference at the end of a sentence, especially when it follows a comma. I adds too much space between the punctuation and the new sentence, which I find very unpleasant to look at. So I chose to merge them into combo refs, and I very rarely add more than two. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a pretty printing issue: Trailing full-stops, (chuck 'em at the end of <ref>{{harvnb}}; {{harvnb}}'''.'''</ref> if you go with harvnb?)
    • Wouldn't Khalif deserve a page number?
  • 3: The quotes, tables and digressive narratives in notes are appropriate, don't dominate, and illustrate the article. Didn't check any images.

Sources Review ongoing Fifelfoo

[edit]

That's one source, still going. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Catlemur

[edit]

Apparently I have a book on the Archipelago Expedition in my library which I had totally forgot about. It contains information that is currently missing from the article. For example there was an attempt on the Russian side to create an alliance with the Barbary pirates even before the successful collaboration with Zahir and Shihab.--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the addition. Though I'm glad there's finally a Russian language source in the article, I have some concerns about this paragraph: 1) I don't think the first part about "Hagarians" is relevant in this article about this particular occupation. And it would help to know what the actual text says because it's not even religiously or historically accurate, since Sarah and Hagar are two different Biblical characters. 2) Which particular Ali Pasha are we talking about here? Is he that guy? 3) While English is not my native language either, I can confidently say that "autonomisation" is not an English word. Did you mean "tendency towards autonomy"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove or modify any of my additions. 1) That is my mistake I meant Hagar and not Sarah. 2) Ali Pasha the ruler of Tripolitania. 3) it is according to Wiktionary, the z is turned to s since we use British Engvar.--Catlemur (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular Ali Pasha, though? Can the subject be wikilinked? As far as my knowledge of Barbary rulers goes, it could be either Trabluslu Ali Pasha or "Ali I Pasha" (third guy on that list). It's most likely the latter, but it should still be specified in the article based on what the source says. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Karamanli guy.--Catlemur (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book contains a detailed account of how Ali Bey established contact with the Russians, including his letter to Venice and Feodor Orlov's mission. I do not know whether it should all be included in the article though. I also expanded the background section in regard's to Ali Bey's earlier collaboration with the Sultan and the reasons behind his alliance with Zahir.--Catlemur (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from White Shadows

[edit]
  • It is—
    (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
Perhaps the red link to "Mediterranean Fleet" should appear first in the lead of the article?
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
"with the first one taking place in June 1772 and the second one from October 1773 to early 1774." Do we know when in 1774?
Unclear. Per du Quenoy (p. 137), which is the more updated source, it's either late January or early February. So I didn't think such detail was worth mentioning in the lead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what the tonnage of the ships listed under "Order of battle" was?
I consider myself lucky to have found Anderson's book, which mentions most of the ships involved in the campaign (I plan to use it for Mediterranean Fleet (Russian Empire) later on) but not the tonnage. So no, I doubt there are any non-Russian language sources containing this particular detail. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This checks out!
  • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
This checks out!
  • It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
    (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
I've never see citations that include more than one source in them. Is that consistent with WP:MOS?
As mentioned earlier, it's simply a matter of visual preference, which I hope is not an issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This checks out!

I'll be sure to add any info or issues I run across soon. Added this template right now so I can conduct my review. At first glance, seems to be a really interesting article!--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White Shadows, did you want anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s me done. Great job Ian! Happy to support!—White Shadows Let’s Talk 05:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I copy edited this for GOCE and so it has been suggested that I contribute to this review. I thought at the time that it was a fine article and am not surprised that it is on the brink of FA status. Some fiddley thoughts:

OK.
Yes please.
Which tool would you consider reliable for such a task? While I understand where you're coming from and how useful this might be for our readers, I have to also admit that I don't feel comfortable using modern estimates, given how those cities evolved considerably over the past two and a half centuries. Not saying I won't do it. But someone should to point me to the right tool. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something along the lines of "The noise was so loud it could be heard in Sidon, over 25 miles (40 km) away."
I think that your average reader will have little if any idea of where Sidon is, and without an indication of this the sentence fails to communicate anything. This indication does not need to be at all precise. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but with "about" instead of "over", since the flying distance is what counts here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You have a fine article here. I probably said that when I copy edited it. Happy to support it for FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2018 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Russian_occupations_of_Beirut/archive1&oldid=1138470435"