Wikipedia:Peer review/Istanbul/archive1

Istanbul

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm soliciting a peer review for the Istanbul article because I'm hoping to bring this to WP:FAC next month. I have worked on this article on and off (largely off) for the past two years, and recently, I put in a lot of effort to try to get this finished before the summer. This is, as you can see, a very long article—and that is one of the issues I need addressed—so I've broken it down into areas where I feel need the most help (some of which require reading little to none of the article). Of course, those with the will and desire to read the entire thing and provide more lengthy feedback are free to do so!

Article length: By my estimation, the article has about 85 kilobytes of prose. This is below the 100-kB upper limit suggested by Wikipedia:Article size, but it's still quite long. Obviously, Istanbul is a very large city, with many aspects that need to be covered. But, I'd appreciate some feedback on which sections need some cutting down, and in what way. Notice that several of the sections do not have daughter articles. Recommendations on whether I should create said daughter articles (although I am not putting time in expanding them into comprehensive, self-sufficient articles) or just delete the information altogether would be appreciated. However, when saying a section is too long, please actually read the section first. The length requirements are not hard and fast (some articles just necessitate more), and so I would like assurance that you believe a section is too long because it has unnecessary detail, not because it just looks long.

References: Half the article's length is due to references. Are there too many references? Not enough (oh God)? Things referenced that don't really need to be? I'll try to go through the books to see if I could reuse print references more often (many of those listed are only used once), but is what we have now a problem? Also, are there some references that aren't good enough?

Image choice: What do you think of the number, quality, and relevance of images in the article? (Yes, I know many of them need alt text, but I'm not writing alt text when images are being replaced and readded left, right, and center.)

Missing information: Is there information missing that you believe should be in the article? Does the article spend too much time on certain points, when it should be focusing on something else?

Note that I have not proofread the article from beginning to end, so nitpicks about grammar or spelling, while fine, are unnecessary. I'm confident with my English ability, and I'll allow the folks over at FAC to find whatever I end up missing. Note also that part of the reason for putting forth a peer review is so that I don't have to respond to feedback immediately (unlike at FAC, where doing so can sink a nomination). So, it might be days before I fix something you think needs to be fixed.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 05:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by İnfoCan: Missing information

The article has gone through a lot of improvement during the last year, thanks for your efforts. You are looking to shorten the article but actually it is still not comprehensive enough. I haven't read the article in detail but I can see that there are some major aspects of the topic that have not been touched upon:

1) The city and province have had the same boundaries since 2004, so they should be covered together. The two geographic entities differ only in their administrative details and histories, while all other aspects of these two entities (economy, transportation, climate, culture, etc.) are identical. So, to avoid content forking (as it has happened on the Turkish Wikipedia), their articles should be merged. The merger was previously discussed here, there was consensus (those who were opposed turned out to be uninformed) but nobody got around to implement it. If the merge is to be done, then the Administration section should discuss the municipal and provincial administration separately. Similarly, because historically the boundaries of the city and the province have been different, their histories should be reviewed under separate subheadings. The Turkish Wikipedia has plenty of information on the administrative history of the Istanbul Province here and the administrative subdivisions of the Istanbul province [1][2][3].

2) The article lacks sections on the the environment (environmental issues, fauna, flora and water resources), the military (strategic importance, military installations), and traditional culture (cuisine, folklore, local celebrations). The Turkish Wikipedia has information on most of these topics [4] (except the military).

Best wishes. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm going to act on either of these points. I was kind of hoping with the "Missing information" category, people would also suggest information that should be replaced. Since you don't do that, I find myself hesitant to add even more content without just cause. Regarding the Province information, it seems illogical to add separate sections on the history of the province and separate the provincial and municipal administrations. While the boundaries are coterminous, if the Istanbul Province still has some meaning today, and had some meaning in the past, it ought to remain at its own separate article, where information on that can be written in great depth without cluttering an already oversized article that should focus on the city.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure does not stipulate the inclusion of sections on the environment or the military. That being said, water resources are already mentioned in various parts of the article. Environmental issues (like what?) can probably be mentioned in the geography section, if they are especially notable. The Culture section is one of the areas that I believe could use some help (that's a very challenging article to write from a distant vantage point). I feel cuisine is already covered in enough depth, but folklore and local celebrations could be added, replacing other information currently about leisure and entertainment. If you have some ideas or content to contribute, that would be great (especially if you have reliable sources -- and not just anecdotal evidence -- supporting them). Even if you don't have such sources immediately available, feel free to share what you're thinking of, and I can try to find sources corroborating your points. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have changed your view regarding the city and the province needing to be discussed together [5]. The issue of complexity can be handled by daughter articles but from an organizational point of view, but the city and province articles need to be merged because otherwise you will get content forking. I believe the other topics mentioned are needed to make the article comprehensive. Use Google Translate on the relevant Turkish Wikipedia articles to get an idea of what is missing. Given the restrictions on article size, these topics have to be dealt with superficially and again the reader would have to be directed to daughter articles. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on this article, so feel awkward making these suggestions. I am sure you will do a good job pulling the article together. --İnfoCan (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the aim of the merge is to just replace Istanbul Province with a redirect to Istanbul, I'd probably be fine with that. After all, the Istanbul Province article, as it exists now, contains nothing that isn't in the Istanbul article. But, if, as you suggest, a merge will necessitate explaining a different system of administration or talking about the history of the entire province (information that, years later, still isn't written in the Istanbul Province article), then, yes, I do withdraw what I said. A history of the city of Istanbul should not require going in to depth about areas that 100 years ago were not considered part of the city, but are/were part of the province. That's just unreasonable.

I've looked at the Turkish version of the Istanbul article and, while it contains some useful demographic information only available in Turkish, its Culture section looks very similar to the Culture section here prior to me cutting it down. The information present there is already presented here in summary format, and I see nothing about folklore or local celebrations. The same can be said about the rest of the article. Frankly, I don't think the Turkish version of the Istanbul article is something we should be striving for; it is the opposite of concise. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at the Turkish version of the Istanbul Province article [6] to see sections on the environment (fauna, flora, etc.) and folklore, cuisine, local celebrations. It is not concise and it is redundant. But there is some useful material.

The current section on Administration is actually adequate for a top-level summary. I think the Istanbul Province article can just be deleted and daughter articles on the History of Istanbul Province and Subdivisions of Istanbul Province be created.--İnfoCan (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

Using the prose size tool, the article has the following Document statistics: (See here for details.)

File size: 590 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 125 kB References (including all HTML code): 22 kB Wiki text: 159 kB Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12059 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 1448 B Images: 646 kB

Since Wikipedia:Article size suggests trimming anything than 50 kB (10000 words) of readable text, this seems like it might benefir from some trimming. Note that this can be as simple as tightening the text. One example - look at this paragraph on airports

Istanbul has two international airports, the larger of which is Atatürk International Airport. Atatürk International, located 24 kilometers (15 mi) west of the city center, handled 37.4 million passengers in 2011; this ranks it the eighth-busiest airport in Europe and among the thirty busiest in the world.[252] Sabiha Gökçen International Airport opened on the Asian side of the city, 45 kilometres (28 mi) east of the European city center, to relieve Atatürk International. Sabiha Gökçen is dominated by low-cost carriers, with destinations in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Istanbul's second airport has rapidly become popular among travelers in the ten years since it opened, in 2001; the airport handled 12.7 million passengers in 2011, two years after a new international terminal opened, and was named the world's fastest growing airport by Airports Council International the same year.[253][254]

This could be tightened to something like this, which is about 2/3 the size:

Atatürk International, the larger of Istanbul's two international airports, is 24 kilometers (15 mi) west of the city center. Its 37.4 million passengers in 2011 made it the eighth-busiest airport in Europe, and among the thirty busiest in the world.[252] Sabiha Gökçen International Airport, 45 kilometres (28 mi) east of the city center, opened in 2001 to relieve Atatürk International. Sabiha Gökçen is dominated by low-cost carriers and handled 12.7 million passengers in 2011, when Airports Council International named it the world's fastest growing airport.[253][254]

I mostly tried to avoid needless repetition, but I trimmed a few things as well. Per WP:Summary style, the focus should be on Istanbul with links to the airport articles and a few details to give the interested reader a feel for what the airports are like - if the reader wants to know more about Attaturk or Sabiha G., they can follow the links. I do not see where it is necessary for this article to say when a new terminal opened at one airport, and at this point in the article a reader should know that east of city center is in Asia (and west is in Europe). Please note that WP:WIAFA 1a is a professional level of prose, so tightening is needed anyway.

The biggest pronblem this would face at FAC is a lack of references. There are quite a few statements like this without refs that need them Even prior to the closure of Haydarpaşa, intercity travel by coach was the most popular mode of domestic travel.
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Anything which follows a ref, but is itself with out a ref needs a citation.
WP:MOSIMAGE says not to sandwich text between images, but on my computer monitor there are snadwiches in Ottoman and Turkish era, Geography, and Public services.
Avoid vague time terms like "current" or "currently" - so Hüseyin Avni Mutlu is the current Governor of the Istanbul Province since May 2010.[109] could just be Since May 2010, Hüseyin Avni Mutlu is the Governor of the Istanbul Province .[109] and things like Currently, some sources estimate that three million residents of Istanbul—a quarter of the city's population—is Kurdish,[126] meaning there are more Kurds in Istanbul than in any other city in the world.[127] need a year (ref 126 is from 2005, so I would use that year).
ANother one of the FA criteria is stabiity - if there is a dispute on the inclusion of the province in the article, that should be resolved before FAC.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]