The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image does not illustrate the structure very well, I would replace it with
this image.
There is information in the lead that does not appear in the main article, and which should: (tr. Long Bridge); The bridge gave its name to the nearby town of Uzunköprü; (In 1971), Uzunköprü was widened to 6.80 metres (22.3 ft).
several cracks – these appeared 2019, but the text appears to say they were seen in 2021.
tr. - avoid abbreviations such as this.
Swapped with template.
Just checking, the Turkish name for the bridge—Uzun Köprü—doesn't match the article title. Is the accepted name in English Uzun Köprü, Uzunköprü Bridge, or simply Uzunköprü? In any case,
Turkish: Uzun Köprü should be included in the first sentence.
Usage of Uzun Köprü (two words) is very rare in Turkish. I assume it was done to disambiguate the bridge and the actual town. I don't think a lot of policies and guidelines were present on trwiki back in those days. Mentions of the bridge in English sources seem to be limited, and generally use "Bridge of Uzunköprü" or simply "Uzunköprü". I think the correct title for this article would be as is, or
Uzunköpru (bridge).
OK, let's keep the name as it is, most readers will understand perfectly well what is meant. AM
I have not included any copy editing issues (there are some), I'll add these later. More comments to follow. AM
1 Background
Link Ottoman; tides.
Murad II – needs introducing, e.g. ‘Sultan Murad II’ (here and in the construction section).
Gallipoli–Edirne route – unlink Edirne (duplicate link).
before construction – consider amending this to something like ‘before construction of any new bridge’, for the sake of clarity.
Murad II ordered a new stone bridge – ‘In 1443, Murad II ordered a new stone bridge’?
The date is actually disputed: according to
Hoca Sadeddin Efendi construction started in 1426. The 1427 comes from Karaçelebizade Abdülaziz Efendi. Most sources list both dates as equally reliable. Keep in mind the Ottoman Empire was using a
completely different calendar back then.
All of what you have said here is relevant for the text, and I would include it in a note.
Amitchell125 (
talk) 09:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Already done.
Missed it! :) AM
difficult - 'impossible', surely?
Difficult, it wasn't (and isn't) flooding everytime
Understood. AM
up from spinose structures – of vegetation’ makes more sense imo, as thorny bushes wouldn’t have been the only plants that needed to be cleared.
Spinose structures were explicitly mentioned by the source. I added "and vegetation"
I added it as "Further reading" for now. I will go through it later to see if I can expand the article with it.
More comments to follow. AM
Copy editing
I've started checking through the article for issues with the prose, and realised that I will have too many comments if i continue, and will become a significant contributor, something I am not allowed to be. I think there are two ways forward here:
The article could be listed under
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and the review is paused until it is copy edited. The article will then pass, but there might be a wait of a couple of months.
I fail the article so that I can help you with the copy editing. The article is then reviewed by another editor at some future date.
Oh, OK. I guess I'll take option 2 and fail the nomination. GoCE always took extremely long for me.
Styyx (
talk) 08:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, before we finish this review, please:
finish sorting out the above comments, which all need to be addressed before the article is re-nominated. I'll cross them out to show they are sorted. Done
After I've failed the article, I'll start copy editing. Feel free to message me if I make any accidental errors.
When the copy editing is done, I'll let you know—there's a Good Article drive this month, so if we can get the work done and you-re-nominate fast enough, the chances are the article will reviewed pretty quickly. Regards,
Amitchell125 (
talk) 09:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Adding small red crosses (N) to show what is still to be sorted. AM
Amitchell125, I think we had an edit conflict on the article.
Styyx (
talk) 09:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies if I caused it. AM
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The image does not illustrate the structure very well, I would replace it with
this image.
There is information in the lead that does not appear in the main article, and which should: (tr. Long Bridge); The bridge gave its name to the nearby town of Uzunköprü; (In 1971), Uzunköprü was widened to 6.80 metres (22.3 ft).
several cracks – these appeared 2019, but the text appears to say they were seen in 2021.
tr. - avoid abbreviations such as this.
Swapped with template.
Just checking, the Turkish name for the bridge—Uzun Köprü—doesn't match the article title. Is the accepted name in English Uzun Köprü, Uzunköprü Bridge, or simply Uzunköprü? In any case,
Turkish: Uzun Köprü should be included in the first sentence.
Usage of Uzun Köprü (two words) is very rare in Turkish. I assume it was done to disambiguate the bridge and the actual town. I don't think a lot of policies and guidelines were present on trwiki back in those days. Mentions of the bridge in English sources seem to be limited, and generally use "Bridge of Uzunköprü" or simply "Uzunköprü". I think the correct title for this article would be as is, or
Uzunköpru (bridge).
OK, let's keep the name as it is, most readers will understand perfectly well what is meant. AM
I have not included any copy editing issues (there are some), I'll add these later. More comments to follow. AM
1 Background
Link Ottoman; tides.
Murad II – needs introducing, e.g. ‘Sultan Murad II’ (here and in the construction section).
Gallipoli–Edirne route – unlink Edirne (duplicate link).
before construction – consider amending this to something like ‘before construction of any new bridge’, for the sake of clarity.
Murad II ordered a new stone bridge – ‘In 1443, Murad II ordered a new stone bridge’?
The date is actually disputed: according to
Hoca Sadeddin Efendi construction started in 1426. The 1427 comes from Karaçelebizade Abdülaziz Efendi. Most sources list both dates as equally reliable. Keep in mind the Ottoman Empire was using a
completely different calendar back then.
All of what you have said here is relevant for the text, and I would include it in a note.
Amitchell125 (
talk) 09:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Already done.
Missed it! :) AM
difficult - 'impossible', surely?
Difficult, it wasn't (and isn't) flooding everytime
Understood. AM
up from spinose structures – of vegetation’ makes more sense imo, as thorny bushes wouldn’t have been the only plants that needed to be cleared.
Spinose structures were explicitly mentioned by the source. I added "and vegetation"
I added it as "Further reading" for now. I will go through it later to see if I can expand the article with it.
More comments to follow. AM
Copy editing
I've started checking through the article for issues with the prose, and realised that I will have too many comments if i continue, and will become a significant contributor, something I am not allowed to be. I think there are two ways forward here:
The article could be listed under
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and the review is paused until it is copy edited. The article will then pass, but there might be a wait of a couple of months.
I fail the article so that I can help you with the copy editing. The article is then reviewed by another editor at some future date.
Oh, OK. I guess I'll take option 2 and fail the nomination. GoCE always took extremely long for me.
Styyx (
talk) 08:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
OK, before we finish this review, please:
finish sorting out the above comments, which all need to be addressed before the article is re-nominated. I'll cross them out to show they are sorted. Done
After I've failed the article, I'll start copy editing. Feel free to message me if I make any accidental errors.
When the copy editing is done, I'll let you know—there's a Good Article drive this month, so if we can get the work done and you-re-nominate fast enough, the chances are the article will reviewed pretty quickly. Regards,
Amitchell125 (
talk) 09:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Adding small red crosses (N) to show what is still to be sorted. AM
Amitchell125, I think we had an edit conflict on the article.
Styyx (
talk) 09:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies if I caused it. AM
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.