Talk:Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great Seljuks: Guardians of Justice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Improve the non-free use rationale of the poster with this template.
  • Don't use small font in the infobox per MOS:SMALLFONT.
  • Resolve the issue with the "[pronunciation?]" tag in the first sentence.
  • "TV series" → "television series"
  • "was released" → "premiered"
  • Try moving some references here to #Production per MOS:TVLEAD.
  • Add (2014–2019) after Diriliş: Ertuğrul.
  • "why the TV series is gaining" → "why the television series gained"
  • I'm not sure whether the first part of the sentence beginning with "One of the reasons" is necessary (I would remove it).
  • The second mention of Emre Konuk should just be Konuk.

Synopsis and cast[edit]

  • These sections look great.

Episodes[edit]

  • The article titled "List of Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu episodes" should not exist [yet]. Merge it back into this article per MOS:TVSPLIT, which states that "it would take between 50 and 60 episodes to warrant separating those summaries off the main page to an List of Episodes page."
  • After doing so, add episode summaries for every episode that has aired so far (in your own words).

Production[edit]

  • I don't believe the quote block template is necessary, so I suggest adding it instead to the end of the sentence.
  • "show. In which, Gülsoy said" → "show, in which Gülsoy said"
  • "casted" → "cast"
  • Remove "skilfully" (not a neutral word).

Reception[edit]

  • Add a "Critical response" header/subsection.
  • Expand this section with the help of WP:RECEPTION.
  • "gaining popularity for the casting of famous actors" is trivial. Most shows get popular due to the actors in them so it's not that important.
  • Don't use small font in the table per MOS:SMALLFONT.

References[edit]

  • Archive all archivable sources (use this tool first and then try adding them manually).
  • I'm not sure whether "fav10" is a reliable source, so I would suggest finding replacements.
  • A lot of sources are missing authors/websites/dates so try retrieving that information.
  • In the "|website=" parameter, try finding an official title instead of inserting an actual link (ex. www.gazetevatan.com → Gazete Vatan)

Progress[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Comments[edit]

  • Some Dude From North Carolina, firstly, I don't know where to comment so please move this to the appropriate area if necessary. I can't find much information at all for a critical response section. I checked almost every website (Hürriyet, Sözcü, etc.) but they're either plot summaries or an actor's (or the person a character is historically based on) biography. Is this section absolutely necessary? Limorina (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: The subsection is necessary, but what you have now is fine. Just add a header and take care of the rest of my suggestions and/or add comments. When you do, ping me again so I can take a look at your progress. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina, I've done most of the things you have told me to do. I just have to date the citations. It's a bit hard trying to find plot summaries and I don't know if I can do it in two days. The author information for the citations is pretty unclear too for some of them. Limorina (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: No worries! Since most of my suggestions have been already been addressed, I am passing the article (just try to remove references from the lead already mentioned in other sections per MOS:LEAD). Great work! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English name[edit]

The article states that this series is called The Great Seljuks: Guardians of Justice in English. Is that just a convenience translation or does it have some sort of 'official' status? If the latter, then shouldn't this article be moved to the English name (obviously with a redirect from the current name), given that this is the English-language Wikipedia? Compare with how eg. Immortals is under its English name (not under Yaşamayanlar); same with Three Monkeys (not Üç Maymun); ditto Memed, My Hawk (not İnce Memed), etc. And yes, I'm aware that there are also many that are listed under their Turkish names, but I think they (those that have 'official' English names) could/should equally be moved. Any thoughts? (Tagging the article creator @Limorina: for comments.) Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing:, it has an official status (a few sources that call it this: [1], [2], [3]) but I think it should stay the way it is now because it is most commonly known this way by English-speaking people and I think an article title for a television series is decided by how they are referred to most commonly. Even IMDb refers to it as this. Limorina (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Limorina: I'm not sure IMDb is the arbiter here, they're not even considered RS on Wikipedia, and I don't know what their naming etc. policies are in this respect. As for how English-speakers refer to this series, what's the evidence that they "most commonly" use the Turkish original name? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing:, I just said IMDb to strengthen my point a little. Websites that air the series with English subtitles refer to it with the Turkish original title. I personally would search the Turkish title rather than the English one (I didn't even know that there was an official English title before creating the article), and there really isn't many sources (in English) that use the English title. You can do a WP:RM if you like. Thanks. Limorina (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: fine, but the point surely isn't how you would search for it; in any case, in your earlier comment you said that how it's "most commonly known [...] by English-speaking people", and I'm asking how do you know that? Similar case: I might search for the Finnish TV series by its original name Sorjonen, and when I do, it finds it, and redirects me to the article under its English name Bordertown (Finnish TV series), because (presumably) that's how it's mostly known in the international markets. Also, see WP:UE, which seems to suggest the English name should prevail, unless there's a good reason not to. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing:, unofficial websites that air the television series with English subtitles (two examples: [4], [5]) nearly all the time call it Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu. Most sources refer to it like this and those that don't refer to it by its old name, Nizam-ı Alem. WP:UE says "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject." As you can see, most sources in the article call it Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu. Limorina (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: the passage from WP:UE you've quoted doesn't apply here; it refers to Anglicisation: if, for example, there was no standard rendering of Atatürk's name in English — being shown variously as Ataturk, Atatuerk or Atatürk — you should in such instances go with the original.
In any case, why are you so much insisting on keeping this on the Turkish title, against the principle of using English-language names on English-language wiki? It seems your main argument is that that's how most people (allegedly; no evidence presented so far) would search for it, but a simple redirect will take care of that anyway. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing:, the evidence for that most-commonly-thing is that most or nearly all sources refer to it with the Turkish title, even in this article, and that there are more sources using its old title (Nizam-ı Alem) than the English one. I think that the "principle of using English-language names" may not apply if most sources use the original title. Limorina (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: well of course the sources cited refer to it by its Turkish name — they're all Turkish sources! What else you got? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I was still typing before you replied. I was going to say this: The "principle of using English-language names" does not apply if most sources use the original title per WP:EN. And if I misunderstood and it is referring to English sources then still it should be the original title because unofficial websites that air the series with English subtitles (referenced before) use the original title too. Limorina (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Further to what Limorina said, the series is aired under the name Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu in the UK. As I said below, the same applies for using the Turkish name with Diriliş: Ertuğrul, Kuruluş: Osman and Payitaht: Abdülhamid, as they are most commonly referred to with those names. As someone who has occasionally watched UBS with English subtitles, and is familiar with lots of people that regularly do, I had never heard of that English name before I saw it on this article. IronManCap (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IronManCap:, maybe DE should be called Resurrection Ertuğrul as it is referred to as that on Netflix (Turkish television series on Netflix are usually referred to with their English names on WP like Rise of Empires: Ottoman and The Protector) and in many English sources. Limorina (t • c) 08:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: If we did that, KO would have to be called "Establishment: Osman" for consistency, which would be a bit odd for readers. There are quite a few sources calling DE by the Turkish name as well. Maybe we could have Resurrection: Ertuğrul as a name underneath Diriliş: Ertuğrul in the ‘name’ parameter for the article. IronManCap (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Issues remain, nominator has retired, and editor who had been looking after nomination is no longer doing so; closing per latest review

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Limorina (talk). Self-nominated at 08:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC). Review comments to Chidgk1 please as Limorina has now retired from Wikipedia according to their user page[reply]

  • No, you have to link and bold the article in each hook. Also, neither of these hooks are particularly interesting or unusual. It isn't strange for a government official to visit a major production and actors probably celebrate birthdays on set all the time. (t · c) buidhe 14:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's some potential in ALT3 but right now it needs to have some grammatical fixes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turkish word "plato" does mean "plateau" in geography but here it means "set". I submit the following - but fear it will be assassinated due to exclamation marks! Chidgk1 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps "plato" could be translated as backlot? Chidgk1 11:23, May 12, 2021
  • @Limorina: and/or @Buidhe: - hope you are well - let me know if you would like me to continue with this Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that ALT4 is an in-universe hook, which is not allowed by our rules. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that the hooks are not very interesting. Might I suggest that the name of the film be given in English, and I suggest a plot based hook. How about;
Alt 5 ... that the 2020 Turkish historical drama The Great Seljuks: Guardians of Justice tells the story of Malik-Shah I's struggle against Hassan-i Sabbah, leader of the Order of Assassins?4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Limorina: and/or @Buidhe: - hope you are well - Alt 5 looks good to me - can we go with that? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Alt 5. Just saying. --evrik (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it seems the issues with the nomination have been resolved. I am relisting this for review. --evrik (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is being DYK nominated on the basis of passing GA, I would like to see a GAR before it goes anywhere (first order: move to official English title). If it was also 5x expanded within timeframe, switch the nom to that and we can proceed. Alt 5 is PLOT, more hook suggestions needed, though fixing the English of some of the original hook proposals could work. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a reworded version of ALT3? ALT3a ... that the production of the film Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu employed 350 décor employees, 100 carpenters and a team of 60 people? It's not a great hook but it seems to be the best option among the ones proposed so far, unless someone could think up of a better hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We'd have to find out what a "décor employee" is, and what that extra 60 person "team" is doing, before approving that. I was thinking of the birthday one - assuming this is recent, why would a whole family be invited to a COVID set for a birthday? Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys as @Limorina:'s user page says they have retired (feel free to take it back if you wish Limorina - otherwise I hope you enjoy your retirement) as discussed on my talk page I hereby take over the role of editor responding to reviewers comments. I will respond to the above - hopefully soon - and is anyone willing to be the reviewer? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thanks for useful suggestion - I hereby switch the nomination to 5X expanded Chidgk1 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I don't see any problem with ALT5 - it is not really giving away the plot so I don't think it is a spoiler. I have not watched any of it yet but the mention of the assassins makes me more interested. Are you taking on the role of reviewer? If not whoever is the reviewer - are you happy with ALT5? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a spoiler, it's just only PLOT - it says "X tells the story of Y". Most works tell the story of something, so it's an empty hook. There's nothing about the real world. If you want me as reviewer, I would call this nom no hope and close it as a "no"; it wasn't 5x expanded in the 7 days before nom and the GA status is dubious at best, so I don't think it even qualifies, but even then the article isn't good and the hooks are nonsense or empty. Kingsif (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I misread your comment about 5X and did not see the "If". I won't be offended if you or anyone else wants to do a GAR - if it does not take too much time I will attempt to defend it as GA - but will abandon if too much work. Meanwhile I hereby switch back to "good article" as the basis. I don't mind who reviews so long as it is clear who that is. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be on the safe side it probably does need a GAR. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I am representing the author I cannot be a reviewer - thanks for all your helpful edits and comments - would anyone like to officially be the reviewer? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

  • New enough: Yes
  • Long enough: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Probably needs a GAR, as others have stated. I don't know if this article is even B class, as it is. I was expecting a bit more in § Crtical response, considering how much praise the article implies the show receives. For example, English-speaking audiences would need some context as to the significance of The Wit. More importantly, an influential show is bringing awareness to Turkish history, but no one has a rebuttal, criticism, or comment on its historical inaccuracies beyond "it's a fictional show, relax"? That doesn't sound like the article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions. While it may be free from major grammatical errors, the prose falls short of what I expect from GAs. For example, Kesik says that The Great Seljuks...which contains many historical inaccuracies, is not a documentary but a historical TV series meaning that it can include many fictionalised features reads clunkily.

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - AGF based on machine translations of Turkish-language sources. I have no problems with how interesting or boring the hooks are; Alt5 is fine; if going with Alt0, I think we simply need to clarify that the celebration happened during the pandemic, though the source itself does not mention it.

QPQ: No - Original nom can claim the QPQ newbie exemption
Overall: Not sure if this is what Chidgk1 meant by would anyone like to officially be the reviewer? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rotideypoc41352 but sorry I am giving this up due to ill health. Chidgk1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get well soon. In this case, considering the article needs substantial work, I've declined it. If a GAR disagrees, please feel free to ping me, and I'd be more than happy to work with the new nominator. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– The creator of these articles confirms (see earlier section) that the English-language title has at least some official or accepted standing. Wikipedia article naming convention WP:UE states that English names should be used on the English-language wiki. It seems unlikely that most users of the English-language wiki would search for this subject using its original Turkish name. (PS: A redir exists at The Great Seljuks: Guardians of Justice pointing to the Turkish name; I am effectively proposing that the redir operate in the opposite direction instead.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: most readers interested would search using this name, this is what it is most commonly referred to even in the UK. There are pages such as Diriliş: Ertuğrul, Kuruluş: Osman and Payitaht: Abdülhamid, all Turkish series watched in large numbers by a non-Turkish audience. The creator of these articles also has admitted to not being familiar with the series, which is likely why they originally named it with the English name, see my talk page. IronManCap (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it is unlikely many viewers of the series would be familiar with the English name, I certainly wasn’t. IronManCap (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Equally well, one could say that it is unlikely many (non-Turkish-speaking) users of the English-language wiki would even know how to spell the Turkish title. And I don't think WP:OSE is a convincing argument, and in any case could be argued either way, as I've already mentioned earlier. But fine, you've expressed your view; let's see what others have to say about it. I'm going to step back now and let this run its course. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Although this show has received very little English language coverage (consisting of Anadolu Agency and other minor sites), most of it uses the Turkish title (albeit Anglicized as Uyanis Buyuk Selcuklu). MSG17 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what I said here. Limorina (t • c) 08:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uyanış:_Büyük_Selçuklu&oldid=1210821831"