Talk:Uzunköprü Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 07:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

• Ergene river – link 'River Ergene'.

I don't know if I've interpreted this suggestion correctly. The river was already linked in both the lead and infobox, though I've tweaked both now.

Reversing the words improves the prose, minor point. AM

• Link motifs (Motif (visual arts)).
• 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’?

Date unknown, certainly not 1443, though.

Apologies, I believe the date should be 1427 (see here, p.464). Amitchell125 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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"

It's a very morphological phrase, but OK. AM

2.1 Construction and opening

• Link limestone; mortar (Mortar (masonry)); arches (here and in the image caption).
• Duplicate link - Murad II.
• Yağmurca, Eskiköy and Hasırcıarnavut – readers may not be aware that these places are close by, perhaps this should be mentioned.
• bridge legs – as far as I know, bridges don’t have legs. Arches?

Abutment; those are called abutments, apparently. :D

2.2 16th to 20th century

• Duplicate link – Ergene.
• Link dock (presumably Dock); mills (Watermill).

This and above are done.

• The bridge was renamed to Kasr-i Ergene – when was it first called the Uzunköprü Bridge?

Unknown, but at least before 1727, which is why that is mentioned in the article.

Understood. AM

• Consider using this image of the bridge in 1908, showing the mill, perhaps replacing the one in this section, which is relatively unimportant.

Good find. Swapped.

2.3 21st century

• Link tender (presumably Invitation to tender); asphalt (Asphalt concrete, delete and concrete).

Done.

3 Specifications

• Duplicate link - Ottoman Empire.
• Link abutments; motifs (Motif (visual arts)).

4 References

• 'pp' (not p) if there is more than one page cited.
• As the page range for Özkök, Azsöz & Erşan is from 129–142, refs 1/5/7/10/23/25 need to amended (at the moment they go from 6-11).

This and the comment above should be fixed.

• The Bibliography section should list the sources alphabetically, from Kahraman to Yüksel.

Done.

New source

• I would include adding a chapter on the bridge by Büktel (in a new Further reading section, or used as a source):

• Büktel, Yılmaz (2020). "İslâm'a ve Orduya Köprü: Uzunköprü[ A Bridge to Islam and the Army: Uzunkopru]". In İmamoğlu, Abdullah Taha; Rruga, İlir; Soysal, Mehmet Fatih; Bİlİk, Abdurrahim (eds.). Balkanlar ve İslâm – balkanlarda İslâm dİnİ ve kültürel hayat [The Balkans and Islam: Islamic Religious and Cultural Life in the Balkans] (PDF). Vol. 2. Istanbul: Ensar Publications Inc. pp. 461–478. ISBN 978-605-7619-80-8.

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.

What do you think? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.