# Talk:Hatt-i humayun

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hatt-i humayun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: One found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The term "hatt-ı hümayun" can sometimes also be used in a literal sense, meaning a handwriting belonging to an Ottoman Sultan. "a handwriting" is ungrammatical.
The hatt-ı hümayun would usually be written to the Grand Vizier (Sadrazam), sometimes to his replacement in his absence (the Ka'immakâm) "to his replacemnet in his absence" is ungrammatical and unclear, and wrongly spelt.
Most decrees (ferman) or titles of provilege (berat) were written by a scribe, but those written to a particular official, and that were particularly important, were preceded by the Sultan's handwritten note beside his seal (Tughra), emphasizing a particular part of his edict, urging or ordering it to be followed without fault Very clumsily written
There might be a clichéd phrase like "to be done as required" (mûcebince amel oluna) or "no one is to be interfered with to execute my command as required" (emrim mûcebince amel oluna, kimseye müdahale etmeyeler). The phrases in quotes need to be attributed.  They appear to be very bad translations as they are ungrammatical.
Some edicts to the rank would start with a praise for the person(s) the edict was addressed to, in order to encourage or honor him. Rarely, there might be threats such as "if you need your head do it as required"  This is almost gibberish.
I won't look at any more prose.  Please take this away and get it copy-edited by someone with a good grasp of plain English.  it should never have been nominated in this poor state. Please read the WP:GACR to see the criteria for a Good Article.
The organisation of the article is poor, too many small sections.  Many unfamilar terms are used and although mostly wikilinked, they need to be introduced in context in the text.
Translations should be attributed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
One dead link found and tagged as noted above.
Refs #10, 14, 18, 19 need author/publisher information.
I assume good faith for off-line and / or Turkish sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Appears OK
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 
The image gallery in the middle of the article does not help.  Fewer images placed at relevant points in the text would be better.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This article requires a lot of work to get it up to Good article standard.  First get it thoroughjly copy-edited, then take to a WP:Peer review.  then when you are absolutely sure that it complies with all of the good article criteria, please renominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Apropos something not really related, I came across the word "Iradé" [ sic ]; after a bit of googling I ended up creating irade-i senniye as a redirect to this article, which mentions irade but does not explain the term.  I have added this sentence to the lede...

A related term is irade-i senniye.
...which I realise is not very informative, but since the redirect is there it should at least justify it. I hope somebody can turn this into a proper explanation: maybe it just needs another sentence or two in the lede, maybe its own section, maybe an article; I am far too ignorant to know which is best. jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hatt-i humayun/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. First I'll make a few copy edits if you don't mind (you are free to revert any changes I make.) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
begin comments
"Sultan" - this shouldn't be capitalized unless you're referring to a specific sultan, such as Sultan Mehmed II. Same goes for "grand vizier" also, per MOS:Titles of people.
Agree, corrected. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
where are the "Ottoman archives"?
In Istanbul. Inserted in text. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
shouldn't the quotes in the captions have source citations?
There is a source citation at the end of each long sentences with multiple quotes. Have I missed any? --İnfoCan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant in the captions, as all direct quotes are to have a citation immediately following. (This is part of the Good article criteria.)
Done. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure how this applies to this article: MOS:Foreign-language quotations (not specified in the GA criteria - so you can disregard if you want).
Both the originals and a translations are provided, I prefer to keep them as they are. --İnfoCan (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
"For example, after the successful defense of Mosul against the forces of Nadir Shah, in 1743, the sultan sent a hatt-ı hümayun to the governor Haj Husayn Pasha" - could the name of the sultan that sent this be inserted here?
Done. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
To give a "broad" context to the article unfamiliar with Ottoman history, it would be good to give some context and links. e.g. most people, like me, don't know what Tanzimat refers to without clicking the link. You could add some brief context if it's on topic.
I added a comment to the Introduction that the Tanzimat was a reform aimed at modernizing the Ottoman empire. Anything more would be beyond the scope of this article. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
very good. I really like the article. One holdup: there is still a caption quotation without a citation immediately following: "My Vizier. Today where do you intend to go? How is my girl, the piece of my life? Make me happy with news of the health of your holy disposition. My body is in good health, thank be God. Those of my imperial family are in good health as well. Let me know when you know." Can this be fixed?  MathewTownsend (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The citation was there but misplaced. I placed it in the right place. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout: 

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: (direct quotations, statistics, ... ) 
*just that one quote mentioned above
c. no original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass!

Congratulations! Very interesting article - write more!  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your careful reading and improvements. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Other articles such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_the_Ottoman_Empire reference the "Hatt-i Sherif of 1839" which is obviously a specific proclamation/document. But it links here. This article also links to that, but again links to this article (itself). This is confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.118.33 (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)