Talk:Byzantine–Ottoman wars

message: There was also the fall of Galipoli in 1354. Tourskin
:The fact that Philadelphia fell to the Ottomans as late as 1390 should also be mentioned. I am not sure of the status of the town at that time (Byzantine, protected by the Knights of St. John, or both?). Iblardi 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More battles 

message: I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: prose is acceptable
:2. Factually accurate?: article is clearly referenced and all required informationis sourced
:3. Broad in coverage?: article more than adequatrely covers the topic
:4. Neutral point of view?: no evidence of POV
:5. Article stability? article is free of edit wars
:6. Images?: all are free or appropriately tagged
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. 
— Argos'Dad 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah! Looking back, this article did not look like it was gonna survive infancy...Tourskin 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: Can I suggest putting some kind of border lines between the pictures that make up the main image?  I thought the two on the left side were actually one solid picture at first. Oberiko 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. And please, feel free to be bold and improve grammar!!!Man of Bravery!! 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A thin black line has been added along their respective borders.Man of Bravery!! 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main image difficult to interpret

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made multiple corrections (I also removed the two tags at the top of the article) and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:
#Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, so statements like "Whilst the civil war was raging, the Turks in Anatolia took the opportunity to seize Philadelphia in 1390, marking the end of Byzantine rule in Anatolia, although by now the city was far from Imperial rule." either needs to be expanded on or incorporated into another paragraph.
#For an article of this length, the lead needs to be expanded to several paragraphs to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
#:Image:Osman I.jpg needs a source for where the image was found or it may be deleted on Wikimedia Commons.
#Add some sources to the "Ottoman strengths" section, it currently has none. Feel free to use either book or web sources, whichever is more convenient for you.
Overall, the article was an interesting read and well-sourced. The above issues shouldn't take very long to address and should be easy to fix. Good job on getting so many free images to include in the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 02:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: woo hoo! Though to be honest there wasn't much to address. Tourskin (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

message: At this time since the above issues were addressed, I believe the article should keep its GA status since it meets the requirements of the GA criteria. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: woo hoo! Though to be honest there wasn't much to address. Tourskin (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAR: Kept

message: Is this really a good article ? I am not so sure about it. A few notes are as follows:
#In the introduction it is claimed that Osman I decleared himself as Sultan. But my sources say that Osman never used the title sultan. It was his grandson Murat I who used that title.
#In the section Rise of Ottomans it reads that Byzantine general Mouzalon occurred at Magnesia and Bapheus. But it is questionable. Because Magnesia (ad Sipylum as it is linked in the article) than was not a part of Ottomans but it was the capital of another beylik (Saruhan) Besides, it was too far away from the Ottoman Byzantine frontier. 
#In section Ottoman Victory there is a nasty description. :... The blood flowed in the city like rainwater after a sudden storm, and the corpses of Turks and Christians were thrown into the Dardanelles, where they floated out to sea like melons along a canal. Well this is not a novel, this is an encyclopaedia. This description serves no purposes and it should be deleted.
#In section Consequences it is claimed that Ottoman power reached its zenith in mid 17th century. But this is not true. The zenith had already been reached by the end of the 16th century.17th century was stagnation. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article ? really ? 

message: Here we have a page on Byzantine and Ottoman history that does not cite even a single source written by an Ottomanist historian. This should be considered inexcusable. If you look at the citations you'll see that almost the entire article is based on just two sources anyway: the Oxford History and Crusades: the Illustrated History. They may be fine sources, but for this to be a good article there needs to be some diversity in the source base. And Leaving that aside, this article is full of unsourced statements. That alone disqualifies it. Several of the summaries under "Ottoman Strengths", "Byzantine Weaknesses", and "Consequences" are uncited and may constitute original research. Chamboz (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article status should be reassessed 

message: As with many Islam related articles, it seems GA was iven too fast here. There is a big Issue-Tag and as it seems, even for a longer time of period. I would like to go the steps to withdraw GA-Status, if noone objects it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important article, but a quick skim suggests that it may well not meet the standards.  I agree that a reassessment would be the way to go. I would be grateful if you could keep me informed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove GA? 

message: So for some reason its okay to discuss what the Mongols did in their invasions of Poland and Hungary and the devastation they brought to these lands here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Kievan_Rus%27
But its not ok to discuss the campaigns of the ottomans (turkic steppe people similar to the mongols) in westeen Anatolia and its destructive impact on Byzantine Asia Minor. Its literally a war that led to the decline and fall of the Roman empire... H20346 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman campaigns aginst the byzantines