Talk:Regency of Algiers

message: Evening Folks!!   I've taken out the references that are not used in each article. I guess there will be some cross-referencing that will need to be done to remove those refs that were used in the main article and found they're way into the history article and vice-versa. That will remove some of them but there is that expectation for FA that those references will be used, if applicable. I will do the cross-ref now, for example Bachelot 2012 is used in the Regency article but is in FR in the history article, so can be removed.  scope_creepTalk 17:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be one ref: Allioui, 2006 that is both fr sections but is not used in either.  can you check it and see if there is anything in it that needs added in somehow. I've removed every other ref that used, so the fr sections have now shrunk. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: * History of the Regency of Algiers has no alt tags on the images.  scope_creepTalk 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: will look for this on my pass through. Anyone who wants to make a start on this, please feel free Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Alt tags

message: PRG has more comments for action. One of them, fixing the Brill ref which has incorrect author info, which I've partially fixed. Ref 142 which is on page 947 isn't in the first volume so needs a new ref entry in the bib. Page number in vol 1 only go up to 565. What volume number was that ref taken from?  scope_creepTalk 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey scope! thanks for all your work! the ref is actually vol 2 p 947  Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Morning  The history article also has the same problem. Can you check for the brill ref. I think a couple are good around page 268 )or so), but the rest are not. I'll create a ref for this later and the history article.  scope_creepTalk 09:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Morining scope, i'll work on it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref 142 needs looked at

message: I'm assuming the history article will be reviewed for GA/FA at the same time, as its two parts of the same article. Taking cognizance of that, the lede needs some work.  scope_creepTalk 08:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, however i dunno how to fix to multitarget issue. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Don't see anything else I am confused about. If there is anything I should particularly look at please leave me a note here. The edit I am proposing to do will be less aggressive that the early ones, which were intended to get rid of any ancient cut and paste wording that might have still persisted since before any of us were involved. Going to be focusing on readability and does-it-make-sense. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the lede slightly to formalise it and encapsulate the meaning and added a short description.  scope_creepTalk 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Regency of Algiers

message: These are used in either both or one of the articles and don't need to be in the fr section.  scope_creepTalk 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Used old refs

message: This is pretty picky but there is no context for the decision to take Algiers. This can be just a word or two. Elinruby (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbarossa brothers 

message: Not seeing a link between the War of Independence and increased American maritime trade. I do recall one of the sources saying that the Americans were no longer considered "British shipping" and therefore were not covered by treaty. This could be me and I may clear this myself later, just want to note it Elinruby (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, i added some context in lede. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  that tells me what I needed to know. Will work on how to say that. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  American shipping 

message: "Istanbul viewed the idea of integrating a territory so far away and so close to Spain as a risk." A sentence was added afterwards and sourced to Kaddache. Is this sentence also Kaddache? If not could we either remove it or source it please? Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Nour has added another cite to Kaddache at the end of this sentence, so it is no longer unsourced. Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Still not sourced