Talk:Ottoman architecture

Observations

This "article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" tag currently at the top of the entry is certainly justified. Some of the content of the article is so bad it reduced me to laughter! The most giggle-rousing bit was where it was claimed that (in the 13th century Divrigi mosque portals) the Turks invented Baroque architecture and them passed the style on to Italy! Meowy 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Ottomans achieved the highest level architecture in their lands hence or since" is a rather imprecise statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.157.74 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

redirect? why?

why is turkish architecture redirecting here? Turkish is not the same as ottoman, they had seljuks and they have modern turkish architecture (after the proclamation of the republic) as well. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder the same thing. Also "Architecture of Turkey" redirects here but it is completely different... Ottoman is in the past, where is modern Turkey's architecture? --Egek (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please people, we need to create a page for modern Turkish Architecture. Anyone know anything? I'm an Architecture student from Delft, The Netherlands, but I don't know anything about currect Architecture in Turkey. Comeon you lazy Turkish Students you are studying in English so use it! I. Kilic 82.171.81.187 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge ??

Respectfully strongly disagree re: merge - Would be similar to merging Moorish architecture with Spanish architecture. There is not even a direct [or indirect] categories link from it to Category:Spanish architecture, as historic 'Moorish' was centered in but extended beyond present day Spain-the Iberian Peninsula. So with Ottoman architecture in the Ottoman Empire extending beyond present day Turkey, and belonging only in Category:Turkish architecture by period but Not merged into Culture of Turkey survey article.

Turkey and its rich architectural heritage deserves an independent new Turkish architecture. or Timeline of Turkish architecture survey article briefly covering the many eras-styles in Category:Early Turkish Anatolian architecture and Category:Turkish architecture, freestanding from the Culture of Turkey and Ottoman architecture articles. Perhaps similar in format to Timeline of Italian architecture with {See|Neo-baroque}}... {See|Gothic Revival architecture}}... {See|Art Deco}}...etc links within it--?--? — and — A separate new focused Turkish modern and contemporary architecture article, similar to Italian modern and contemporary architecture, on 20th-21st century Turkish architecture.--?--?---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "Architecture of Turkey" (now redirect) would be best. --Elekhh (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the above-mentioned comment and I want to add another comment: Ottoman Architecture itself is a multi-cultural architecture. There is no need to go into details but for example in its last periods Armenian Architects (educated in Europe) built neo-classical mosques especially in Istanbul. On the other hand Architecture of Turkey is entirely different. The modern architecture in Turkey at the beginning wasn’t similar to the rest of the world but it created its style like Ulusal Mimari (National Architecture). One also has to keep in mind that, at least in the beginning, new Turkish republic tried to shun from the old, the tradition. Therefore these two have to be separate. We will be working on the Turkish version of Architecture of Turkey article. I will let you know once the new article is in Turkish Wikipedia. Mimar77 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not necassary. Kavas (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ottoman architecture is different from Turkish architecture. Turkish architecture was also influenced by the Ottoman architecture. But there many discontinuous aspects between two culture, as Mimar77 said. Takabeg (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There should have been only one merger discussion instead of two parallel ones. In any case both this and the merger discussion at Culture of Turkey have resulted in consensus not to merge, and have been closed. --Elekhh (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger forgot that;

Contemporary (post-1923) Turkish Architecture categorized as 1st National, 2nd National etc. OnurT 17:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

File:BursaCityMiniature.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BursaCityMiniature.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Edirne Train Station.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Edirne Train Station.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ahmet Afif Pascha Yali.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ahmet Afif Pascha Yali.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ahmet Afif Pascha Yali.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Paradise gardens section is too general, and doesn't fit here

I am going to delete this section. I don't think it is necessarily bad to have a section about Ottoman Paradise gardens, but this section is mostly not specific to Ottomans. I think such a section fits better into the Islamic architechture wikipedia page. Alternatively it could be written more like a encyclopedia entry and reincluded, with more specifics to the Ottomans.

For example, the section starts off with a quote from the Quran, and proceeds to talk about how throughout the Muslim world mosques often have gardens next door, and these gardens fit with the content of the Quran. This discussion continues for several paragraphs.

In an article on Ottoman architecture, it would suffice to say that gardens are often built next to mosques throughout the Muslim world, and then link to the Islamic architecture page. Only the distinctive features of Ottoman gardens should then be included here. Again, I don't necessarily think there should not be a section on paradise gardens -- I just think it should focus on Ottomans rather than general Paradise gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veryshuai (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Commenting on this a decade later(!). I note that this section was added by an IP in 2012 and the editor above did remove it in 2014 (), but this was then reverted and no further discussion occurred here. Most of the section's tone is indeed wrong (including some WP:PUFFERY) and over-emphasizes vague hypotheses about "Paradise" and nature. The latter is a recurring theme in some scholarly attempts to interpret Islamic architecture, but it does not loom this large, and I don't believe I've seen such an emphasis at all in references on Ottoman architecture. So there's a lot of WP:UNDUE here. Specifically, there seem to be problems with the sources and citing:

• Most of the section is based on a single paper () published by the "Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies", which does not sound like a relevant academic journal and unsurprisingly has been called a predatory journal () (see also WP:VANPRED). The article itself () looks frankly a little amateur. It would be safer to remove all content based on this source.
• The better-sourced material includes statements and citations that are not relevant to the Ottoman context. In particular, Ruggles 2008 is a reliable source but the citations to it refer to comments made about "Islamic gardens" in general or elsewhere, not in the Ottoman context. Ruggles does say useful things on Ottoman gardens, but they're missing here.
• There's also at least one statement attributed to a source that don't appear to verify it: the quote from "Antoine Galland" is attributed to a book by Michael Conan () that doesn't contain this quote.

I'm therefore going to remove much of that section and copy-edit some of the rest to fix the main issues outlined above. I'll try to revise or add new material to reflect what Ruggles 2008 or others do actually say about the Ottoman use of gardens in architecture R Prazeres (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Periodisation is silly

A style doesn't start & end like a military campaign. For instance "Baroque period (1757–1808)": who gave the starting shot for Baroque influence in 1757, and who stopped the race under threat of capital punishment in 1808 (NOT 1809 or 1810, may Allah forbid)? Can somebody who's well-versed in the topic please do something about it? Thanks, it's very important for the history of architecture in a lot of countries which emerged from the Ottoman Empire. Have a great year, Arminden (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed overall, the origin of these dates is unclear. Some, like 1703 for the beginning of the Tulip Period, might be reasonable suggestions that correspond to well-defined historical periods, but others shouldn't be so clear-cut when thinking of Ottoman architecture as a whole. (I would need to read up on it myself to be more precise.) Plus, the dates are also inconsistent with the contents of the sections themselves and with neighbouring sections. The "Bursa period (1299–1437)", for example, is mostly unsourced and includes examples from after 1453 and is preceded by an undefined "Early Ottoman Period" which covers the early 1300s. My suggestions for the moment:

• Remove the years from the section titles altogether. They're not essential for an architecture article. We could add general date ranges (e.g. "14th-15th centuries") later if needed, but a better practice might be to discuss the historical period in the first couple of sentences of the text of the section itself, and add more dates in-line when mentioning specific works; together that will make things clearer to the reader.
• Combine the "Early Ottoman Period" and "Bursa period" sections together, for one thing. They overlap already and unless the article is far more developed in the future, I don't think there's a non-problematic division of this period. A more pertinent question is whether this section should cover the post-1453 architecture in the reigns of Mehmet II and Bayezid II; currently it seems to do so, but only in passing.

Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman Baroque

Ottoman Baroque is a style that has left its trace all over the former empire. It has its characteristics, representative architects & monuments, etc. It easily deserves its own article. There is a large monograph on the topic, Ünver Rüstem, Ottoman Baroque: The Architectural Refashioning of Eighteenth-Century Istanbul (2019) and probably much more in Turkish. Don't forget Ottoman Rococo, which is another term I came across and must be dealt with in this context, clarifying what's specific about it within Ottoman Baroque and in relation to European Rococo. I'm looking forward to see what's coming our way here. Arminden (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Short description is needed in the lead, but not a propagandistic ode

I have removed the following completely unsourced paragraph from the lead to be discussed here.

Ottoman architecture has a lot of interesting aspects, which should be presented concisely in the lead, along with its main achievements, but this is unbearably triumphalistic cultural nationalism - and factually wrong, as the Ottoman happened to inherit a territory heavy with artistic traditions, which have heavily influenced and actually have given birth to Ottoman art, as the (sourced) parts in the lead & article do show.

There are excellent scholars who have written with respect and knowledge about Ottoman architecture in the context of classical, Islamic, and European architecture. We need a summary of such a comment, not this.

Anyway, here is the composition "Why are we the best and have always been", which I've had the guts to remove from the lead:

"The Ottomans achieved the highest level architecture in their lands hence or since. [Says who? What about the ancient Greeks & Byzantines?] They mastered the technique of building vast inner spaces confined by seemingly weightless yet massive domes, [Hagia Sophia...?] and achieving perfect harmony between inner and outer spaces, as well as articulated light and shadow. Islamic religious architecture which until then consisted of simple buildings with extensive decorations, was transformed by the Ottomans through a dynamic architectural vocabulary of vaults, domes, semi-domes and columns. The mosque was transformed from being a cramped and dark chamber with arabesque-covered walls into a sanctuary of aesthetic and technical balance, refined elegance and a hint of heavenly transcendence." [Says who? What about the Umayyads, to mention just the best known Islamic precursors?]

Enjoy. Arminden (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

another mosque with the ottoman architecture is present in the Shah rukn e Alam colony,new Multan, Multan, Pakistan,

the aforementioned mosque is called masjid e Al Shaikh Al Hafiz Ameen bin A.Rehman Syed Tariq Haider (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent expansions (general notes)

I've more or less finished some major expansions of the Early and Classical period sections. I'll continue to expand and/or revise sections, but I'll probably slow down for now, so this seems like a good time to make a few notes:

• Please feel free to keep an eye out for typos and errors, as it's easy for me to miss my own mistakes when writing this much.
• I did my best to explain details clearly, but feel free also to suggest improved wording if some sentences sound too technical. If there's something that you're unsure about but you think it needs a second look, feel free to bring it up here or notify me.
• While expanding, I opted to leave more material in than out, as I figured it's easier to trim content later than to create more of it again. I did some minor trimming already, but I'm happy to collaborate in trimming more if needed. The page is already long now, so in the long-term I imagine there may be good grounds to move or split off some of the material from this page. I'd suggest waiting until some of the remaining sections or topics have been revised and expanded too, but it's up to everyone. Some topics, like Ottoman architecture in the outer provinces, probably deserve their own pages instead (e.g. Ottoman architecture in Egypt), especially if there are significant differences in local styles.

Any other feedback is also welcome. I hope the expansions are at least helpful in laying down foundations for a developed article. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I'm about to replace the remaining short unsourced sections in the "European influence" period with full-length sections (which I've been working on in a separate draft so as to not bog down this page in the meantime). There was a lot of ground to cover and I'm confident that all of it is relevant to a full overview of the topic, but after the additions are done I think the article will be exceptionally long, and there's potentially still more subtopics to cover in the future.

So the next step I'm planning after this will be to split off some of the major sections into their own pages. The Classical, Baroque, and even the Tulip Period sections look to me like good candidates for this as they're fairly well-defined styles/periods that could stand reasonably well on their own. The same can't be said for "Early Ottoman" and the later 19th century, which cover very diverse styles, but there could be ways to do it eventually if necessary. Afterwards, I'll come back to trim those sections down on this page (or at least do some initial trimming).

If there are objections to this course of action or other general suggestions on how to proceed, once again feel free to comment. It may take me a little while to create the new pages anyways, and I might do further revisions here first while the text is still all in one place. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Really great to see these improvements. Looking forward to more! MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Another (maybe final) update: I've now done more or less everything I said I would do above, or at least as much as I am willing to do without more consultation. The new articles Classical Ottoman architecture, Tulip Period architecture, and Ottoman Baroque architecture have been created and can be used to further expand on those topics as needed. I've done some cutting back on this page as follow-up, but there's still lots left so there can still be some discussion on how to manage page length going forward. I'll also note that the Classical Ottoman architecture page includes a new section with brief overviews of Ottoman architecture beyond the main capital cities in the 16th-17th centuries, so that's an example of how we might replace the current large gallery section at the bottom of this page.

At some point in the future I'd like to add a "Painted decoration" section after the "Tile decoration" section, as this is another visually obvious (but less famous and less understood) aspect of Ottoman buildings. After that, depending on how long that section is, I'll consider splitting off either the Tile decoration section into a new page on its own or both "decoration" sections into a new "Ottoman architectural decoration" page where more details (e.g. stone-carving) could also be added without lengthening this page. R Prazeres (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New "Early Ottoman architecture" page created

I've created a new Early Ottoman architecture page to host the content of the "Early Ottoman period" section and allow for further expansion of related topics there instead of here. I believe the new page is needed for the sake of managing this page's length but it's worth noting again that there's no exact definition of "Early Ottoman architecture", it's more of a chronological label, so I was wary of how to define the scope of the new article. The label certainly applies up to the 15th century, but some authors treat pre-1453 and post-1453 architecture in different chapters or sections (for example). Still, as already discussed and cited in the main article here, the Classical period is generally considered to begin with Sinan, and the Bayezid II Mosque is often cited as the last stage before Sinan. So I figured the simplest and most useful option was to set the new article's scope as including everything up to Bayezid II's time (i.e. everything before the Classical period), which is how this article is currently divided too.

With that in mind, the lead of the new page currently starts with: "Early Ottoman architecture corresponds to the period of Ottoman architecture roughly up to the 15th century. This article covers the history of Ottoman architecture up to the end of Bayezid II's reign (r. 1447–1512), prior to the advent of what is generally considered "classical" Ottoman architecture in the 16th century.", followed by a footnote explaining that some authors divide their discussion of the period in different ways. Maybe this wording is fine, but if anyone can think of a better one, I'd welcome suggestions.

Lastly: now that this new page exists I will cut some of the less essential content from the "Early Ottoman period" section in this article (e.g. info on mosques built by viziers and other minor points), along with some of the images. The full content can still be found at the new page. R Prazeres (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: If there's disagreement on the scope I've chosen for the Early Ottoman architecture page, then this too can be modified if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tile images

The categories are a mess but it looks like they have been holding photo walks in Algiers. There are quite a few new images in categories for the casbah, the citadel and the Palace of the bey. Doublecheck the captions, I was having trouble with that at one point.Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Possibly useful images

Apparently we are not using these at Regency of Algiers, ity you can good if not do as you see fit:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Also

The Ketchaoua Mosque dome inside down

And:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the last historical period(s) into a new article

Short explanation: everything in the two sections called "19th-century eclecticism and other styles" and the "First National Architectural Movement (early 20th century)" will be copied to a new article called (provisionally) "Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries". This is partly in preparation for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to reduce this article's length.

Long explanation: Each of the historical periods covered in the article already has its own main article (see previous discussions above), except for the 19th century section. I've been considering how to define and name a new article for that section and I think the easiest solution for now is to create it as "Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries", thus covering essentially everything after the Baroque style. Although there is a clear shift that happens in the first half of the 19th century, it does not involve a single style and there is no conventional name for this phase of Ottoman architecture history, so it needs to be a descriptive title. The trends of the late 19th century also continue into the early 20th century (the last Ottoman decades), hence why both centuries need to be mentioned. Likewise, the First national architectural movement overlaps with and emerges directly from the other architectural trends of that time, so I propose to treat that as a subtopic of this period (i.e. one of several styles that occur), as there's no clear and principled way to further subdivide this period, to my knowledge.

After this is done (assuming there are no objections), I plan to address the WP:LENGTH of the article (currently at 20545 words) by condensing each of the sections that have their own articles, thus introducing WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in this overview article. I'll make a new talk page section when I'm ready to do that, so that editors have a place to discuss that process as needed. R Prazeres (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a couple of weeks, so I'll start the process of creating the split article today. But feedback and suggestions are still welcome at any time, either here or at the new article. R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I had missed this. I think First national architectural movement should be considered under Turkish architecture, but it still can be covered in Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries. I know you already created the article but I'd rename it to Late Ottoman period architecture. Ottoman Empire ended early 20th century. Late Ottoman period or era is used in multiple sources, although the dates may differ Bogazicili (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

• I agree, First national architectural movement should merely be covered here to the extent that it began in the last two Ottoman decades; any of its later developments and examples should be covered at its own article and at Architecture of Turkey.
• I definitely see the title of the new article as open to revision. I was tempted to name it "Late Ottoman architecture", but I worried that "Late Ottoman" is too vague and doesn't have a conventional definition either. (I figured "20th century" isn't a problem here because the article would necessarily not cover things beyond the Ottoman period anyways.) I also didn't want to imply that "Late Ottoman architecture" was a formal label used in sources, but "Late Ottoman period architecture", as you suggest, might already be more clearly neutral and descriptive in that regard. Whatever the title, we could also follow what I did for Early Ottoman architecture and just state explicitly in the lead which period the article is intended to cover, with a footnote further clarifying issues of periodization. Would that be effective?

R Prazeres (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: Following my last suggestion above, I've added this edit as an example of how this could look. R Prazeres (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Article length

As I mentioned above, one of the next steps to improve the article is to reduce its length (by at least half; see WP:LENGTH). Relevant subarticles for each period have now been created (see previous talk page sections above), so all of that content, plus some extra detail, can now be found at: Early Ottoman architecture, Classical Ottoman architecture, Tulip Period architecture, Ottoman Baroque architecture, and Ottoman architecture in the 19th–20th centuries. So my plan is to go through each of the corresponding sections in this article and condense them to perhaps just 3-4 paragraphs and a few images each, focusing on general developments and maybe mentioning the most strictly important monuments only. I think that'll be enough, but we can condense further if needed. That will also free up some space for this article to potentially cover other general subtopics relevant to Ottoman architectural history in the future.

I won't be starting right away, so feel free to bring any concerns or suggestions about this in the meantime. R Prazeres (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start the trimming process today. I'll be doing it in stages, so I'm not sure yet how long it'll take. If there are any questions/issues that arise in the meantime, feel free to bring them up here. R Prazeres (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I've condensed the sections significantly. They could be condensed further, especially if we need to make room for other additions. In the meantime, they're still substantial enough to cover most of the important points of Ottoman architectural history, but short enough to satisfy WP:LENGTH. R Prazeres (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

R Prazeres this article now looks like a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate. I'd suggest you to nominate it. I just noticed a bit of MOS:SANDWICH, but the sourcing seem excellent. Size is under 10k words. Bogazicili (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This could also be a Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, but there is already Architecture of Turkey there Bogazicili (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the article should indeed be in good shape by now. If I can find the time, I'll consider a GA nomination first. There are still some things missing for a complete article before I personally think it could be an FA. (One thing I could add quickly is a short section on architecture in the provinces, which is covered in more detail elsewhere but could be summarized here with relevant links.) I'm not sure how the "vital articles" work, but given the selection that is there, this could easily be a level 4 in the "style" section. R Prazeres (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Update: I'm currently adding more information on certain decorative methods, particularly a section on "painted decoration" that I teased in 2021 (above). Following this, to control length and keep sections proportionate to the overall topic, I'll repeat the process of moving material to a new article and leaving a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. I'll probably move the Tile, Painted, and Stone decoration sections together to something like Ottoman architectural decoration (which could also be linked to a future Ottoman art article). Potentially, I could just move the longest section, "Tile decoration", to something like Ottoman tile decoration. I'll do my best to judge once it's done. R Prazeres (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This last part is now done too; the decoration sections have been condensed and the full version has been moved to Ottoman architectural decoration (as always, the title may be revised). R Prazeres (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: What is Islamic Art

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LackiJJ05, Bowser654, MetalsGreenson2025 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LadyEmrys (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Amdimmig: Thank you (and your students, I presume) for this great contribution. Having looked at it, I'm going to move the content to a new article, Ottoman tents, as the subject is more or less relevant to architecture but a little too tangential to merit a full treatment in this article, which is mostly an overview devoted to summarizing what's covered in more detail elsewhere. But aside from balance/scope here, Ottoman tents are a notable topic on their own, overlap with other topics beyond the scope of this article (like Ottoman art, textiles, court culture, etc), and are mentioned specifically in other articles and topics on Wikipedia, so a dedicated article on this topic is almost certainly needed anyways and this material is a great starting point for it. I'll leave behind here either a link or a short summary section that links to the new article.

If you have concerns or questions, let me know. Otherwise, if there are further revisions to make to the new content, please focus them on the new article. Best, R Prazeres (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That's wonderful — thank you!! 140.146.255.129 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, Ottoman tents article is now up and I've replaced the content in this article with a link in the "See also" section for now (). Note that I found a few things in the new material that were not supported by the cited sources; I tagged them in the new article with "failed verification", including a brief explanation. I would encourage anyone to have a look and fix these if possible, and maybe check the citations in general too for any other mistakes.

A brief summary section might still be warranted in the article here (as I mentioned above), but before doing so I'd like to read and draw on some of the references directly to ensure that verifiability is strictly maintained in this article (partly in anticipation of nominating it for good article status soon). R Prazeres (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman architecture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: R Prazeres (talk · contribs) 17:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Per exemplum (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to take this on. It's a substantial article on a major historical topic and, according to stats, the nominating editor has worked to revise 90% of its content. The editor's efforts to singlehandedly improve an article of this size deserves recognition in and of itself. As for the review, I did an initial read and it appears to me that the article is already close to GA and most edits should be pretty straightforward. I hope to get through the complete GA review checklist by March 12. Per Exemplum 21:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Ok, I have gone through the checklist and marked items that are an immediate pass. Remaining items will take a bit more time, but hopefully I should have the full review finished within a week from today. Per Exemplum 20:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Per exemplum: just checking if you will still be able to conduct this GA review? As a heads-up, I may be away from home during some parts of the summer (most likely some part of May-June), during which time I should still be able to respond here but likely with some delay (maybe a day or two) and I will have reduced access to some of the cited sources (e.g. Kuban 2010 is only available offline and my only copy is at home). So no pressure, it's not urgent, but just wanted to check in and keep you in the loop. Thanks again, R Prazeres (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Yes! Apologies for the delay, I had been traveling. I should be done by the end of this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Per Exemplum 20:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Just finished my review with additional comments below and also noticed you did some additional work on the article in the interim, which is great. Let me know if you have any additional questions. And again, I apologize for the delay. Per Exemplum 20:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I got all the picture sandwiches, if you want to check that bit again. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The writing is solid throughout. A few areas where it could be tightened: some sentences in the classical period and decoration sections stack multiple subordinate clauses and would benefit from being broken into shorter units. The decoration sections in particular lean heavily on passive constructions ("was influenced by," "was developed by," "was introduced") — not wrong, but it gets repetitive over the length of those sections and active voice would improve the flow where possible. I'm marking this as a pass with the note that a light copy-edit pass would strengthen the article.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The lead covers the chronological development of Ottoman architecture well, but it doesn't reflect several substantial sections of the article body. Decoration — which accounts for multiple subsections on tilework, painted decoration, and stone carving — is not mentioned in the lead at all. Neither are gardens or provincial architecture, both of which receive significant treatment in the body. Some specific suggestions below.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	As noted elsewhere, ref 23 ("Kuban 2010") is used as an inline citation in several places without page numbers. Since this is a 679-page book, bare citations don't meet verifiability requirements. Could you add page numbers for each instance?	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations detected by Earwig's Copyvio Detector as of revision 1332627086	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The chronological coverage and the thematic sections on domes, decoration, and gardens are thorough. One gap I want to flag: Ottoman residential and domestic architecture—the konak, yalı, and urban house traditions—is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I think a brief paragraph acknowledging this building category and its main characteristics would address the gap without requiring a full new section. For "major" items, not much else stands out to me as urgent. However, I am coming at this as a person who does not specialize in the Ottoman visual culture, so I also want to be mindful of that. Update: passing this now per the discussion below.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Article looks stable with no edit warring; past year's history shows primarily that the nominating editor has been working extensively on improving the article.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are relevant and well-captioned. I'm spot-checking Commons licensing and will confirm shortly.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	I've identified several instances of MOS:SANDWICH where images on opposite sides create narrow text columns. These should be straightforward to fix by moving images to the same side or adjusting placement. I can point to specific locations if that would be helpful, but you'll likely spot them on a quick scroll-through. Flagging this for another closer look in case anything else comes up I may have missed at the first pass.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has left no comments here

Additional comments

A few more items from my second pass:

Prose:

• In the "Baroque period" section, the sentence beginning "Despite its relatively small size the mosque's tall proportions creates a sense of height" — "proportions creates" should be "proportions create" (subject-verb agreement).
• In the same section: "which may the culmination" is missing a word — should read "which may be the culmination."
• "Sultan Ahmed Mosque" and "Sultan Ahmed I Mosque" are both used in the article to refer to the same building. Should be made consistent throughout.
• In the classical period introduction: "Mehmet II" appears once, while "Mehmed II" is used everywhere else. Should be standardized.
• Ref 37 and ref 55 (Goodwin 1971 and Sumner-Boyd & Freely 2010 respectively) appear in several places without page numbers, similar to the ref 23 issue already flagged. Could you check these and add pages where missing?

Structure:

• The "Dome design" section is placed between the chronological narrative and the "Decoration" section. This is a minor structural question rather than a problem, but I wanted to flag it: would it make more sense to group "Dome design" with the other thematic sections (Decoration, Gardens) under a shared heading, or is the current placement intentional? No strong opinion either way — just wanted to hear your thinking.

Minor:

• Ref 253 is cited as just "Rüstem 2019" with no page number for the claim about Ottoman Baroque painted decoration bringing new European motifs. Given how specific the claim is, a page number would strengthen this.
• The "Dolmabahçe Palace (1856)" parenthetical in the painted decoration section gives only one date, whereas elsewhere the palace is consistently dated with the full construction range (1842/1843–1856). Minor inconsistency but worth harmonizing.

These are all small items. Once the earlier points are addressed, I'll do one final check and should be ready to close this out.

Lead:

I'd suggest two additions. After the existing sentence about Iznik tiles in the first paragraph, something along the lines of:

Ottoman buildings were also enriched with painted decoration and carved stonework, drawing on a repertoire of floriate motifs that evolved over the centuries and reflected influences ranging from Timurid art to European Baroque ornamentation.

And toward the end of the third paragraph, something like:

While the most significant architectural developments took place in the imperial capitals, Ottoman provinces across the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa adapted Ottoman forms to local building traditions in varying degrees.

These are rough suggestions — please feel free to adjust or draft in your own words.

Per Exemplum 20:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! I'll be working offline heavily for the next two days but will start looking at this after Tuesday. I might have a question or two but otherwise I don't predict any difficulties. R Prazeres (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres No rush at all—take your time! Per Exemplum 03:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

There are still several items left to address and I will aim to do those over the coming week, but for now I've completed most inline copy-edits and fixed the citations with missing page numbers. A brief overview, if helpful:

• "proportions creates" changed to "proportions create".
• Single instance of "Sultan Ahmed I Mosque" changed to " Sultan Ahmed Mosque" for consistency.
• "which may the culmination": missing "be" added.
• "Mehmet" changed to "Mehmed" for consistency.
• Consistent dates throughout for Dolmabahçe Palace construction.
• Fixed the citations with missing page numbers (let me know if you spot any others).

@Per exemplum, I have one clarification question in the meantime: you suggested adding a sentence like "While the most significant architectural developments took place in the imperial capitals, Ottoman provinces across the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa adapted Ottoman forms to local building traditions in varying degrees." to the 3rd lead paragraph of the lead section, but that paragraph already covers these points in a bit more detail (see first, second and last (fifth) sentences in that paragraph). Did you mean that the current phrasing is inadequate and needed more, or that it was excessive and should be condensed into one sentence? Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Thanks for the work so far. The article looks great and pretty much good to go. Below is what's outstanding before I can close the review.

Lead (1b): To clarify my earlier post—you're right that the provincial point is already covered, so please disregard that suggestion. The decoration half still stands, though: painted decoration and stone carving are substantial body sections but aren't mentioned in the lead. A single sentence after the Iznik tiles line in paragraph one would do it. My earlier rough draft, for reference:

Ottoman buildings were also enriched with painted decoration and carved stonework, drawing on a repertoire of floriate motifs that evolved over the centuries and reflected influences ranging from Timurid art to European Baroque ornamentation.

Let me know your thoughts and adjust as you see fit.

Coverage (3a): On reflection, I should probably withdraw my earlier residential architecture point. The article's focus on imperial and monumental architecture is defensible in its thematic and art historical scope for GA. I'd still flag it as a worthwhile addition for any future expansion toward FA, but it shouldn't block closure here.

Inline copy-edits and citations: All confirmed addressed on my end (proportions/create, missing "be," Sultan Ahmed consistency, Mehmed standardization, Dolmabahçe dates, Kuban page numbers).

Layout (6b): @Wikipedian12512 has done a pass on MOS:SANDWICH and the layout looks clean to me now. Thanks for the assist. :-)

Images (6a): I'll do the Commons licensing spot-check on my end this week.

Once these items are addressed, I should be ready to close! Per Exemplum 20:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I agree with the other lead suggestion and will add. I will still aim to add a brief summary or two of residential architecture (the main sections do talk about palatial residences so I think it's worth adding a few sentences about other house types, especially Yalıs, most likely in the "19th century" section); but given your new comment, I will treat it as a secondary priority if I'm short on time.

Note: I reverted Wikipedian12512's good faith edits because they inserted many of the images mid-paragraph or mid-sentence, which disrupted the text (). I can do another final pass at the images, assuming it is still needed (sandwiching might appear better or worse depending, I think, on one's display resolution, so it's not always clear to me how good/bad it is for most readers). The only slight difficulity, at worse, is that there may not be quite enough room to align most of them to the right or to move them around, so I might cut a few; if there are any specific suggestions or preferences, feel free to let me know.

Thanks again! R Prazeres (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Thanks, this all sounds good.

On the layout: agreed that sandwiching renders differently at different resolutions. The main issue from GA standpoint is that at standard desktop widths (I checked both on my desktop and on my laptop) the MOS:SANDWICH is persistent enough that it makes it challenging for me to pass 6b as it currently stands. The images are all relevant and well-chosen, so I'd rather not see them cut if it can be avoided.

One option that might work well here is the gallery approach—placing a small horizontal gallery at the end of each subsection rather than floating images alongside the prose. Similar to how images of artworks are organized in the article on Kazimir Malevich. That said, selectively cutting or moving a few images is also fine if you'd prefer. What is your preference?

Looking forward to the lead whenever you get to it! Per Exemplum 19:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make an effort to adjust and maybe cut a couple of less essential or slightly repetitive images to make room. (There are also detailed sub-articles for most of the main sections and those contain extensive galleries, so hopefully that affords us a bit of efficiency here.) After I'm done, you can let me know if anything looks worse or needs further adjustment. And of course Wikipedian12512 and anyone else is welcome to give feedback too. R Prazeres (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Updates:

• I've added the suggested lead sentence along with some related adjustments to fit with existing text ().
• I ended up adding a new section about Ottoman houses (). When I read up on it, I found that the topic is quite large and doesn't fit conveniently within the existing chronological sections, so it was easier to give it its own thematic section below. It probably warrants its own sub-article or a significant expansion of Konak (residence) in the future, but I think this addition covers basic information of interest to most readers. Let me know if there are any problems with it.
• I've eliminated a few less essential images and re-positioned many of them in order to reduce sandwiching (). I think there are still technically a couple of spots with some sandwiching, but I hope that this sufficient improvement overall and that the inconvenience to readers is minimal. Let me know if this looks ok.

I think that covers all the points you raised.

• The only other comment you made above is about whether to group the thematic sections under a single higher heading (not crucial, but you asked for my thoughts). In short: I've asked myself this same question before, but I couldn't think of a good heading that seemed clear and logical enough to me to encompass all these. The meat of the article is arguably the chronological sections (they roughly cover what is most prominently discussed in references on "Ottoman architecture"), whereas the thematic sections below are subtopics that to me seemed important enough to warrant a summary but that did not fit well into same chronological divisions. An exception might be the "Dome design" section, which I think could be absorbed into the chronological sections if preferred, but which I felt deserved its own section simply because domes are so important in Ottoman architecture that I suspect many readers would come to this article looking for a summary of that particular aspect. If you do have further thoughts or suggestions, I'd still welcome them, as I don't have a strong stance on it.

Thanks again! R Prazeres (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Thanks for the substantial work on the houses section; it's more than I'd asked for and addresses the gap thoroughly. The lead addition reads well too. I've completed the Commons licensing spot-check and everything is appropriately licensed (author photographs, PD images, CC variants).

Two minor typos in the new houses section to fix: "configuation" → "configuration" and "developped" → "developed."

Otherwise, I am very pleased to close and pass the article. I think that a lot of people will benefit from your hard work. Congratulations!

Per Exemplum 04:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Recent lead additions

Hi @Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah: In response to this (reverted as it was in the wrong location, but feel free to repeat or respond here), your additions are inappropriate synthesis. You've made a broad generalization based on some specific details from sources that do not actually state or support that generalization. As HanKim20 pointed out already, reliable sources do not say that Ottoman architectural history is dominated by Greeks and Armenians in general, because indeed this is only relevant to certain periods and even to specific families (like the Balyans, who are mentioned already). This is evident just from looking at the sources you cited and, on top of that, I've seen no such generalization made by any of the many scholars I've read so far on the topic, so there is no avenue for making this kind of addition to the lead section here.

This is also an overview article and it must avoid getting side-tracked. The identity of architects are already mentioned in the relevant sub-articles (linked at the top of each section here). A few minor additions on the matter might be worth making in those articles, but only if they are correctly sourced without any personal synthesis and without undue emphasis (after all, neither the articles nor the cited sources make an attempt to emphasize the ethnicity of non-Greek/Armenian architects either, so this is a point of secondary interest). Lastly, the lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of content already in the main body of the article; any new additions should usually be in the body of the article, with appropriate context, rather than in the lead.

Before you continue, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies, in this case especially Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)