Template:Did you know nominations/Güzel İstanbul

{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=March 2023 |passed= |2=

Güzel İstanbul

(

)

Güzel İstanbul in the Yıldız Park in 2020.

... that the plinth of Güzel İstanbul (pictured) told a story of Istanbul with motifs; its air with a honeysuckle, its population with a bee, its divinity with a fig, and the many legends with a pomegranate? Source: Antmen (2009), p. 367 Şenol (1974), p. 1
- ALT1: ... that the lost plinth of Gürdal Duyar's nude sculpture Güzel İstanbul (pictured) contained reliefs of motifs including fig, pomegranate, honeysuckle and a bee through which he represented different aspects of Istanbul? Source: Antmen (2009), p. 367 Şenol (1974), p. 1 Destroyed plinth.

Sources

Antmen, Ahu (1 Apr 2009). "Türk Kültüründe Beden Ve "Güzel İstanbul" Olayı" [The body in Turkish culture and the "Beautiful Istanbul" affair]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences (in Turkish). 8 (30): 366–375. ISSN 1304-0278. Retrieved 13 Jun 2022.
Şenol, Bahattin (11 March 1974). "«Güzel Istanbul» heykeli Karaköy Meydanına kondu" [The «Güzel Istanbul» sculpture has been placed on Karaköy Square]. Milliyet (in Turkish). p. 1.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Australian Wars

Created by Gazozlu (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Güzel İstanbul; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - The article has lots (10) of fair use images, and thus IMHO fail the minimal use criterion (the article has galleries with fair use images). I understand that a photo of it in its original location could be considered fair use, but the article has three. Also, there are two cartoons, four photos of its removal and its consequences and one more of it being hidded. Only one photo about the removal should suffice. Not sure if this alone is enough to reject the nomination.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Given the issue with the IMO overuse of fair use images in the article, I will approve if the author removes most of them, because IMHO these is a reason to review the newly acquired good article status. Ppt91 mentioned in GA review that the article is image heavy, which makes a case against the fair use images being a minimal use. Anyway, I prefer ALT1, as it is more accurate. Maybe the word lost should be replaced by destroyed. C messier (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@C messier: Hi, indeed during the review process, in the beginning, there were too many images. But at that time we are talking about 6 newspaper images that were all reactions to the removal so they were all the same type of thing. That has been reduced to only 2 most iconic cartoons. The other images, except for maybe the first one, all show different specific events that are handled in the prose of the article, so I believe since they show different events and are not just a gallery of the event, they rationale to have them was accepted. Let me know what you think.20:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)