... 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
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
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)
@Gazozlu: the use of fair use material should be as minimal as possible, even if that means that some of the events in the article won't have a related photo. The most common reasons for use of non free images are here. The only photo that can fulfill without problem the criteria is one of the sculpture with the now gone pedestral. The article has three of them. The cartoons aren't the main topic of the article, the sculpture is (these particular cartoons aren't even mentioned in the main text). The fair use photos of the statue in Yildiz park don't offer any significant value over the free one. The pile of rubble isn't really adding significant value either, and the same is true about the statue being hidden with samplings. Not sure about the photo showing the people standing on the pedestral. C messier (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the extra images showing the sculpture in its original state from different angles.
I have removed the image of the sculpture covered with saplings.
I've left the image of the pedestal in a state of rubble, and the people standing on the pedestal, because the text refers, now more explicitly, to those images.
I've left the images of the cartoons, the text refers to the cartoon of Erdoğan Bozok "One of the cartoons represented those that would remove the sculpture as backwards and outdated", the other one I am not sure, perhaps we can remove the other one.
I've left the image of the sculpture on its side because the image is what initiated further discourse in news that lead to the sculpture being re-erected.
I've left the image of the sculpture being re-erected as well because the text talks about this event.
Do you agree with the rationale for keeping these remaining images? --Gazozlu (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
- 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.
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)