Talk:History of the Regency of Algiers/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Nourerrahmane (talk · contribs) 22:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 04:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• A very long article, but I look forward to reviewing it and learning about this subject I know little about. The level of detail is itself impressive. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @Vigilantcosmicpenguin, Thank you very much for reviewing this article. I hope it will meet GA requirements under your review. I recommend taking a look at the Regency of Algiers article to better understand the context of this article, which focuses mostly on military history. The main article is much more comprehensive and its history section covers the politics behind the developpements here and much more. Fortunately the GA review is almost done there so I beleive you won't have issues following it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section gives a brief summary that is enough for readers. Layout makes sense and is mostly chronological. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are cleanly listed.
	2b. 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).	All citations are to books from reputable publishers.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article reflects what is in sources without original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 30.1%, but only simple phrases. Close paraphrasing issues have been fixed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	For such a broad topic, this article gives an appropriate amount of detail for the most important points.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article focuses on events relevant to the military and political history of the Regency of Algiers.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Phrasing that is biased toward the Regency and specific rulers has been removed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable, no reverts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most images are public domain; the rest are free to use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images depict the era and events mentioned in the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is a solidly written and thorough summary of a broad topic.

General comments

• You have a section titled "Golden Age of Algiers"; however, this does not match the text of the section, which instead says "Golden Age of Corsairs". Y
• You made a minor mistake with the image you uploaded of the Barbarossa flag. You have labelled it as your own work, but because you did not create the flag itself, you should instead list it as public domain. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• The first sentence should be phrased differently; there's no need to include the exact title of the article. It could be something like The Regency of Algiers was founded in 1516 and existed until the French invasion of 1830. Y
• and was an important pirate base notorious for Barbary corsairs.Y
• as far north as Ireland and Iceland The body does not exactly support the phrasing "as far north as".Y
• Looks like the body of the article doesn't support the phrasing "tribal revolts" to describe the revolt by the Darqawiyya and Tijānīya.Y
• The last paragraph is only one sentence and can be merged with the previous one.Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also, this statement is not verified in the body: Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli were known in Europe as the Barbary States. The Ottomans called them Garb Ocakları (western garrisons). The body uses the phrase "Barbary", so it should be defined. Y — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Establishment

• (I'll be doing some minor copyedits throughout the article for grammar, conciseness, clarity, and MOS:LINK.)Y
• I don't think it's relevant to include the years that Melilla and Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera fell.Y
• walled and fortified redundant Y
• humiliating agreements is a vague description; what made them humiliating?Y
• Describing the Barbarossa brothers as "skillful" and is puffery Y
• "formidable fortifications" is also puffery Y
• He did however succeed in capturing hundreds of Spanish prisoners. → He captured hundreds of Spanish prisoners.Y
• The subsection "Barbarossa brothers arrive" is fairly short and could probably be merged with "New masters of Algiers".Y
• recognized Catholic king Ferdinand II of Aragon as his sovereign, and made a number of pledges. since the pledges are mentioned in the following sentence Y
• in a total defeat for the Spaniards, and a momentous victory for Aruj since a defeat for the Spaniards and a victory for Aruj are the same in this situation.Y
• The sentence Abu Zayan began to conspire against Aruj, so Aruj arrested and executed him. lacks a citation.Y
• Historian Nicolas Vatin points out that after reluctance from the Sublime Porte, Algiers officially became part of the Ottoman Empire under Selim I in the summer of 1520. I don't think this needs attribution; it's not really an opinion or anything.Y
• The debacle caused by this assassination cleared the road to Algiers, whose population had complained about Belkadi and opened the gates for Hayreddin in 1525. → The people of Algiers, who had complained about Belkadi, opened the gates for Hayreddin in 1525.Y
• then captured Algiers in 1520 and ruled over it for five years (1520–1525). since the 1525 date is already mentioned later in the paragraph.Y
• Two years later in June 1535Y
• Under steady assault by Berber Algiers cavalryY
• I don't think the quote from Roger Crowley is necessary.Y
• Hasan Pasha, Hayreddin's son, endeavored to end the see-sawing of Tlemcen's allegiance between Ottomans and Spaniards by taking control of it in 1551. → Hasan Pasha, Hayredidn's sun, took control of Tlemcen in 1551, aiming to end Y
• You mention Salah Rais had the support of the kingdom of Kuku—is there an explanation to how they became allies with Algiers, having previously been enemies? Would be useful context to readers.Y

• @Nourerrahmane: Looks like you still haven't addressed this point. If sources explain why Kuku became allies with Algiers, it's worth including (but if sources don't mention it that's fine). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin It is already mentionned that Kuku was subjugated by Hasan Agha in the aftermath of Charles V expedition. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• When you mention that Beni Abbas maintained its independence, it's against Algiers, right? It should say that instead of Ottoman. Also, what does "lasting until the early 18th century" mean? If it was conquered by Algiers, that should likely be later in the article; if it was something else, it's not relevant to the article.Y
• Algiers had finally reached its 1830 borders towards the end of the 16th century. It's not clear to a reader at this point why 1830 is significant, so it'd be better to say something like borders that would last for the rest of the regency's existence. Also, if possible, describe what those borders were.Y
• You link to "Andrea Doria" multiple times, but they link to different people.Y
• Instead of saying the victor of Lepanto John of Austria you should probably mention John in the previous paragraph describing the battle.Y
• I think it'd be better to specify when Hassan Veneziano became the ruler, instead of just saying "the late 16th century".Y
• Algerian pirates were everywhere in the waters Saying "everywhere" is a bit figurative.Y
• When you say Kapudan Pasha Uluj Ali, I think it'd be better to say when he gained the title of Kapudan Pasha.Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Corsair heyday

• I'm not familiar with the word "corso", so probably use a different word.Y
• Sicily and the islands of Italy redundant Y
• speed and surprise Vague description; if it can't be more specific it should be removed.Y
• corsairs famously sacked Baltimore in IrelandY
• Does the population figure of 100,000 to 125,000 refer to the city of Algiers or the regency? Either one can be called Algiers.Y
• "the most precious objects and delicacies from the European and Eastern worlds" is a quote that must be attributed or paraphrased. I think paraphrasing is better here.Y

• Your paraphrasing of this is a bit too close to the original quote. Keep in mind that WP:close paraphrasing is an issue that must be resolved. In this case, I have fixed it myself and rephrased it (though I can't read the original source, so hopefully this is still accurate). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I made a small addition for more accuracy. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• was not uncontested Who contested it?Y
• In clear defianceY
• You inconsistently refer to the same person as "Rais Mourad the Younger" and "Murat Rais".Y
• a sign of how differently Algiers and Constantinople saw relations with France I think this line can be removed. It's already clear that Algiers has disagreed with Constantinople.Y
• The first paragraph of the "Ali Bitchin Rais" section isn't about Ali Bitchin Rais. The section could have a different title or it could be reorganized.Y
• A great influx of crewsmen allowing operations to scale up, both Moriscos expelled from Spain and European renegades who renounced their Christian faith between 1609 and 1619. Ungrammatical sentence with unclear meaning.Y
• Their skills proved valuable for the strength of the Algerian fleet. Vague Y
• but the population of Algiers rose up against him since it's not the population of the whole empire, right?Y
• the diwân demanded that Ali Bitchin pay the janissaries their wages This is referring to the losses against Venice, right? It's not very clear since there's another sentence between them.Y
• The rise in power of the Turkish janissaries in the early 17th century gradually weakened the appointed triennial Ottoman pashas. This is the first time you mention that pashas were appointed triennially. This would be useful context earlier.Y
• the unrest when Hassan Pasha defaulted on the janissary payroll This is the first time you mention this Hassan Pasha. He should be introduced.Y
• they blew up the powder magazine, causing a huge explosion in the kasbah Y
• The last paragraph of the "Coulougli revolt" section mentions the terms Odjak and Dey for the first time without defining them.Y

• It looks like there's more detail about these in the article Regency of Algiers. On that note, it looks like there are several points mentioned in the main article but not here. These should be included.Y

• In fact, the lucrative cabotage businessY
• This conferred on Algerian foreign military elites an international legitimacy What does "this" refer to?Y
• Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645)Y
• You inconsistently refer to the same person as "Zymen Danseker" and "Simon Rais".Y
• fifteen corsairs from an Algerian ship were massacred By whom? Also, the word "massacred" is less neutral than "killed".Y
• But it did have to face the French Levant Fleet and the Knights of Malta, who scored a minor victory against Algerian vessels near Cherchell in 1655.Y
• A regime change in Algiers ensued. Surely this needs elaboration.Y
• But peace did not last. → Peace lasted until 1686. and remove the previous mention of the year 1686.Y
• 40 ships were captured By Algiers, I'm assuming. Should specify that, so it's not ambiguous which side it is.Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Maghrebi wars

• There are some links in hatnotes that should also be mentioned in the prose. Y
• I think this entire section could be organized chronologically instead of separating the Tunisian campaigns from the Moroccan campaigns. Y
• Beylerbey should be italicised throughout the article. Y
• Tunis had inherited ambitions in the Constantine region Unclear Y
• Morocco resisted Ottoman attempts at domination from the outset Since "the outset" is not a clear timeframe. Y
• Should probably specify that Mohamed Bey El Mouradi was the son of Murad II Bey, for clarity. Y
• The section "Coulougli revolt" mentions the Battle of Moulouya, but it's mentioned again in "Moroccan campaigns", which makes it feel disordered. I think the paragraph in "Coulougli revolt" should be moved to this section since it happened long after the Coulougli revolt. Y
• What is Orania? If it's the same thing as Oran you should just say Oran for clarity. Y
• It should be clarified why Moulay Ismail's Saharan incursions are relevant to the Regency of Algiers. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Dey Muhammad ben Othman Pasha

• This section should have a different title since part of it is not about Dey Muhammad ben Othman Pasha. Y
• I don't see why Husayn I ibn Ali in 1705 and Tripolitan Ahmed Karamanli in 1711 are relevant here. Y
• the implementation of a sort of bureaucracy Y
• issued what is known as "The Fundamental Pact of 1748" or "pact of trust", a fundamental politico-military text that defined the rights of the subjects of Algiers and of all the and other inhabitants of the regency of Algiers Y
• The French king Which one? Y
• Moreover, the raïs, especially the Christian converts to Islam, did not dare land on Christian soil, where they risked imprisonment and torture. This is a poorly written sentence—"did not dare" is a bad phrase to use, and "Christian soil" is unclear about whether it refers to France or something else. Y
• The first paragraph of the section "Muhammad ben Othman's policy" says too much detail about Muhammad ben Othman himself, which would fit better in the article about him than this one. Y
• kept the janissaries in check Vague Y
• Several captains became famous during his reign, such as Rais Hamidou, Rais Haj Suleiman, Rais Ibn Yunus and Rais Hajj Muhammad, who according to Al-Zahar commanded about 24,000 men in his various maritime incursions. "Famous" is WP:PUFFERY, and the comment from Al-Zahar is too much detail. Y
• 2.5 million dollars Dollars? Y
• western bey Mustapha Bouchelaghem → Mustapha Bouchelaghem, Bey of the Western Beylik Y
• The assault's spectacular failure dealt a humiliating blow to the Spanish military reorganisation. Y
• and Spain undertook to "freely and voluntarily" return the two cities Y
• Delete Algerians had freed their land from foreign occupation. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Decline of Algiers

• Between 1803 and 1805, famine caused by failed wheat harvests resulted in public riots that led to the death of prominent Jewish grain merchant Naphtali Busnash who was blamed for the shortages. → Failed wheat harvests caused a famine from 1803 to 1805. Rioters killed Jewish grain merchant Naphtali Busnash, whom they blamed for the shortages. Y
• Delete a loss to Algiers of a seasoned politician and military and administrative leader Y
• Once Previously the most prosperous beylik of the Regency, Y
• most of whom were incompetent Doesn't feel like wikivoice. Y
• Constant war burdened the population with heavy taxes and fines that took no account of the hardship they caused and primed the population to respond to calls for led to disobedience, which the deys always met with brute force. Y
• "barbarous relic of a previous age" Whom is this quote from? Y
• Should specify who/why killed Omar Agha. Y
• The fact about supplying wheat to France is mentioned twice. Y
• Overthrow of Charles X is not relevant. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

I'll be checking 5 frequently cited sources. Citation numbers as of this revision. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Wolf 1979:

11. N Although this source does verify the fact that Aruj's arm was amputated, it does not verify the statement about "strong fortifications".
12. Y Y Also, I think you should mention the fact that people believed that Ferdinand's death freed them from their contract. N Does not mention Hayreddin's attack on the Peñón. Also, the Cherchell leader was a "lieutenant", not a "Turkish captain". N Does not mention that Aruj was in Tenes, and does not mention that Tlemcen feared Spanish attacks.
31. N The source mentions the son of Salim al-Thumi, not Abu Hammou III.
68. Y
111. Y
117. Y
121. Y Except the attack was on Boujaia, not Algiers, and the source doesn't verify the year 1671.
122. Y Except the source doesn't say that they restored the model of Hayreddin so much as they invoked his name to justify their new model. Also, it doesn't mention he was Dutch.
154. Y
155. Y Though your claim is slightly different from the source: the source says that the Ottoman Empire saw France as an ally, as you mention, but the other two countries are simply mentioned to be at peace with North Africans, not quite allies.
186. Y
197. Y Y
212. Y
213. N Does not mention Black Guards Y
233. Y Except it doesn't say the system fought corruption.
236. Y But I think your phrasing is too close to the source; please rephrase it. Y Y
254. Y Except "several small earthquakes" is different from "massive earthquake". Also, the earthquake was only in Oran, not Mers El Kebir.
255. Y
280. Y
282. Y
285. Y Except it says the false belief was held by the Ottoman sultan, not Hussein Pasha.

Julien 1970:

1. Y
6. Y Except it doesn't say there was a causation between the loss of trade and the political fragmentation.
29. N Doesn't mention Aruj breaking a promise. I don't think this claim needs attribution, anyway; similar events are mentioned in Wolf 1979.
35. Y
41. Y Y
70. Y Except it says 1541, not 1543.
74. Y Except you say that Salah Rais had the support of Kuku and Beni Abbas, but the source says it was just Kuku because Beni Abbas turned against him. Y Y
94. Y Except it says 1588, not 1587. Y Except it doesn't specify 1581.
102. Y Y Y N Does not mention these specific battles.
105. Y Y Y Y
115. Y Except it doesn't support the phrasing "widespread corruption".
166. Y If you're going to say this, you should probably include the 1681 treaty with England.
176. Y Probably specify the tribe (Hanencha) N Doesn't specify the terms of the treaty you list.
203. Y
263. Y Except does not mention the Rahmaniyyas.
270. N Mentions epidemics, famine, and droughts. Does not mention a specific 1814 drought or an earthquake.
283. N Does not mention this.

Panzac 2005:

40. Y
103. Y
156. Y Except it doesn't mention the specific leaders, whose names are probably not relevant.
157. Y
164. Y Y But I think the paraphrasing is a bit close with "conferred upon it"
165. N This does not really say the treasury was the reason for privateering. N Does not say France was the first country with relations with Algiers. N Does not say the Dey's job was to secure payments. Y
172. Y
188. Y
226. Y It doesn't specifically say "enough olive oil to light all the mosques", but I'll assume this is supported by the other source cited.
227. Y Y Except it says 1711
228. Y Y
232. Y
234. Y
237. Y This source also mentions that the Jews of Algiers were two specific families, which seems useful to mention.
258. Y Y But this is close paraphrasing, with your use of the word "paralyzed".
277. Y Except it does not mention the name of the ship Mashouda. Y
279. Y

Spencer 1976:

25. Y
33. Y Mentions that the robes were sent to the church, but not that his head was paraded.
50. Y Y
60. Y Except it does not specify October
132. Y Y
159. Y
160. Y
231. N You cite the source in a paragraph about Ali Chaouch and the Peace of Passarowitz, but the source does not mention this.
250. Y
251. Y Except it does not specify the number of ships
274. Y
276. Y
281. Y

De Grammont 1887 Side note: wow that's an old source.:

80. Y
86. N Does not mention the siege of Malta or the Morisco revolt. Mentions a force of 3,000 Turks, not 5,300, and does not mention the Kabyle.
119. Y
139. Y
141. Y
145. Y
201. Y Y
204. Y Except it does not refer to Tcherkes as a puppet. Also, the mules had gold and silver.
205. Y
222. N Does not mention this.
252. N Does not mention this.

@Nourerrahmane: Alright, looks mostly good but some errors to fix with sourcing. Also, you must fix the WP:close paraphrasing issues I have noted. Close paraphrasing is a serious problem for a GAN; in this case, I don't think it's bad enough to fail this, but you should take care to avoid similar issues. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Alright, it looks like you've addressed the main points. Due to the length of the article, I will read through it one more time, just like the reviewer of Regency of Algiers did. This article probably just needs some minor copyedits before being solid. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments on the final readthrough

@Nourerrahmane: Great work on this; we're very close to done here. Upon reading through the article again, I have noticed a few remaining issues:

• In the lead, you use the spelling "Khayr ad-Din", but the rest of the article uses "Hayreddin".
• Body does not verify the definition of Odjak in the lead ("stratocratic government...").
• Body does not verify that the slave trade financed the state.
• You should specify that Sultan Belkadi is the Kuku sultan. (Also, wikilink to Ahmed ou el Kadhi—I think this is the same person.)
• The first mention of the phrase "Barbary pirates" is in the section "Hayreddin's successors". Since readers may not be familiar with the term, it should be defined before this point.
• as low as 8,000 and up to 12,000 men → 8,000 or 12,000 men
• You switch between the spellings "Salah Rais" and "Salah Reis".
• in a single season Which season?
• The "Elected rulers" section takes place starting in 1659, so it should be moved to after the "Coulogli revolt" section. The last section of "Coulogli revolt" should then be moved to this section.

• Also, I would probably change the title of the section from "Elected rulers" to "Aghas", but it's good either way.

• You switch between the spellings "taife" and "tai'fa".
• The quote from John Eliot is not relevant if you only cite it to a primary source. It should be removed unless a secondary source mentions the same quote.
• The "Maghrebi Wars" section has a "see also" link to Sieges of Oran and Mers El Kébir. I assume this is an error.
• The "Campaigns" section should be organized more chronologically. The info about the 1694 war against Tunisia could be moved to after the paragraph about Moulay Ismail.
• By the end of the 17th century, the Barbary states of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli Since the phrase "Barbary states" is mentioned in the next sentence, this clarifies to readers what it means.
• became dey in 1766 and ruled over a powerful and prosperous Algiers for a full quarter-century until he died in 1791.
• You switch between the spellings "Djenina Palace" and "Jenina Palace".
• Several captains became well known during his reign, such as Rais Hamidou and Rais Hajj Muhammad, enhancing late Algerian privateering. → Several captains enhanced late Algerian privateering during his reign, such as Rais Hamidou and Rais Hajj Muhammad.
• When you say agreed to pay 2.5 million Dollars, what currency is this referring to?
• A new European order had arisen from the French Revolutionary Wars and the Congress of Vienna that no longer tolerated Algerian piracy, and deemed it a "barbarous relic of a previous age" according to British historian James McDougall. This quote isn't worth including since it's not from a primary source. It doesn't add much information, since "no longer tolerated" is clear enough.

Alright, the article now meets the broadness and neutrality requirements. Now you just have to address these comments, along with a few issues raised during the source spotcheck (particularly the close paraphrasing issues) that have not yet been corrected. I'm placing this on hold for now; ping me once you've addressed everything and I'll approve this GA. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vigilantcosmicpenguin, it's done. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: There are still a few statements not verified in the sources, based on the source spotcheck. The specific statements are:

• squadron of four ships of the line and six frigates
• After the failed Ottoman Siege of Malta in 1565, [...] 5300 Turks and 6000 Kabyle.

You also did not not address two of my comments on the lead: the inconsistent spelling of Hayreddin's name and the unverified statement about statocracy. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

More importantly, you have not addressed the close paraphrasing issues I mentioned. Specifically, the "Jews of Algiers" section uses the phrases French consuls resented the Jews, and urged their king to pass ordinances to prevent them from trading in French ports and The Jewish merchants dealt in prize goods from the corsairs as well as in more usual merchandise, which are both too close to the source. I also mentioned smaller paraphrasing issues, so please check my comments again, but this is the biggest one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

These are my last remaining issues with the article. You've done a very good job writing this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Thank you. Hopefully these issues have been adressed :

- Added a more recent RS and removed unsourced sentence.

- Hayreddin's name and stratocracy are checked (I dedicated a subsection for the Algerian stratocracy)

- Paraphrasing checked, I also worked worked previously on the smaller ones. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: I still think a statement with a citation is needed for the description of the government as a stratocracy. Even though "stratocracy" is an accurate description, it's original research to use this specific word if it's not used in sources. All other issues have been fixed; well done. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin I went with "Military republic" instead of stratocracy, which is found only in 19th century sources. Military republic is widely used by the sources used in this article. Might do the same thing in the main article, although the GA reviewer didn't oppose the use of the term "stratocracy". (He's been absent for more than two weeks btw). Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, that's everything! Again, great work on this article. This is a fantastic example of a GA about a big topic. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:22, 5 February 2025 (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.

21 February 2025 content

Hi @Riad Salih: This article has just completed an extensive GA review, which tooks month to prepare and months to pass but you have decided to horse it by adding an illegal full stop, changing width of the maps which was so carefully set, split a paragraph in half and introducing a spelling mistake and then introducing details about the the death of one of the folk into a summary article, which has no place here. Why are you doing it? None of this going in. scope_creep^Talk 07:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih:, if your try and introduce it, I'm going to take you WP:ANI for disruptive editing. Its not cool. scope_creep^Talk 07:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi back @Scope creep

I would like to clarify some things:

• Regarding the mistakes and images; I am sure that the errors were due to the fact that I was editing the article in two separate tabs. I might have accidentally published the wrong version with some mistakes. Because Im almost certain I didnt want to change the size of any image.
• As for the GA, I didn't really notice it, to be honest. I was simply reading the article and correcting some misleading information. For example, it stated that Aruj was locked in the Mechouar Palace, which is not that accurate. People often confuse the fort or citadel named both named El Mechouar. The huge fort called El Mechouar, inside of which there were many palaces. The only surviving palace now is El Mechouar Palace and its a reconstruction much more different then the oginal one, which shares the same name as the citadel as I explained. It is logical that he wouldn't hide in a palace but in a fort. I added an illustration that shows the fort.
• Concerning the information about the death of Aruj, it is a crucial detail that has been highlighted. It is illogical to think that Aruj was hiding there while he could have left and survived. He stayed longer because he was already in contact with the Wattasid Sultan I mentioned, waiting for his support. If the Sultan had refused to help from the beginning, Aruj would certainly have left the city.

I have a few changes that I would like to request too. Apart from the articles I created and the way I edit, you can be assured that I am not here to cause any disruption. I have personally added some images (1, 2) I took personnaly to support the GA of the Regency of Algiers.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is clearly marked as a GA article. It is not a crucial detail. This is is summary article, not a biographical article. Minor details about a single subject are not important when its covering hundreds of years of history. Nourerrahman, the subject matter expert on this will take a look at this when he comes in. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Scope creep. @Riad Salih Hi, you can summerise that addition in just half a sentence. (...They then began a siege of Tlemcen that lasted six months, during which Aruj waited a Wattasid releif force that never arrived.) I red this somewhere so it could be reffed. This will spare us more words about attributions and motivations of the Wattasid sultan that we do not really need in this article.

Can you list the changes you want in this talk page ? We'll check them out. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

For The Mechouar I think we can fix this with one or two words only. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)