This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
A fact from Şevket Yorulmaz appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Şevket Yorulmaz scored 99 goals in 173 matches whilst playing for Beşiktaş?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Şevket Yorulmaz scored a total of 99 goals in 173 matches whilst playing for Beşiktaş? Source: Beşiktaş official website, Tezkan, Mehmet. "'Beşikten taş gibi futbola'". No. 14 May 1991. Cumhuriyet. p. 15.
@casualdejekyll I don't know if this matters, but the hook is backed up by a primary source. I'm not able to look into the sources for the article because of language barriers and inaccessibility, so it might be worth double checking with a user that is of a Turkish language background. Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll and Haiiya: if the sources are in a foreign language, reviewers usually either use machine translation or just assume good faith on it. Waiting for others with the command of the language isn't ideal practice as they may not be readily available. I can provide a translation of the sentence in the source if you'd like? The source is a primary one but this is as reliable as it gets as it would be using the club's official statistics. --GGT (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GGT @Casualdejekyll Alright, I'll assume good faith, but I still don't approve of the hook as the 99 goals part is backed up by a primary source.. So if we go with
ALT0a ... that Şevket Yorulmaz was the top goalscorer of Beşiktaş during the 1950s, especially in the İstanbul derbies? Source: [1]
This might be the most colons I've typed in a row onwiki before. Anyway, now I'm concerned about the whole "interesting" part of the hook.. I don't have any better ideas though. Looks.. okay? I'll chew on it for a bit. Can we really expect the average reader to know what an Ístanbul derby is? I sure don't. casualdejekyll23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haiiya: A couple of points for future reference - you're unable to approve a hook that you've proposed yourself so would need to call in another reviewer for that (but you can still approve the hook that I proposed). Also please don't strike through proposed hooks unless the nominator retracts them. I don't really like the "ALT0a" hook and would strongly prefer the original as it's much more interesting. The source being primary shouldn't really be having a bearing here (it's certainly OK by the guidelines) but I've supplied a news article (offline, I'm afraid) to support the hook in addition. --GGT (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GGT: Well....I'd not rather not go ahead with the original if possible per WP:RSPRIMARY. While primary sources are fine, imo they need be with secondary sources as well. I honestly think that Alt0a is more impressive because It says he was the top scorer, instead of 99 goals. Non soccer fans (like me) don't really know how to interpret that. Regarding approving my hook, I think if @Casualdejekyll: approves it, we'll be fine. If the Istanbul Derbies part is nagging you, just exclude it. Thank you for the tips about strikethrough though, I apologize. Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haiiya: No updates here in several weeks... The original review is complete but expressed a concern about PRIMARY. This does not apply in this case: Yorulmaz did not write the page and I suspect the author never met him. Historical biographical works like this are widely used and accepted on the wiki. As to the topic of the hooks, I see two votes in favour of 99 and will add my own simply because I think "99" will catch the eye. So I think we are GTG on ALT0. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a primary source. It was posted on the official website of the sports club that the subject played for. How do we know that the website didn't tamper with the 1991 article? It would be different if someone had access to the original publication. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SL93: I do have access to the original publication, through the Cumhuriyet e-archive. It’s not cited in the official website (which is pretty easy to see) so nope, no risk of tampering. This is frankly getting frustrating. Just go with the ALT if it makes everyone happier. —GGT (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GGT: Not being cited on the official website doesn't mean that there is no such risk. The simple solution would be just to cite the original publication with no mention of the primary source. SL93 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The fact that I’m citing a primary source that is accessible online IN ADDITION to the paywalled 1991 source (which I have myself accessed!) surely only makes the verification easier for everyone and doesn’t reduce the validity of the 1991 source? I simply don’t see what the problem is here. —GGT (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first review, but everything looks good here to me - per Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, I am asking for a second opinion, as well as any criticism if I did anything horribly horribly wrong. casualdejekyll 00:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Haiiya: No updates here in several weeks... The original review is complete but expressed a concern about PRIMARY. This does not apply in this case: Yorulmaz did not write the page and I suspect the author never met him. Historical biographical works like this are widely used and accepted on the wiki. As to the topic of the hooks, I see two votes in favour of 99 and will add my own simply because I think "99" will catch the eye. So I think we are GTG on ALT0. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
It is still a primary source. It was posted on the official website of the sports club that the subject played for. How do we know that the website didn't tamper with the 1991 article? It would be different if someone had access to the original publication. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. I'm more focused on dealing with an editor at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#New hooks suggested at Main Page errors who I remember saying that the DYK project needs to get our collective heads out of our asses. SL93 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)