Template:Did you know nominations/Hagop Vahram Çerçiyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination  The following is an archived discussion of Hagop Vahram Çerçiyan's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hagop Vahram Çerçiyan[edit]

Signature of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded by Hagop Çerçiyan

Created/expanded by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nom at 01:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It would be nice to have dates of birth and death for Mr Çerçiyan. Ericoides (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I havent come across a birth or death date. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fortunately that is not a DYK requirement and I am willing to pass it as sometimes even seemingly basic information is missing about more obscure historical figures. Date, length, and hook check out. Intelligentsium 04:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article has excessively close paraphrasing from its primary English source. Compare, for example, the article's "As part of reforms aimed at nation-building, the government also decreed that all citizens should take a last name, which did not exist in Ottoman times (with respect to non-Muslims). Mustafa Kemal took the surname Ataturk, meaning father of the Turks." to the source's "As part of changes aimed at nation-building, the government decreed that all citizens should take a last name, which did not exist in Ottoman times. Mustafa Kemal, duly, took the surname Atatürk, meaning father of the Turks." There are other instances, though not as long, elsewhere in the article, all of which must be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png I am terribly sorry - I don't know how I could have missed the close paraphrasing; I must not have been thorough enough in the review. The author has reworked the sentence you highlighted and I have eliminated several other examples that I found upon closer inspection. I believe the article is clean now but I will recuse myself and allow a different reviewer to determine that. Intelligentsium 04:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I fixed all copyright issues. Thanks for raising these concerns. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing them. There are a few more issues that I'd like to see addressed before a final review. The first is that, funnily enough, the one sentence that states Çerçiyan was Armenian, which is the first sentence in the "Life" section, is not inline cited. By DYK rules, all hook facts must be so cited, and this is a key to the hook. In general, facts that are "extraordinary claims" should always have an inline citation, and DYK considers hook facts to be among these. Another one, to my mind, is the final sentence of the "Atatürk's signature" subsection in "Life", which reads, "Atatürk personally selected the one of "K. Atatürk" from these five model signatures." While it seems likely that he would personally select it, to actually state unequivocally that he did (rather than accept the advice of colleagues or friends or family) is something that requires support. Otherwise, I think it has to be a simple statement that one of the five was the one used. Finally, I don't understand why Çerçiyan's name isn't used in the hook. What's wrong with a hook that gives his name and the fact that he was Armenian. For example,
  • I addressed all your concerns. ALT1 looks good to me. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png Thanks, Proudbolsahye. We now need a new reviewer to approve ALT1 and recheck the article (since I proposed ALT1, I can't do that review). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT1. Article is long enough, new enough, no outstanding problems with the text and the referencing looks good, based on the one English source I can read. Hook facts are cited. Go go go! Moswento talky 10:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)