Template:Did you know nominations/Fire of Manisa
Appearance
- 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.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Fire of Manisa
[edit]- ...
that a week before the Great Fire of Smyrna, over 90 percent of the historic town of Manisa was burned down by retreating Greek troops during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)?
- ALT1: ...
that the town of Manisa was burned down by the retreating Greek army on 5 September 1922? - ALT2: ... that over 90 percent of the historic town of Manisa was burned down during 5–8 September 1922?
- ALT1: ...
- ALT3: ...
that over 90 percent of the historic town of Manisa was burned down by retreating Greek troops during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)?
- ALT3: ...
Created by Bymedia (talk). Self nominated at 11:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC).
- New enough (moved to mainspace 27 May, nominated 29 May) and long enough. No QPQ required from this user, who has no previous DYKs according to user talkpage history. No problem with access to external links. I have struck ALT1 because it omits "90 percent" therefore it might be challenged as inaccurate. The original hook, ALT2 and ALT3 are acceptable and short enough, and they check out with citations #2 (online), #4 (offline) and #6 (online). Citation #4 is taken AGF. The text is written in an objective manner and neutral style. It is sufficiently cited. Note: the article needs to be copyedited for Standard English, but this does not affect DYK nom criteria because the meaning is currently clear. I checked online citation links where possible (with dup detector tool and manually) for copyvio and close paraphrasing, but none found. There are quoted passages of possibly copyright material, but they are essential to understanding and verification, therefore these quotes are not excessive in this case, IMO.
Issues: (1) The link "princes" (via "Shahzade") is a disambig link. (2) The refimprove template at the top of the article no longer pertains; please remove it. Summary: When minor issues 1 and 2 are resolved,this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- New enough (moved to mainspace 27 May, nominated 29 May) and long enough. No QPQ required from this user, who has no previous DYKs according to user talkpage history. No problem with access to external links. I have struck ALT1 because it omits "90 percent" therefore it might be challenged as inaccurate. The original hook, ALT2 and ALT3 are acceptable and short enough, and they check out with citations #2 (online), #4 (offline) and #6 (online). Citation #4 is taken AGF. The text is written in an objective manner and neutral style. It is sufficiently cited. Note: the article needs to be copyedited for Standard English, but this does not affect DYK nom criteria because the meaning is currently clear. I checked online citation links where possible (with dup detector tool and manually) for copyvio and close paraphrasing, but none found. There are quoted passages of possibly copyright material, but they are essential to understanding and verification, therefore these quotes are not excessive in this case, IMO.
- I have removed the disambiguation link as well as the ref improve tag, thanks for reviewing. Bymedia (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bymedia. All issues are resolved. The three remaining hooks are all satisfactory, so if you want control of which hook goes on the front page, please strike out the unwanted ones asap. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good to go,
with original hookas preferred by nominator. --Storye book (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the disambiguation link as well as the ref improve tag, thanks for reviewing. Bymedia (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have added two sources. Bymedia (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can cite the architect Sinan with this source. --Storye book (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have added two sources. Bymedia (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have added the source, thanks. Bymedia (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bymedia. All issues now resolved. Good to go
with original hook(again). --Storye book (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bymedia. All issues now resolved. Good to go
- I have added the source, thanks. Bymedia (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then hook 2 is more appropriate because I don't think there is a source which exactly mentions that one fire occurred one week earlier than the other. That information was based on the date of the two fires. Bymedia (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bymedia. All issues now (finally) resolved. Good to go with ALT2. --Storye book (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Then hook 2 is more appropriate because I don't think there is a source which exactly mentions that one fire occurred one week earlier than the other. That information was based on the date of the two fires. Bymedia (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)