Template:Did you know nominations/Black Hole of Baku

The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 22:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Black Hole of Baku

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1920, British Commander (and later Admiral of the Fleet) Bruce Fraser was imprisoned in the Black Hole of Baku?

Created/expanded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk). Nominated by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) at 22:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say who calls it that anywhere. It also lacks context - this is the Russian civil war? Who were they defending Baku (in Azerbaijan?) for? It needs better sourcing as 'lost voices of the british navy' seems to be the main source. The tone is too much like patriotic stories of military daring do. Sorry.Secretlondon (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

- I have a severe conflict of interest here - however, please take my arguments on their merits - There is one gaping logical fallacy in the above review. The article does not directly reference who "calls it that name" - because the only sentence which states it plainly as fact is in the lead, and the MOS discourages that sort of thing. Having said that, if you were to look at any of the sources used in the article, you would see that yes, it was called that by a wide range of people.

I should very much also like to see an example of the patriotic stor[y] of military daring you refer to, which I hope we can agree is a neutrality issue. We can fix this, but not without specifics of what is wrong. When people are paraphrasing too closely, we tell them where and how to fix it. Same should apply for this proposed neutrality issue.

Similarly, though the article does heavily rely on 'The Lost Stories of the Royal Navy' - there is nothing to suggest that this is not a credible source, and indeed, the article does not solely rely on it, thereby not breaking any rules that I can see - either in appropriate sourcing or with regards to it's DYK eligibility.

If I am wrong, please let me know. More open communication on this issue would be much appreciated. Really good catch on the lack of context. From the dates it seems most likely to have been the Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan - but that definitely needs clarification before we can proceed. I see no reason that this nomination cannot be salvaged in a reasonable time period as long as we work together. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the article. I thought it was obvious, but in retrospect not everyone likes the Russian Civil War! If you would like, I can drop by to the British Library in the next few days and research a few more secondary sources - but it's unlikely to get much better than these, simply because anyone who could have written about the camp died before they left. There are a few more sources, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nominator says issues have been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is fine now. Secretlondon (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)