Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence Ussher

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 PFHLai (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarence Ussher

(

)

... that when entering Ottoman Turkey, customs officials removed maps from the Bible of American physician Clarence Ussher (pictured) because they contained the word "Armenia"?

Reviewed: Stephen Rhodes (racing driver)

Created/expanded by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 02:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC).

Date OK. More than 5 times expanded to a more than acceptable length. Hook length OK and confirmed by fragment found online. Article well referenced. Image appears OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I have pulled this one from prep due to some POV concerns I have about the wording in parts of the article. I will attempt to address the issues myself in the next few days. Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't forgotten about this nom, just haven't found time to get back to it yet. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I went through the article, copyediting and formatting refs. I don't see the "POV concerns" that Gatoclass mentioned. Ussher is considered an eyewitness to the Armenian Genocide, and his personal account is widely accepted. Calling POV the few times that he is quoted about the murder and mayhem seems a bit of a stretch, as his notability is based on these eyewitness accounts. The article does not go overboard with the descriptions. The hook ref is verified. QPQ done. IMO, good to go. Yoninah (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've returned this from the queue as my POV concerns have yet to be addressed - as I said to Proudbolsayhe a few days ago, I will attempt to address the issues this weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like I'm not the only person who believes this article is not POV. Thank you Yoninah (talk · contribs) for your edits. Gatoclass claims there's POV concerns without underlining what these "concerns" actually are. But I will keep AGF until Sunday when I expect this article to be reviewed. If not, I will go about searching for other editors. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have spent a considerable amount of time today reading and compiling sources for an expansion of this article and am well into completing the job, but unfortunately I am running out of time and will probably not be able to finish it tonight. As I have a very busy day tomorrow, I expect to wind up work on this article on Tuesday or Wednesday night. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good 2 go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Gatoclass (talk · contribs) still working on this article? --PFHLai (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the third editor who has said that this is a GTG article. It's 4 vs. 1 against Gatoclass at this point and the consensus seems to be growing. The lack of good faith by Gatoclass has held this article back and now it has become obvious that the article never had POV issues to begin with. I may have to seek admin intervention if the status quo of this nomination and of Ernest Yarrow for that matter continues. Enough is enough. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to avoid the {underconstruction} template when the article is on queue for an appearance on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for that. That's only necessary if the article itself is being heavily edited due to construction. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this article is still not ready for mainpage exposure. I did a lot of work on the article over the last few days and had expected to finish it midweek, unfortunately I have since discovered errors in Ussher's account that will need to be addressed, I should be able to complete work on it over the weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me what these "errors" are so I can fix them myself? Obviously there's a huge consensus growing against your claims. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If these were easy errors to fix, I could have done it myself in short order. In order to gain an understanding of what occurred in Van in this period, I first had to do a lot of background research into the causes and the chronology of the events in question, which, when one is dealing with an event as large and complex as a genocide, is difficult and time-consuming. I've done that now so most of the work is out of the way, but in coming to Ussher's own account over the last couple of days, I have found apparent self-contradictions, as well as discrepancies between Ussher's account and that given in academic sources, which have to be reconciled. That is a relatively minor job albeit a necessary one, but obviously it's going to take a little more time - no more I would think than a couple more evenings over the weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the job is a little bigger than I anticipated, but I'm well into completing it and will do so over the next evening or two. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have posted my rewrite of the article, but it could still use an additional cite here and there, so I'm not going to relist it for review until tomorrow as I've run out of time to do any more work on the article today. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any issues with the rewrite Proudbolsahye, so that we can hopefully sort them out ASAP. Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take it from here. Please start Ernest Yarrow as well. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this one is ready for re-review now. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work, Gatoclass; this is ready for GA as well as DYK. 5x expansion verified. Article is long enough, new enough, well-referenced, and no close paraphrasing seen. QPQ done. Hook ref verified. Good to go! Yoninah (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)