Template:Did you know nominations/Karak Revolt
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Karak Revolt
[edit]... that the demographic and economic recovery of Al-Karak was undermined by the Ottoman Empire's brutal suppression of the 1910 Karak Revolt?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ajtony
Created by Makeandtoss (talk). Self-nominated at 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC).
The citation does not specify Transjordan, but simply says "the region", which as far as I can make out seems to mean the Karak plateau, and no direct equivalency seems to be given between the Karak plateau and Transjordan. It seems that a more comprehensive or useful citation (or additional citation), if you can find it, might be the one that citation gives, which is Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921, by Eugene L. Rogan (Cambridge University Press, 1999). Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I read that source, I don't think it has what we are searching for but here's an alternative hook:
[ALT1: ...]that the 1910 Karak Revolt revealed the true limits of Ottoman rule in Transjordan?- The Rogan source is what the source sentence that you reference cites. If anything can establish that what is being referred to is actually Transjordan it would be that. In terms of your alternate proposal, it is vague and rather meaningless, and the citation doesn't say "true". In my opinion it's not a sufficiently informative hook as it's too vague. Plus the rest of that sentence in the wiki article is confusing and doesn't seem to follow either grammatically or logically. I'm also noticing some other issues with the article. I personally think the article needs some work re: accuracy, citing, grammar, and logic before coming to DYK. Softlavender (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I read that source, I don't think it has what we are searching for but here's an alternative hook:
- Fixed issues, going with the original hook. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned before, the citation does not substantiate. The Karak plateau is only a small part of Transjordan [1]. Moreover, there are many other problems with this article, including multiple citations that do not substantiate. Do not remove the {{not in citation}} tags unless those issues are actually fixed. There are probably other citations that do not substantiate, but I don't have the time to check nor the faith that this article has been accurately cited. In addition, there are other problems: logic, punctuation, grammar, word-flow, and what seems to possibly be original research or synthesis. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The revolt spread to Tafila, Ma'an and other towns, but since the source doesn't specify, I'll go with Al-Karak. The claim relating to Arab Revolt is supported by citation in page 20. I can't seem to find anything terribly wrong with the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you are citing page 20, your links need to go to page 20. Page 214 neither says nor implies anything about the revolt of 1916. And page 20 does not mention any Karak participation in the revolt of 1916. So the citation fails on both counts (both pages). This kind of misinformation and misinterpretation of sources is troubling, and if there is more in this wiki article, then that is a major problem. The fact that you have continued to maintain that it and/or your citations are accurate compounds the problem in my mind. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: "the Karak Revolt became an Arabist cause, and in some ways a precursor to the later Arab Revolt of 1916" page 20 ?????? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Says nothing about Karakis participating in or supporting the 1916 revolt, which is what the wiki article refers to: "The imprisonment of hundreds of people and the execution of ten revolt leaders in the aftermath of the revolt, had greatly angered the Karakis, and is thought to have contributed to their support of the 1916 Great Arab Revolt" [2] and "The execution of the revolt leaders had greatly angered the locals and is thought to have contributed to their support of the 1916 Great Arab Revolt" [3]. No substantiation. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: "the Karak Revolt became an Arabist cause, and in some ways a precursor to the later Arab Revolt of 1916" page 20 ?????? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you are citing page 20, your links need to go to page 20. Page 214 neither says nor implies anything about the revolt of 1916. And page 20 does not mention any Karak participation in the revolt of 1916. So the citation fails on both counts (both pages). This kind of misinformation and misinterpretation of sources is troubling, and if there is more in this wiki article, then that is a major problem. The fact that you have continued to maintain that it and/or your citations are accurate compounds the problem in my mind. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The revolt spread to Tafila, Ma'an and other towns, but since the source doesn't specify, I'll go with Al-Karak. The claim relating to Arab Revolt is supported by citation in page 20. I can't seem to find anything terribly wrong with the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Their support, not necessarily involvement. "Arabist cause", "cause"=something you support.. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the citation says nothing about Karakis supporting the 1916 revolt. I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion further, as you seem not to understand how substantiating article content works. Please do not ping me; I am taking this DYK off of my watch list. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: Just added a source specifically making the claim, you can continue the review if you want. If not, thank you for taking the time already. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed. Issues raised by initial reviewer should be rechecked. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
On it.
One thing I see right off is that you need a different hook. It's easy enough to remove the errant comma (done) and the inexplicable "further" (done) but the line simply makes no sense without specifying what the area was supposedly recovering from. It precedes WWI and the Great Depression, the obvious candidates from around that era. Clarify a bit more or just pop off a few more ALTs to choose from. ALT1 (which I just discovered) is too vague; I won't make you remove it from the article but it's meaningless fluff even in the original source. — LlywelynII 18:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- New enough at time of submission; long enough (~5k elig. chars.); fairly well cited except for a central point: there's no citation for "massacre" and no source on the page seems to include the phrase, let alone "random" or "indiscriminate massacre" (the Turks are tetchy about such things and it needs to be fixed at some point); earwig finds no issues, though several phrases are very close parallels to the sources; the grammar was terrible and I hope you can look through the edits to see some of the common mistakes, so you make them less often; QPQ done. W/r/t citation issues raised by the last reviewer, they seem to be fixed: spot checking found everything except the massacre phrasing supported. Kindly ping me when there's a hook to review. — LlywelynII 18:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Added source to the random massacre claim.
- ALT[2]: ... that an indiscriminate massacre by the Ottoman Empire ended the 1910 Karak Revolt?
- @LlywelynII:. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
G2G with ALT2. More interesting hook and sourcing addresses the main outstanding problem with the article. At some point, go ahead and fix the Google Books link: it goes to page 39 instead of 40, but that's not important for the DYK. Thank you for your work and for your patience fixing its issues. — LlywelynII 00:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
