Template:Did you know nominations/Languages of Armenia
- 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 Allen3 talk 12:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Languages of Armenia
[edit]- ... that Russian is the most widely spoken foreign language in Armenia?
- Reviewed: Jenő Zsigmondy
Created/expanded by Yerevanci (talk). Self nom at 03:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Yerevanci (talk). Self nom at 03:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
New enough. Hook is referenced. Original is prosesize.js=774. New is prosesize.js=8245 -- more than five-times expansion. It's neutral, informative, and well-written. Happy to approve. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Wait a sec... Was a QPQ article reviewed? Will have to hold off on this until confirmed. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 17:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not done. That was basically saying you couldn't review it because it was in Hungarian, but it looked like it might be okay though you assigned it a
. Let's have a complete review, please. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I reviewed as much as I could. I have no ability to understand Hungarian. I looked at the references and they looked OK. It was expanded 5x, the hook is sourced. I think I know more about what I did than you do, my dear friend. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 02:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very true. You do know more about what you reviewed: I can only base it on what you said: you did not say there that the article was expanded 5x, or that the hook was sourced. Not being a mindreader, I can only go by what you wrote there, which was inadequate. If you wish to add the information you just wrote here to that review, I think it would be a reasonable review (though I don't understand the virtual no unless something is significantly wrong with the article; a ? would have been sufficient to say you didn't have enough information to pass it). The thing is, if you say what you did review, the next person to come along to finish won't have to repeat the 5x check, or the hook source check, or any other check that you say the article has passed. If you don't write it, they have to start over at the beginning. The whole point behind quid pro quo reviews is that everyone is effectively "paying forward" by reviewing another article when they submit one of their own. That includes, if you can't do a full review, explaining what did pass, and what still needs examination. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. Don't forget that this is my first time doing it. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 14:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't realize this was your first QPQ review; I've seen your name around a lot lately, and thought you were an experienced reviewer. Thanks for making the addition to the other review. I guess my suggestion would be that when you pick articles to review, try to choose ones that you expect you'll be able to finish at first glance. (Sometimes it later turns out that you can't finish it, which happens.) Also, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that it's your first or second review, and it would make sense for someone to confirm your results. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. Don't forget that this is my first time doing it. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 14:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very true. You do know more about what you reviewed: I can only base it on what you said: you did not say there that the article was expanded 5x, or that the hook was sourced. Not being a mindreader, I can only go by what you wrote there, which was inadequate. If you wish to add the information you just wrote here to that review, I think it would be a reasonable review (though I don't understand the virtual no unless something is significantly wrong with the article; a ? would have been sufficient to say you didn't have enough information to pass it). The thing is, if you say what you did review, the next person to come along to finish won't have to repeat the 5x check, or the hook source check, or any other check that you say the article has passed. If you don't write it, they have to start over at the beginning. The whole point behind quid pro quo reviews is that everyone is effectively "paying forward" by reviewing another article when they submit one of their own. That includes, if you can't do a full review, explaining what did pass, and what still needs examination. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I reviewed as much as I could. I have no ability to understand Hungarian. I looked at the references and they looked OK. It was expanded 5x, the hook is sourced. I think I know more about what I did than you do, my dear friend. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 02:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Approving per dead.henry's original review prior to the QPQ issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Some phrasing in this article is far too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "More ominously for the future, members of the Armenian intelligentsia were increasingly sending their children to schools where basic language of instructions was Russian" with "More ominously for the future, members of the Armenian intelligentsia were increasingly sending their children to schools where basic language of instructions was Russian", or "By offering these programs in English, AUA strives to become accessible to qualified individuals from other countries in the region" with "By offering its instructional programs in English, AUA strives to make these programs accessible to qualified individuals from other countries in the region". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- My bad. I copied the text from the book and forgot to change the wording. Though, I did for the most part and probably just forgot about it. The second one is a statement from the American University of Armenia website and I didn't change it on purpose. Should I add quotation marks to it? If you find anything else, just let me know. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 02:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you're going to recreate it that closely, it's better to just quote it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- My bad. I copied the text from the book and forgot to change the wording. Though, I did for the most part and probably just forgot about it. The second one is a statement from the American University of Armenia website and I didn't change it on purpose. Should I add quotation marks to it? If you find anything else, just let me know. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 02:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Needs another review.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 03:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note: the hook has just been completely rewritten, so it has to be checked from scratch; previous comments do not apply to it. Yerevanci, it's always best to add an ALT hook rather than change the existing one. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- How do you do that?--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 20:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just put it in the text, with all the usual formatting. Something like:
- ALT1: ... that ... ?
- You can see a great many examples on the nominations page. The reviewer should specify in the review which of the hooks are approved, and strike out any that are not for the sake of clarity. —BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Article was a fivefold expansion on 23rd October and is long enough. The hook is sourced offline and is accepted in good faith. The close paraphrasing issues mentioned above have been addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
