Template:Did you know nominations/Narekavank

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 Allen3 ^talk 11:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Narekavank

(

)

... that the prominent medieval Armenian monastery of Narekavank (pictured in 1911) was demolished and replaced with a mosque?

Reviewed: Bagrat II Bagratuni

5x expanded by Yerevantsi (talk). Self nominated at 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

I don't want to put a spanner in the works, but such a direct connection between the demolition and the replacement by a mosque is not indicated in the article. Yes, a mosque now lies on the site, but nothing suggests it was directly built to replace the monastery. Would it not be better (as in more interesting, eye catching, and factually correct) to stay something along the lines of "Of the prominent medieval Armenian monastery of Narekavank (pictured here in 1911), not a stone remains"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A mosque now stands on its location, meaning it was replaced by a mosque. Replace: "to put someone or something new in the place or position of (someone or something)" [1]. I do not see the point you are trying to make here. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This article needs a review. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was expanded 5x by Yerevantsi, who made this nomination the day after the expansion completed. The article is long enough and is within policy. The hook (at 126 characters) is short enough, appears in the article, and is supported by in-line citation. Despite the drive-by commenters, I think the hook is fine. (Note: drive-by commenting isn't helpful to DYK. It fails to accomplish the review, it sidetracks the conversation, and could give the false impression the hook is getting needed attention. I think this practice needs to stop.) The image is properly licensed and appears fine to me. QPQ was done. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)