Template:Did you know nominations/Old Jewish cemetery, Cieszyn

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: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
No progress on resolving issues for 3 weeks

Old Jewish cemetery, Cieszyn

(

)

... that the Old Jewish cemetery, Cieszyn (pictured), made in eighteenth century, is said to be established in the Middle Ages?

Reviewed: Dakshayagnam (1938 film), Tata Jagriti Yatra, Under the Tree (film), Garin Nugroho, Dronningegården, Chairil Anwar, Geomagnetic pole, IRAS 17163-3907, Goethe–Schiller Monument (Syracuse)

Created/expanded by Vibhijain (talk). Self nom at 08:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough, with adequate referencing per DYK policy. Hook is appropriate length and supported by Google's English translation of the online source. I might be more explicit with the source of the statement with ALT1 ... that local authors claim that the Old Jewish cemetery, Cieszyn (pictured), created in eighteenth century, was established in the Middle Ages?, but I think the hook is ok as is if the author wants to retain the original, with perhaps a slight reword of "made in the eighteenth century" to "originated" or "created" or a similar verb. No copyvios found in the English translation of the online source; other sources are offline and mostly in Polish so must AGF on those. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article needs an intensive copyedit, and the hook appears inaccurate. Based on the information in the article proper, the cemetery was not created in the Middle Ages; the article itself says that "Land for the cemetery was purchased in 1647", at least a century and a half after the Middle Ages ended. The "claim" alluded to in the lede should be expanded on in the body of the article per MOS:LEDE if it actually does refer to a pre-Singer cemetery originating in that location by the 1400s. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We can take the alternative hook by Rlendog, as the fact that it was established in the middle ages is claimed by the local authors, not by other scholars, according to whom the land for the cemetery was purchased in 1647. As of the copy-edit, i will do it today. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I do have a newer position from Janusz Spyra, called "Śladami cieszyńskich żydów" (On the footsteps of Cieszyn Jews), from 2004, ISBN:8391949370, and he writes there: "The claim of some local authors up to today that this Jewish cemetery dates back to Middle Ages is wrong. The prove for that would be that on over a dozen headstones one can see dates from 2nd half of 14th century and from 1st half of 15th century. Recent study indicated however, that those are abbreviations from dates over 400 years later.". D_T_G (P L) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I did a copy edit of the article - lots of missing articles, syntax problems and some of it, I could not fix because I could not figure out what the author was trying to write. Here are the problem sentences with my questions:

1. "In 1631 he signed a lease agreement named "Cieszyn toll" with Princess Elizabeth Lucretia, and an account of instructions dated 23 April 1647 made him a princely collector of taxes with extensive privileges, such as the freedom to profess Judaism and acceptance of a device family cemetery for the deceased Singer."

I have already tweaked this sentence a little bit and split the sentence in two. A lease is an agreement, so "lease" is sufficient. Leases don't have names, they have titles. The first sentence now ends at "Lucretia". With the new second sentence, however, I'm not sure what "princely collector of taxes" means. I shortened a phrase and eliminated a word by saying "tax collector", but I still don't know what to do with "princely". Was he made a prince or did he collect taxes from princes? The rest of this sentence is also strange and unclear. What is a "device family cemetery"? Did you mean as privileges that Singer had the right to practice Judaism or be openly Jewish and to own a family cemetery?

2. "The same year, Jacob Singer purchased area of so-called "Winogrady" from a townsman named Jan Kraus. Winogrady became the nucleus of today's cemetery. Singer was first buried there, but his grave did not survive to modern times."

You need an article before "area". "An" area means a portion, "the" area would mean all of it and then the rest of the sentence would need to be tweaked. Was Singer the first person buried there or was he "first buried there" as in initially there, but later his grave was moved elsewhere?

3. "The building obtained a embedded servant who looked after the cemetery."

Since buildings can buy people, you need to change the verb here. The word choice here, "embedded" makes it sound like the servant was in the military. I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to say, but it may be "A caretaker was housed in the building to look after the cemetery."

— Marrante (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this one before: "according to the board" in the final sentence. This is unclear. Board? What board? Do you mean a plaque at the site or do you mean a board as in "board of directors". Marrante (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unaddressed in three weeks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)