Template:Did you know nominations/Pangaltı Armenian Cemetery
- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC) hook
Pangaltı Armenian Cemetery
[edit]- ... that several hotels replaced an Armenian cemetery in Istanbul?
- Reviewed: First Assembly of Madras State
Created/expanded by Proudbolsahye (talk). Nominated by Yerevanci (talk) at 18:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Foreign language sources for hook. Assuming good faith. Long enough and new enough. Sycamore (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article's prose veers back and forth between past and present tense when talking about past events. It should stay in the past tense. More worrying, I'm seeing major problems in a number of areas of the Legal case section. First, there's unacceptably close paraphrasing. For example, compare the article's "However, upon findings of a commission of academics in land cadastres, the court found a decision unfavorable to the prosecuting Patriarchate" with the source's virtually identical "However, upon the findings of a commission of academics in land cadastres, on July 19, the courts passed a decision unfavorable to the prosecuting Patriarchate". I am also troubled by the sentences that follow, which are very vague as to when the various subsequent legal actions were brought (and are also poorly constructed), but very clear in their belief that the wrong decision was made, as witness the final sentence "Till this day the property remains in question." While it seems true that the church is still trying to get compensation for the cemetery, I rather doubt that the city of Istanbul has any question about the property's current ownership, and the Patriarchate has apparently lost at every stage of the legal process. This strikes me as a neutrality issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The issues have been addressed. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 03:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yerevanci, some have been, notably most of the present tense and the close paraphrasing. But "I am also troubled by the sentences that follow, which are very vague as to when the various subsequent legal actions were brought (and are also poorly constructed), but very clear in their belief that the wrong decision was made" has basically not been. The prose in those sentences remains problematic, as does the vagueness as to what happened when. Some work has been done to address the "wrong decision" POV, but more is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I removed problematic sentences. I believe the last paragraph is more acceptable now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am worried that this simplistic hook is an over-simplification that may be misleading (or not neutral). As I read the page (I have no other sources or angles) it was closed for burials in the 19th century, confiscated 50 years later, partially sold off in the 1930, and used for hotels/infrastructure at an unclear date (possibly 1960s or 1980s or later). That is 100 years condensed in 'replaced'. Chienlit (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've actually been wondering whether this article should be merged into the Confiscated Armenian Properties in Turkey article, because almost everything that's in this article is in its table entry in that one, word for word. The degree of duplication is quite large. I think I may ask one of the more experienced DYK folks whether this is an issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- Was pinged on my talk page. Considering the scopes are quite different (and this appears to have been written first), the cemetery article should be fine on its own. It's a spot better than my own cemetery articles, actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- I removed problematic sentences. I believe the last paragraph is more acceptable now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yerevanci, some have been, notably most of the present tense and the close paraphrasing. But "I am also troubled by the sentences that follow, which are very vague as to when the various subsequent legal actions were brought (and are also poorly constructed), but very clear in their belief that the wrong decision was made" has basically not been. The prose in those sentences remains problematic, as does the vagueness as to what happened when. Some work has been done to address the "wrong decision" POV, but more is needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- The issues have been addressed. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 03:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hook issues remain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
