Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Seta Dadoyan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 09:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Seta Dadoyan

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that the lectures of medieval historian Seta Dadoyan have been described as an "intellectual feast"?

Created by EtienneDolet (talk). Self nominated at 23:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

  • OK--it's new enough, and (after tweakage) just about long enough. The hook is verified, but there lies a bit of a rub: the references are hardly as strong as they should be: we're talking newsletters and such here, and the reference for the hook is a newsletter from her own (at the time?) university. In fact, and I hate to say it, there aren't that many strong references and some malevolent editor might even consider slapping a notability tag on the article: her books, for instance, could do with references to scholarly reviews to prove such notability per WP:PROF--a few testimonies reported in the AUB bulletin can't do that. I'm going to ask some experts, User:Randykitty and User:Crisco 1492, to have a look: if they think that these references provide notability they can tick this off. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm getting 1477 characters. There are two reviews of The Fatimid Armenians on Jstor, 1 and 2. Sadly I don't have Jstor access to help with the writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, Chris. I brought the two reviews in and I would assume there might be more of the other books. As far as I'm concerned it squeaks by in terms of notability and it's a bit longer now. What do you think of the reference for the hook? Drmies (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • We need something independent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Drmies, thank you for the review. There's numerous sources regarding her work and academic career. I ran into many that describe and assess her writing style and scholarly work. My references used in this article are more geared towards expanding her biography. Therefore, I have been selective in picking my sources in that regard. I mostly chose sources that elaborated on her biography. Unfortunately, there's not much on her early and personal life. I haven't even run into a birth date for her. There's loads of sources assessing her work though which, might I add, will be overwhelming for the average Wikipedia user if added to the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Etienne, I hope you understand the problem with the reference for the hook. If you add a review or two, even just as a footnote to the entry in the "Works" section, notability is not a problem anymore, in my opinion. You could consider proposing a different hook--it's just that, for an evaluative claim like this, which is to be the attraction for the reader, we really need a rock-solid source. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes that's understandable. I found a few reviews but I have don't have access to them ([1][2][3]) Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Update: I added some reviews that I was able to access. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, notability under WP:ACADEMIC is near-absent (very meager citation record in both WoS and GS), however, for her field is a low-citation field, so this is not to be construed as evidence of a lack of notability. I'm a bit less familiar with WP:AUTHOR and cannot access most of the reviews linked above and in the article. Perhaps those will make her squeak by. As for the hook, I would never use such a non-independent source for such lavish paise in an article (as opposed to using it to source some neutral and non-controversial stuff, which would be perfectly acceptable), let alone use it to source a hook. I think you should find a better reference for that or change the hook. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that medieval historian Seta Dadoyan was awarded the David Anhaght medal for her contributions to Armenian philosophical studies? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • EtienneDolet, that seems like a fine idea, but I can't find much useful in the David article. Who awards that medal? Can you provide an online reference to her getting it? Ideally, the David article would have a section on it... Sorry for giving you such a hard time. Thanks,
  • I see the quote in the reference, but that only tells me that a certain professor gave out the award. We need to know what organization supports it, that kind of thing--without that, it's nothing but a ribbon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Seta_Dadoyan&oldid=808339941"