Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/List of notable visitors to Tsitsernakaberd

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

List of notable visitors to Tsitsernakaberd

edit
(
)

President of Russia Vladimir Putin laying flowers at the memorial's Eternal Fire in 2001

Created by Yerevanci (talk). Self nom at 23:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Definitely over 1500+ characters and new enough. Hook is appealing. Contains foreign language sources which are accepted in good faith. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: The article is eligible as it was moved into mainspace on 3 January. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The hook should be found in the article, with a citation to a reliable sources. This is not the case here. We need a new hook, if not the present hook is added into the article's prose. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I added a sentence in the lead stating the fact of the hook. Have you looked at the list below? That's where the sources are located. I don't think any of them isn't reliable, if any question about reliability arises, please let me know. --Երևանցի talk 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've seen the list, and I don't question the reliability of those sources, I'm just stating that the hook must be a part of an articles prose, where it must be backed up by a reliable source. So you need a source for the hook-fact in the article, or another hook. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:LEADCITE. It states that Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. If the sources are given in the sections below what's the problem here? If the phrase "over 20" is such a controversy for you, I can simply replace it with the word "numerous". --Երևանցի talk 20:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is correct, but please show me where that sentance is sourced in the prose? Mentoz86 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I'm afraid it is'nt. The DYK hook must be a part of the article prose, where it must be backed up by an inline citation. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I was looking through the article, to try to find something interesting that was backed up by a source, only to realize that the lead (which is largely unsourced) is twice the size of the rest of the prose, which makes it harder to find a hook. I also discovered this sentance: " ... For obvious reasons he did not visit the memorial" What is obvious about that? I don't think that's very neutral. I think you should add something in the prose about Putin's visit to the Tsitsernakaberd, and we can build a hook on that. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Aren't you aware of the long-time Denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government? Whats not neutral here? The Turkish government denies the fact of genocide and "For obvious reasons" refers to their official ideology of history falsification.
Putin's visit was not controversial as Hilary Clinton's or Pope's visits were, why built a hook on that? The picture of Putin's visit is only there because no other free photo is available. --Երևանցի talk 22:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the late reply, I'm been kinda busy the last couple of days. I am aware of the conflict, but we cannot asume that our readers are aware of it, so I'm happy that you reworded that sentence. When it comes to the hook, the best thing would be if you proposed a different hook, like something about Clinton or the Pope's visit even though that would rule out the picture, so that I can review it; I can't review a hook that I proposed myself. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I do agree. Let's allow other users review your suggested hook. --Երևանցի talk 20:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you agree that the best thing would be if you proposed a different hook? The ALT1 is your suggestions, and basically the same as the original hook, and is not written in the article with an inline citation, so I struck them both. I've not proposed any hooks for any other users to review, even though have been to find anything interesting without any luck. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I get your position. Just let someone else review my hook. --Երևանցի talk 17:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Third opinion here, pinged on my talk page. Citing to a list is fine, assuming that each entry is referenced. The recently featured list of literary works published in Asia Raja used a similar hook at DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • In that case, I'm reinstating the green tick and unstriking the original hook. I'm sorry that my misunderstanding of the DYK-rules has delayed this nomination. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem, it's not something we come across every day. WP:CALC specifically allows simple calculations like counting, so it's generally not a problem. As the hook says "over", and the list is not definitive (i.e. it's a dynamic list), this is acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/List_of_notable_visitors_to_Tsitsernakaberd&oldid=1020866450"