Talk:Hacı Abdullah Restaurant

Translation issues and apparent contradiction about ownership
There are a lot of language issues in this article. Some could be cleaned up with a copyedit, but there are a lot of things where I can't figure out the intended meaning, I'm guessing due to translation issues from Turkish (and since all the sources are in Turkish I can't use them to clarify). Examples:
 * "After 1916, the restaurant was relocated due to earthquake with a close epicenter at the Passage Rumelia at İstiklal Avenue in Beyoğlu, Istanbul" - this makes it sound like the Passage Rumelia at İstiklal Avenue (what is a "passage?") is where the earthquake happened, but I think from context it happened near the old location and forced them to move TO the Passage Rumelia at İstiklal Avenue?
 * Changed to "After 1916, the restaurant was relocated due to an earthquake that had an epicenter close to its original location." DigitalIceAge (talk)
 * "the restaurant's name was changed in conformity with the present owner"
 * Changed to "restored its original name of Hacı Abdullah Restaurant." DigitalIceAge (talk)
 * "frequently visited by rulers, state officials, and high-ranked politicians, as well as by official and private delegates." - what are "official and private delegates?"
 * Not sure myself. DigitalIceAge (talk)
 * "the restaurant was about to be vacated as per the agreement with the property owner" - this makes it sound like the issue was just their lease was up and the owner didn't want to renew, but in that case it's not clear how the customer stepping in helped.
 * Changed to "When Hacı Salih Efendi died in 1982, the restaurant was about to be vacated." DigitalIceAge (talk)
 * "The name Hacı Salih had to be changed due to Turkish business laws. In 1983, the place returned to its initial 1988 name of Hacı Abdullah Lokantası." I assume this is a typo and should say 1888? It would also be nice to get context on what these "business laws" were and why they required the name change. Also this seems to contradict the previous section which said this name change was "in conformity with the present owner" and nothing about a legal requirement (unless we're talking about two different name changes around the same time?)
 * My mistake. Fixed. DigitalIceAge (talk)

Also, more significantly, I don't see how this claim (about to be featured on the main page DYK) is true: As far as I can figure out from the article, this was the chain of ownership:
 * "Ahi-Order businesses are long-established organizations that have been passed down from father to son or otherwise changed hands through purchase by individuals or companies against a fee. The situation at the Hacı Abdullah Restaurant is an exception to both cases, as it was passed down from master to apprentice throughout its lifespan. The ownership was handed over from chef de cuisine to sous-chef."
 * 1) Abdullah Efendi
 * 2) His son, Hikmet Abdullah Bey
 * 3) An unnamed relative
 * 4) Haci Salih Efendi, a longtime employee
 * 5) Ferit Intiba, a customer of the restaurant and businessman who bought it when Efendi died and it was in some kind of unclear trouble
 * 6) Whatever ownership group "ousted" Intiba
 * 7) Abdullah Korun, Haci Salih Efendi's longtime sous-chef, and three of his partners, who took over years after this ouster
 * 8) The son of one of those partners, Turgit Gülen

So I'm seeing three times where it was passed to a son (or other relative), one time when it was sold to an outsider (possibly more depending on the details of #6, which aren't clear), and two times when longtime employees took over. And in neither of those two times was the restaurant passed down from one employee to another. How does that add up to "an exception to both cases" or "passed down from master to apprentice throughout its lifespan/history?"

(pinging main contributor )

-Elmer Clark (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Elmer Clark, reviewer here. I have addressed some of the wording issues that I glossed over in my original copy edit. In most cases I simply cut excess detail in lieu of trying to find the right way to recast the sentence in more standard English while retaining text-source integrity. I hope CeeGee can clarify the other comments soon. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've pulled the hook off the main page. Way too many issues.  Schwede 66  00:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting for me that a hook was pulled off from the Main Page. It should have occured during the Prep or Queue phase. I see that the reviewer spent a lot of effort and   did really a great job to address the issues you mentioned again and again. And now, I kindly ask you to list the issues you think are not addressed one by one for me because it is very confusing for me. Maybe I can do something. I hope next time you can check DYK nominations before they are on the Main Page. CeeGee 10:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See above.  Schwede 66  10:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw above, but I really could not understand anything. Therefore, I asked you kindly to list for me what else remained explicitly since I guess some of them are already fixed. CeeGee 10:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I pulled the item at 13:46 pm yesterday. First reason was poor English (although I see that was mostly fixed 5 min before I pulled the hook, i.e. I would have made the decision to pull without seeing that fix). Second is that the hook fact does not appear to hold true. Thirdly, all this was triggered by which you can read up on at . You say that it should have occured during the Prep or Queue phase and I agree. But I cannot influence that this did not happen. And just for the record, it is absolutely not my responsibility to check DYK nominations before they are on the Main Page. I patrol Errors and act on what is reported there. If it bothers you that your hook got pulled, maybe you should try and produce articles of better quality. I'm sorry that you ended up with a reviewer who didn't spot those problems. But either way, don't make your problems my problems.  Schwede  66  11:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are trying to cover up your mistake. And, you are not able to repeat the issues whatsoever for me. You should be better more careful when you start a big move like pulling a hook off the Main Page. How nice that you are very good in English.CeeGee 12:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please keep it WP:CIVIL. Removing the hook was the right move until this is sorted out. I left you a userpage comment that hopefully might help. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)