Template:Did you know nominations/Croats (military unit)


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Croats (military unit)

 * ... that some 17th century Hungarians, Serbs, Albanians and other Eastern European men wore cravat, probably for hygienic purposes, and were indiscriminately referred to as "Croats"?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pothundi Dam

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self-nominated at 21:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Length, date and hook verified.  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Toдor Boжinov, a DYK review requires far more than merely length, date, and hook verification. You need to check for close paraphrasing/copyvio, neutrality (both article and hook), sourcing throughout the article, and whether a valid QPQ has been done (which itself needs to cover all these criteria). Please do a full review to DYK standards. If you prefer not to, I'll call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is neutral and properly sourced. The hook is under 200 characters and the nominator has properly reviewed another submission. But on a more thorough look, I noticed a lot of close paraphrasing. Antidiskriminator, please rewrite the article in your own words rather than borrowing entire expressions from the sources. Examples: "The Croats were of little value in the stand-up fight so their duties were off-battlefield" is two sentences from the source combined, "worst offenders during the Sack of Magdeburg", "tales of vicious Croats"... Thanks!  — Toдor Boжinov — 19:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I rewrote text to avoid close paraphrasing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a more thorough rewrite is necessary, Antidiskriminator. Some of the changes are still close paraphrasing in my book and other sentences remain which directly borrow phrases from the sources. Sorry, but I think you should go through your text once more and really interpret the sources rather than shuffle the word order and sentence structure a bit.  — Toдor Boжinov — 10:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I can do a more through rewritting only next week, after I return from a short trip.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I rewrote more text. Looking at sources I don't think there is a close paraphrasing or direct borrowing of the phrases which can be an issue for DYK. I hope you agree?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, almost there. But still some sentences clearly borrow from the source, please rewrite them thoroughly, don't just replace words or move them around:
 * "The Croats had off-battlefield duties because they were of little value in the stand-up fight. In case they participated in the battle, they were deployed on the army wings to distract enemy flanks." - rewrite completely, lots of expressions from the source
 * "They were dismissed after the military campaign was finished and Croat soldiers returned in the spring to seek an employment from their old commanders" - same
 * "... some authors often used the term "Croat", almost always as reference to the military unit or cavalry"
 * I think with these three I'll be finally OK with it, but, please consider revising the way you work with sources because close paraphrasing is still copyright infringement and it's harmful to Wikipedia.  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will rewrite those three. If topics can be subject of dispute I sometimes try to closely follow the sources to avoid eventual source misinterpretation. Thanks for thorough review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ all three . Thanks for the advice.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Alright, close paraphrasing now appears to have been resolved as far as I'm concerned. All other criteria have already been met too.  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg How about this alternative hook Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that cravats were named after scarves worn by the "Croats", bands of 17th-century Croatian and other Eastern European mercenaries?
 * There are two important and hooky things that alt1 does not cover. First is that Eastern European mercenaries were referred to as Croats not because they were Croats and second is that probable purpose of the cravat was hygienic. That is why I still prefer the original hook.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand simplifying might be beneficial, so:
 * ALT2 ... that cravats were named after scarves that "Croats", bands of 17th-century Croatian and other Eastern European mercenaries, probably wore for hygienic purposes?
 * what do you think?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested a new hook was because I could not bring myself to promote the original hook, which I find poorly expressed, to a prep area. Someone else may have no such qualms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . The hook you suggested is much clearer. What do you think abut slightly expanded version I proposed as ALT2?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will leave it for somebody else to decide. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with ALT2. Though I understand why prefers his original hook: it has this curious contradiction of
 * ALT3 ... that not all Croats were Croats?
 * I'd go for something as simple as this personally!  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . There are two very hooky assertions here.
 * 17th century Eastern European mercenaries, including Hungarians, Serbs, Albanians, Tatars and other Eastern European men, were all indiscriminately referred to as Croats. (which is what Alt3 say, more or less)
 * modern day neck-tie has its origin in scarves they wore probably for hygienic purposes.
 * Thank you for your proposal, but I would not give advantage to any of them because both are very interesting and hooky. That is why I proposed the original hook. I wish I had better language skills to define more readable alternative which would clearly say ... that modern day neck-tie has its origin in scarves probably worn for hygienic purposes by 17-th century Hungarian, Serbs, Albanian, Tatar and other Eastern European mercenaries who were all indiscriminately referred to as Croats? Alt2 is less interesting, but I supported it because it is more clear. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Based on TodorBozhinov's review and a valid QPQ. All hooks are stated and sourced but the original hook and ALT2 are either clunky or not entirely grammatically correct. I understand what the nominator is trying to put forward but sometimes trying to add lots of detail into a 200 character hook can unintentionally make it less hooky. The statement is given in the article anyway, so if readers click on the link they'll still have access to that information. I have a preference for ALT3, a pithy pun for the quirk spot, but I'll leave it for the promoter to decide. Fuebaey (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)