Template:Did you know nominations/Diocese of Caransebeş

Diocese of Caransebeş
Created by Biruitorul (talk). Self nom at 00:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the Romanian Orthodox Diocese of Caransebeș was twice disbanded, first moved to Vršac in modern Serbia and later dissolved by the Communist regime?


 * ALT1: ... that among the early problems within the Romanian Orthodox Diocese of Caransebeș were defections to Greek Catholicism prompted by a simoniac bishop and a priest who disregarded the fast?


 * Reviewed: Neill S. Brown


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, well-referenced, foreign-language hook ref AGF. However, the first section, "History and description", is long-winded and seems to veer off-topic with a focus on the bishop's problems. Could you rewrite these paragraphs to make things very clear for the average reader? (You could even divide paragraphs in half to make the reading easier.)
 * I like the first hook best, but I think it should be shorter, and include the fact that the diocese was revived in the end:
 * ALT2: ... that the Romanian Orthodox Diocese of Caransebeș was twice disbanded, dissolved by the Communist regime in 1949, and revived again in 1994?
 * Note: The fact the diocese was twice disbanded needs to be cited to references in the article. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your review, and will work to make this compliant if it isn't at present, but I must say I don't quite see the pertinence of your objections.
 * 1) Not that this bears on the DYK eligibility directly, but I don't see anything especially long or irrelevant in the discussion of the diocese's early years. Perhaps if Ioan Popasu gets written some text could be transferred there, but it seems legitimate to draw on a source called "Andrei Şaguna and the Caransebeş Diocese" for an article on the Caransebeş Diocese. I could perhaps cut the third paragraph in two, but I really don't see what would "make things very clear for the average reader". I find the text comprehensible enough, speaking as a layman.
 * 2) I don't object to your proposed hook, but I also don't think my suggestion is overly long at 151 characters, and even adding in a note of its revival only gets us to 186, still within the limit:
 * ALT3: ... that the Romanian Orthodox Diocese of Caransebeș was twice disbanded, first moved to Vršac in modern Serbia and later dissolved by the Communist regime before its current revival in 1994?
 * 3) I realize everything must be cited, but I don't think that necessarily includes every turn of phrase. We have one dissolution noted and cited (the one in 1775); we have the other noted and cited as well (the 1949 one). Unless we should cite for the fact that 1+1=2, I don't think there's much original research going on in that assertion. Or if there is, we can always use ALT1. - Biruitorul Talk 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I for one think that an overview of the political controversy surrounding Popasu's appointment is welcome in the article; also, I take issue with the notion that we should dumb down the text - the average reader is expected to follow internal links if the context is unclear. For instance, the text cannot and should not explain what the Orthodox Church itself is, even if the average reader may not be at all educated in matters of the Eastern Schism. The average reader we imagine will be excused for not even knowing where Transylvania is, but that doesn't mean we should be starting our article with an explanation of Transylvania, or cut out all mentions of Transylvania so the reader doesn't get tired. The average reader here should be imagined not as someone who clicked the article by accident, but as someone who was drawn in by the hook - i.e. someone who at least want to know more about the topic, having already understood the hook. Yoninah himself clearly meets these requirements, and I'm sure he is not the average reader he's describing in his analogy - his hypothetical average reader, alas, will never read through this article enough to even object to it.
 * Concerning the hook itself, as a reader of Romanian, I was able to verify it. So, from my end:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Dahn (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg which hook(s) is approved? Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All. Pick one you like best. Dahn (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)