Template:Did you know nominations/Ulucanlar Prison Museum

Ulucanlar Prison Museum

 * ... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum can let themselves be locked up handcuffed in an isolation cell for a limited time, may not leave it, however, before the end of scheduled time?
 * Reviewed: Plantation Workers International Federation

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self nominated at 16:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC).




 * Symbol question.svg Article is new, recent and well over the limit. Sourced too. I do, however, have reserve about the exact phrasing of the hook. It technically fits (188 ctrs) but seems a bit repetitive. Would you consider rephrasing to ALT1: ... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum may be locked up and handcuffed in an isolation cell, which they may not leave for fifteen minutes?
 * User:Brigade Piron, thank you for your suggestion. However, it would be misleading, since the offered visiting time is either 15 mins or one hour as stated in the article. Therefore the phrase "scheduled time". Please rethink over it. Besides, you have forgotten to sign your review and to alert me as well. CeeGee 20:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * CeeGee, I am only suggesting, not dictating changes to the hook. Currently, the hook is ungrammatical (at very least you'd need a "which" in there somewhere) so a new rendition must be found. In light of your comments on my suggested tag (I should emphasize that I know nothing about the subject except what I read in the article), I'd suggest a change to Alt 2: ... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum may be locked up and handcuffed in an isolation cell for a limited period and are not allowed to leave before a scheduled time? or Alt 3:... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum may be locked up and handcuffed in an isolation cell which they are not allowed to leave before a scheduled time has elapsed? --Best wishes, Brigade Piron (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't either understand it as a dictation. No problem at all. Sorry, but none of the above suggestions tell what I mean. My revised suggestion is:
 * Alt 4:... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum can let themselves be locked up handcuffed in an isolation cell for a limited time, may not leave it, however, before the scheduled time has elapsed? CeeGee 11:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * CeeGee, please do not get me wrong. The hook is fine, but as it is it does not make grammatical sense. The same is true for your Alt 4 which doesn't resolve the problem. I'm not quite sure how you think my alternatives differ in content from your original? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is: 1) A visitor wishes to get in the isolation cell and to stay there for a limited time in order to feel the specific conditions. 2) He pays extra for that. 3) He gets handcuffed and enters the cell escorted by a warden. 4) He may not leave the cell, however, before the agreed time limit. The hook must make that somehow clear. Point 2) can be omitted for hook length purposes. Sorry for the trouble. But, I'm really not able to notice my grammatical mistake. Anyway, I appreciate if someone can formulate it. Thanks for your time. CeeGee 18:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt 5:... that visitors of the Ulucanlar Prison Museum, who accept to be locked up handcuffed in an isolation cell for a limited time, may not leave it before the agreed time is up?
 * Hopefully this is acceptable. CeeGee 08:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK to Alt 5. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is not fully enough sourced. For the hook, which comes from the final paragraph in the museum section, each relevant sentence needs to be separately sourced per DYK rules. Also, the two unsourced paragraphs elsewhere in the article (the final History paragraph and the second-to-last Museum paragraph) each need to have at least one source. In addition, the article needs a thorough copyedit: I don't understand what is meant by "closed prison part" and "semi-open prison part" in the fourth History paragraph or the phrase "needed material and lacking information" in the first Museum paragraph, and those are only a couple of examples. As ALT5 was considered problematic on a post on the DYK talk page when the hook had been promoted, before the nomination was brought back for more work, here's a clearer ALT6:
 * ALT6: ... that visitors to the Ulucanlar Prison Museum who pay extra to be handcuffed and locked in an isolation cell for a limited time may not leave it before the agreed time is up?
 * Note that if you don't want to add the "pay extra" fact, you can substitute the word "ask" instead. —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) ref to "closed" and "open prison" at Prison:"The British prison system is also divided into "Open" and "Closed" prisons. Categories A-C are considered "Closed" prisons as prisoners cannot be trusted to interact with the public, while category D prisons are generally "Open", meaning that prisoners with a good record and who are approved can be allowed limited interaction with the public such as home-leave or a nominal employment." The same terms are used in Turkey also.
 * 2) changed: "Needed material and lacking information" → "Needed exhibition material and still lacking information to make up the museum".
 * 3) added refs requested.
 * 4) removed one unref'd paragraph remaining.
 * 5) ALT 6 is OK. CeeGee 07:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying. Regarding the above,
 * 1) I think you need to explain, at least briefly, what "closed" and "open" (or "semi-open") means in this context, or simply use a more general way to describe which groups of inmates were affected so the reader can understand. Those terms aren't used in the United States, for example.
 * 2) The rewrite is a slight improvement, but the prose is still very much lacking. I recommend that you get someone to do a full copyedit: I found myself puzzling out what the meaning was in this paragraph and in other places in the article.
 * 3) and 4) Thanks.
 * 5) Glad it works. We'll need to find a new reviewer for it, once the new edits are made.


 * There are a number of puzzling things in the Museum description. It's as if this is a literal tour, which strikes me as overmuch information, and a bit too promotional in tone. Some of the information can be condensed.


 * In the second paragraph, I don't understand why two different wards would both be called the "Hilton Ward", and why, if smaller, they would be named after a luxury hotel chain that presumably has larger than normal rooms. The word picture invoked by "On the bunk beds of the Fifth Ward, biographies of notable inmates hang" is confusing: how does this work? Are cords attached to the bunk beds, and then placards with biographies on them attached to the cords? Is the bed in question somehow related to a particular inmate?


 * The details on the Sixth Ward seem a bit excessive: do we need to know whose necktie, that there are suits from two executed inmates but also the shoes of one of them, etc.? Eight people is too many. The fifth paragraph is an example of the "tour" aspect of this. This should probably become a description of the grand yard and its past function.


 * Given that the prison was restored to its original form, the creation of a new special segregation unit seems odd. How did they change the existing isolation cells? Couldn't they just have used them as is? Or is that basically what they did? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) ✅
 * 2) asked editorial team
 * 6) "Hilton Ward" explained. "Biograhies hang" reworded to "Biographies attached". Details on the Sixth Ward are removed. The extra construction isolation cell is above the original isolation cell, and it is for attraction purposes. It doesn't change the characteristic of the facility as originally restored. CeeGee 09:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious what the reviewer thinks of the article now.  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  12:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I missed this. We need a completely new reviewer now: I'm out of it since ALT6 was my proposal, and it still needs to be approved. The reviewer should, of course, check the issues that I raised; I'm curious what someone new coming to the article has to say. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Alright. I have decided to be this new reviewer. While I think the article is on the right track and close to its destination, it's regrettably not ready yet. While I don't think the prose is puzzling or confusing anymore, I do think that the Exhibits section is written in a promotional tone that needs to be addressed. BlueMoonset stated "It's as if this is a literal tour, which strikes me as overmuch information," which still holds true for this section.  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  09:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Amberrock! Thanks a lot indeed for your efforts. I understand that something has to be done to promote the nomination. However, I really really don't know what to do. Not for negliance or opposing. For example, I don't know what you understand under "a literal tour"? The sources describe the visit in the museum as a tour. And, why it appears to you in "promotional tone". It's about a museum, a cultural facility. Not about a company or a person. I really don't know what is being promoted here. About overmuch information: Possibly, I'm not sure. It depends. However, I tried to list every feature to give a comprehensive look. I wanna assure you that I don't know what is excessive there. I understand fully that I should reword or rewrite that section. But, I'm confused. My hope is that an editor can do it for me so that the nomination can be promoted finally. Sorry for the trouble. CeeGee 10:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel as if every step throughout the museum is described in that section. It's almost like a travel guide. Please consider listing only the highlights, and drop the rest. Things like "Visitors leave the museum after going by the original gallows" may be nice in the Lonely Planet, but not in an encyclopedia. The admission subsection is unnecessary as well. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Is that acceptable now? Recheck pls. CeeGee 13:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly acceptable now.  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)