Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geographical name changes in Turkey/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

This article was not promoted by 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

Geographical name changes in Turkey

 * Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well illustrated and well sourced article about a very important government policy in the country of Turkey. The article includes maps, figures, tables, and a comparative analyses section. The article also gives a brief insight into each community that was affected by the policy. It gives great examples of those towns and villages whose names were changed. The maps of each community were of my creation in reflection to various sources. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Please see the FAC instructions; only one solo nomination at a time, please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Pardon me. Please discard my "Confiscated Armenian properties" nomination. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. I'm not sure how much time I'll have this week to review, but here are a couple of comments. I will review further if I have time. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSQUOTE the use of the cquote template is only for pull quotes; please change these to block quotes.
 * The link to population exchange between Greece and Turkey appears three times in a short span. Generally only the first instance should be linked without a particular reason for adding more links; many editors link again in the body if the only prior link is in the lead, for example.  I haven't looked for other examples, but please check.  It's probably OK to leave every city in the tables/lists linked, even if they have been mentioned before, but I would not link them again if they are mentioned after the table.
 * The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD for some guidelines on length; I would think a couple of paragraphs is necessary at least.
 * "Potamia" is also spelt "Potamya"; are both acceptable or is one a typo?
 * I see a few grammatical errors; a copyedit is needed. I may have time, but can't promise, so please try to get someone to go over the article.  A couple of examples, out of several that I noticed: "Enver Paşa disregarded however, changing ..." -- missing word, presumably; "It is not known how many geographical names have changed due to the ordinance, nevertheless the ultimate objective ..." -- run-on sentence.

Comment Thank you for taking your time and reviewing my article. I have fixed much of the concerns you have raised. Just to touch up, Potamya is simply the Turkish way of saying Potamia. Since the source highlighted what the Turkish Prime Minister said about Potamya, I was compelled to write it in the language the source and the speech was made in. All other issues have been fixed. I did request a copy-editor. We will see how that goes. But if you see any other concerns, please address them. I am more than willing to fix them. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I've struck most of the comments above, but I'm afraid the article really needs that copyedit, and I feel I have to oppose until then. This is an impressively detailed article on an unusual topic, and I hope you can find someone to improve the prose; I'd love to see this on the main page. I particularly like the maps. A couple more specific points: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The use of "Assyrian" in the lead probably requires a link, since to many readers the default meaning of Assyrian is ancient Assyria. I'm not sure what it should go to, though: Eastern Aramaic?
 * Can I ask why there you have up to six references for some quite short sentences? References are there to let readers verify the information in the article; I would suggest picking no more than three of the most authoritative sources and only listing those.  The reader doesn't really benefit from having a longer list of reliable sources that support a statement; the only exception might be highly controversial statements which require extensive and detailed sourcing.  In many cases it might be that a single reference is enough.
 * Within some of the tables, there is no reference cited for some of the comments. For example, the comments on Colemêrg are not cited.  Is this information covered by the references at the top of the table, currently [44] and [45]?  If so I would suggest adding a citation for those notes inside the table, at each row.
 * In a couple of places, you say "in September 2012, legislation has been promulgated to restore the names of ...." Is this legislation still pending, or is it now law, or did it fail to pass?  I'd phrase this differently depending on the outcome.  I'd also suggest saying "was introduced" rather than "has been promulgated" unless I'm missing a shade of meaning.
 * I have replaced Assyrian/Syriac with Eastern Aramaic. I already emphasized the specific dialect used by Assyrians in Turkey (particularly the Assyrians that live in Southeastern Turkey).


 * There are many references because this is a controversial subject in Turkey. However, I may remove some of the additional sources if need be.
 * Yes [44] and [45] in fact reference all examples of name changes that I have provided. There are additional sources provided on some for additional verification and details.
 * I have changed the law to "Introduced'. I have yet to find sources whether the law is fully in effect or not. It is fairly recent anyways.
 * I have resquested a CE through the guild of copy editors. I hope they can CE it ASAP. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I added another link to Assyrian/Syriac people in the lead. Good luck with the guild of copy editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose on referencing. Many print sources are lacking page numbers, which are generally required for verifiability and tend to take a while to compile. On a quick look I'm also seeing some bare URLs (see WP:LINKROT), some missing information, citations to books published by vanity presses like Xlibris, and generally inconsistent formatting. I would suggest the nominator withdraw, as these issues will take significant time to adequately address. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for raising these concerns. I have fixed the issues regarding referencing. Now almost all Ref's have page numbers in them. I removed the Xlibris ref. I revised bare url refs and even removed some. If you can be more specific regarding the formatting and missing information, I will revise those issues as well. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose 2c, at least. I do not believe this article is ready for FAC. Date formatting strikes me as an immediate problem. Between references 2, 6, 7, and 18, I see four different ways of specifying an exact date. Some of your sources have publication locations and some do not. Locations are optional, but generally all-or-nothing. I'm not 100% certain what Wikipedia's MOS best practices are, but I suspect that the use of [u.a.] regarding publication locations is discouraged, and I'm especially doubtful of its use regarding the publisher itself (as in reference 54). Quite a few references are formatted in a way that makes it difficult to determine what you're citing; reference 8, for example, seems to refer to two different editions of the same work? What's important is that you cite what you actually referred to, not whatever other versions of the work may exist. You generally use citation templates, but when you don't, the formatting doesn't match the templated entries, and in some cases makes it impossible to even figure out what sort of material is being referenced (see references 24, 25, 27, 28). And I strongly suspect that you're missing language tags for quite a few sources that aren't in English. I suspect there are other issues with the article itself, but there are enough referencing problems that I stopped there. I will note, separately, that while it wouldn't earn a criterion 3 oppose from me, it would be really nice if the Assyrian map was in the same format as all the other maps, to make it easier to compare them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give me some time and I will have these issues resolved to the best of my abilities. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.