Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Yahya bey Dukagjini/1

Yahya bey Dukagjini

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Yahya_bey_Dukagjini/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted by Cplakidas in April 2016 (diff) — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am re-listing the article. The previous reviewer was a sock of the indeffed. Socks do not get to participate in GA reviews or any other activity for that matter, per WP:BAN. Athenean (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:DENY deals with WP:Vandalism and does not mention anything on reassessment of good articles. You don't expect a "vandal" to perform a GA assessment, do you? User:MorenaReka was suspended for having multiple accounts, not for vandalism, and there is nothing conclusive that connected her to User:Sulmues.
 * The other users that might become part of this discussion should know that User:Athenean has a feud with me since I reported him to WP:AE for bad language and insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Athenean.
 * Beside that, User:Zoupan was involved in the assessment, MorenaReka was not alone. And of course, I welcome a reassessment from everyone. --Mondiad (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * MorenaReka was blocked as a sock of Sulmues. Sulmues is banned.  Banned users don't get to promote review articles, promote them to GA or any such things, per WP:BAN. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that article contains POV such as "A brave soldier, Dukagjini is remembered as representative of a type which admirably combined the sword with the pen. His independence intertwined with frankness and courage was his most notable trait". Some review indeed. Athenean (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's precisely as mentioned in the source. If you're interested, I provide the exact citations, only if interested. But of course you have no interest in the article, only grudge on me since I am the GA nominator.
 * As for MorenaReka, read the results that MikeV showed. Don't do your own interpretations.--Mondiad (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should use better sources. This is meant to be a 21st century encyclopedia, and should read as such.  Not like something from the 19th century. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:COPYVIO, before it gets you into trouble.  As for your friend, he was blocked as a sock.  That's all that matters. Athenean (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are rock solid and for sure no Albanian, since that's your concern. There is nothing from 19th century and the oldest is Gibb of 1911, I suggest you dig a little more about him. He is still the most respected figure in Oriental studies and specialized in poetry. The article was also reformatted from scratch during the assessment to avoid COPYVIO. And who said that GA assessments by socks are not valid? --Mondiad (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy says so, namely WP:BAN. You would do well to familiarize yourself with it.  You and your friend had a nice little thing going, promoting each other's articles to GA, didn't you?  Well it doesn't work like that.Athenean (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "You and your friend"??? Are you insisting Athenean that something was going on between Mondiad and the editor of which you cite ? Or is this another accusation ? Do you care to qualify your comments with something substantive ? If not, concentrate on the issue at hand regarding the review of this article. What needs to be done, if anything (due to it having undergone a extensive review process already, as it has been relisted for GA status)?Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Guys, relax, please. I'll undertake to make a reassessment, posting my comments below. Constantine  ✍  15:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I will continue this later. Constantine  ✍  16:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Continuing: In conclusion, the article has the ingredients needed for GA, but suffers from the author's obvious inexperience and problems with English prose. It needs a thorough polishing, as well as a meticulous reworking to avoid close paraphrasing of the sources. On comprehensiveness, judging from the EI article it looks quite complete, and the references as such seem solid. I'll be glad to give a hand, if someone wishes to take up the task of bringing this up to scratch. Constantine  ✍  21:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lede
 * "fell out of favor with the perpetrator of the murder", what murder? At this point in the text, it comes out of the blue.
 * Main body
 * Overall, referencing is inconsistently formatted, and mostly incomplete/inaccurate: for instance, when referencing the EI, the reference should read, and websites should use the cite web template, including publisher info and accessdates.
 * "An Albanian by birth, according to Elsie descendant of the Catholic Dukagjini tribe which lays in a mountainous region close to the Prokletije, or Dukagjini noble family according to Houtsma, his life took a different path when he was recruited as an Ottoman devşirme" too long and convoluted, needs breaking up.
 * "recognized his skills and accredited him a lot of freedom, which he used to get access" "accredited" is probably the wrong word here. "get access to" is also not nice prose. Perhaps "which enabled him to associate himself with..." In general, this part is badly copied from the source: on the one hand, it strictly follows its structure, on the other, it leaves out some important qualifiers that make the text puzzling: what were the skilles recognized? martial or literary? And what exactly is meant by "freedom"?
 * "Yahya stayed aware of his origin " no hardcoded paragraph breaks, please.
 * "Nevertheless, for Yahya Bey, the cruel devşirme..." it is not exactly clear what the "nevertheless" refers to; the devşirme is mentioned for the first time here, the uninitiated won't know why it was cruel, or what it has to do with Yahya. It should be mentioned, linked, and given a brief explanation earlier, when his selection for the janissary corps is mentioned. Also, the emphasis put here is at odds with the source: Yahya certainly knew his origin, as did most of the devşirme members, but he considered it a stroke of luck, so the "cruel" bit is an editorial intervention by the article's author, not from the source. And at "whereas good luck and particularly tact with superiors mattered greatly", it is IMO better to simply quote the relevant phrase directly as it is the EI article author's considered opinion.
 * "in Baghdad's expedition of 1535 under Sultan Suleiman. He earned the respect of powerful key people (between others the Sultan himself)" prose issues: in the Baghdad expedition, and "among others the Sultan"
 * "Yahya spent most of his early years in Ottoman campaigns, which inspired him." from the text flow, this belongs to the beginning of the paragraph. An explanation of what exactly the inspiration was is also needed.
 * "which he had first met" -> "whom he had first met"
 * For K̲h̲ayālī Mehmed Bey, preferably don't use diacritics; write simply Khayali Mehmed Bey
 * "several foundations" of what kind?
 * "who was declared as "enemy of the poets"" is misinterpreting the source; EI says that the Grand Vizier was "the declared enemy of poets", i.e. that he intensely disliked poets. This does not mean that he was declared by someone as "enemy of the poets".
 * overlinking of some names, like Suleiman the Magnificent
 * Iran is the modern country; relink to Safavid dynasty
 * "an elegy named ... upon the murder"; better "an elegy titled ... about the murder"
 * "not happy at all" colloquialism; "very displeased", "furious", etc. are better alternatives
 * " Gibb praised Dukagjini as ....." again, if the opinion of Gibb is reproduced almost verbatim, then it should be quoted. The attempt at paraphrasing it is not very good.
 * "A brave soldier, Dukagjini is remembered as representative of a type which admirably combined the sword with the pen. His independence intertwined with frankness and courage was his most notable trait" same as above.


 * There is also the entry in the İslâm Ansiklopedisi by Mehmed Çavuşoğlu, which is frequently cited in the brief EI2 article, and which appears (from the little I can make out as I don't know Turkish) to be a bit more up-to-date and complete than the old EI article. Constantine   ✍  09:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . I wouldn't mind working on this article and assisting you to bringing it up to the standard needed. A lot of work was done to iron out complications in the previous assessment so some things got overlooked such as prose etc. Though i was not involved in the previous assessment, I will have the time to do so this time around from early next week onward. Best regards Constantine and thank you for your interest and scholarly interest.Resnjari (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, just a reminder. Constantine  ✍  23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist: there has been no significant action to address the issues raised by Constantine in seven weeks, not even a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. Given that close paraphrasing has been identified in the article, it should not retain the GA icon any longer, and if the close paraphrasing is significant, the article should be tagged. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just tagged the article based on Constantine's comments above, and strongly believe that the article should be delisted as soon as possible, given the continuing lack of action. Constantine, can you please give this a retain GA/delist GA assessment? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delist unfortunately, due to prose and close paraphrasing issues. As it stands, the article fails Good Article criteria 1, 2a, and 2d and is in need of considerable work. Constantine  ✍  16:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)