Template:Did you know nominations/Kızıl Kilise

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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Kızıl Kilise[edit]

(

)

... that the 6th-century-built Kızıl Kilise (pictured) is one of the oldest churches in the Cappadocia region in Turkey?

Reviewed: Russell L. Blaisdell

5x expanded by CeeGee (talk). Self nominated at 11:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

Name, date, length, and hook check out, as well as close checks for paraphrasing. Good article! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article does unfortunately contain close paraphrasing: for example, compare "It was a stop for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem" with the source's "The site was also a stop for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.", and the article's "the church served as an imperial, or funerary chapel" with the source's "the church served as an imperial, or funerary, chapel"—in the latter case, the article prefaces this with "It is assumed that", while the source cites not only evidence for this, but also says who owned the church. The article could also use a copyedit: I started one, but stopped when I found the copying in the Background section, as the removal of the hook from prep took priority. The Restoration section's first and third sentences are still problematic as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited respecting the issues raised above. Pls re-check. Thanks. --CeeGee 18:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. I'm going to ask Nikkimaria to do a general close paraphrasing check, since she is an expert. However, I have noticed some assumptions being made in the revisions, such as that the church was "situated on the pilgrims' way to Jerusalem", when it might instead have been considered a holy destination that pulled pilgrims off what would have been a more direct route to Jerusalem. The source doesn't say one way or the other, and the article shouldn't make claims not backed up by the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is some too-close paraphrasing still evident here - compare for example "an octagonal base support the central dome, which is the most important architectural element of the church" with "central dome, supported by an octagonal base, is the most prominent architectural element of the church". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reworded further. I hope the a.m. issue is eliminated. Thanks again. --CeeGee 07:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't - compare for example "harsh winters with extreme cold weather could be the reason for the abandonment of the church long time ago" with "Harsh winters and intense cold weather eventually led to the abandonment of the church long ago". You might find it helpful to go seek out a collaborator to help you rewrite this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I wasn't here since September 14. So, I couldn't do anything against the a.m. claim. However, to my surprise, I see now that the DYK nom has been promoted anyhow, and I've been credited as well. In this case, this page needs to be archived I guess. --CeeGee 16:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

CeeGee, I'm afraid the hook wasn't promoted then; I had removed it from the prep area on September 12 (as noted above). However, when I did so I neglected to also remove the DYKmake template that causes notifications to be sent out. No one caught my error, so your talk page and the article's talk page falsely claimed that the hook had run. I've just removed both talk page messages, and offer you my profound apologies for the misleading messages.

That said, the article is still nominated and under review and should not be archived, and the close paraphrasing still needs to be dealt with. When you do so, the nomination can proceed. Please let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hallo BlueMoonset, a copyedit has been done, please check again, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Alex, it looks like over the course of editing some references have gotten separated from the material they're meant to support - for example, the beginning of the second Background paragraph is supported by footnote 3, but actually cited to footnote 5. Can you fix this to make checking possible? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, I corrected the "shifted" reference, added another one to support the claim that the church has four columns, added info about the dedication, and checked the other references. I think that you can continue to review the article now. Sorry about the circumstances, but the original author disappeared (in Cappadocia? :-)), so I adopted the article. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It looks like some of the phrasing is still a bit close to this source - could you do a bit more reworking? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, please give another look: paraphrasing paraphrasing I will slowly go back to the original :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done some further copy-editing and this should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)