Template:Did you know nominations/Kastrati (tribe)

The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Kastrati (tribe)[edit]

(

)

~~... that in 1878, according to the Treaty of San Stefano, the region of Kastrati was to be annexed to the Principality of Montenegro, but the Treaty of Berlin reverted such decision?~~

Reviewed: Vahe Danielyan

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self nominated at 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Why did you use predominantly Serb sources? Most of them can't be confirmed by other scholars, but they're all refuted by them like the notion of Dragoslav Srejović that Kastrati "allied" with Montenegro in the siege of Shkodër. However, all non-Serb sources mention Kastrati's petition a few months later against the annexation of any region to Montenegro.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Muslim and Christian members of Kastrati did not have the same position toward Montenegro, which is clarified in the text of the article and additional source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked the hook. Please review my edits. Safetidhehyria (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked hook is ok.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Decent article, long enough and new enough and with reliable sourcing. I've made a number of minor edits to resolve grammatical issues. The hook doesn't read very well though and I would suggest using the following alternative. Prioryman (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the region of Kastrati was awarded to Montenegro in 1878 under the Treaty of San Stefano, but the subsequent Treaty of Berlin restored it to the Ottoman Empire?

Thanks for copyedit. Alt hook is fine with me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Independent reviewer needed for Prioryman's suggested ALT1; striking original hook per above review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

While Prioryman's copyedits improved the readability of the article a bit, I think a little more work can be done to remove some of the awkward wording. For instance, there are many cases of people being referenced as "a certain ....", which is usually seen when either the identity of these individuals was previously in doubt, but is now "certain, or that the identity of the person is of particular importance that needs to emphasized. In the case of Wikipedia, its use comes across as a bit awkward since it is assumed that any individual of particular importance would have an article created on them (or a redlink indicating that an article should be created) and in any cases where the identity is in doubt that the article would take the time to explain what current reliable sources convey.

The article also gets a little hazy with timeline that makes it hard for the reader to follow along. For example, in the Origin section it references the work of Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927), describes some "contemporary" Ottoman statistical data which existed from 1299–1923 though the source is a book that apparently covers the years (1874-1913), and then jumps back to a note from the "founding legend of the clan" which (presumably) took place in the 15th century? The only way for the reader to try and get a grasp on when which item is happening or what time period is being described to back track through wiki-links and diving into the reference sources which is a lot of detective work to ask of the readers. It would be far more helpful to include to make the timeline of events and time periods described more clear within the text of the article itself.

Also, while the article has many details about the tribe itself and its history, the first line of the article notes that Kastrati is also a region but offers very little details about the region (Geography, climate, etc?). It would seem like such details would at least warrant a section of its own though I suppose the lead could be tweaked to remove reference to the region and make the article only about the tribe. However, given how small the WP:LEAD is, I would rather encourage adding more content to the article (and lead) rather than less. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed "certain" which I used as "Named but not known or previously mentioned".
I expanded the lede and added basic information about the region.
"contemporary Ottoman statistical data" assertion is added by another user (diff). I looked at the cited source and it does not support this assertion. In the note number 82 it is stated that the source is Sami Frashëri, not contemporary Ottoman statistical data. That is why I removed "contemporary Ottoman statistical data" assertion. Since Sami Frashëri (1850 – 1904) lived in the same period as Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927) I don't think there is a problem with chronology of the timeline now? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing the cite did help alleviate some of the timeline confusion and I appreciate your other edits to improve the lead. The hook is cited to a foreign language source which is being accepted in good faith with google translate and other online search seeming to corroborate with the hook. The article passes DYK criteria for date, length and referencing with no sign of plagiarism or close paraphrasing from the available english language sources that could be checked. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 03:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)