The following is an archived discussion of Pine Residence's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Carabinieri (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC).
Pine Residence
edit... that the residence of the French ambassador to Lebanon was originally conceived to be a casino?
Created by Elie plus (talk). Self nom at 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The part about it previously being a casino is unreferenced. Also, a majority of prose seems to be paraphrased from the first source, but translated into English. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 14:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The article has multiple references now that it grew from a stub, please reconsider Eli+ 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- There has been a nice further expansion, but before calling for another review, the close paraphrasing needs to be fixed: for example, the article's "and in 1888, Beirut was promoted to become the capital of a province, which also carried its name, the Vilayet of Beirut" is far too close to its source, FN1. Also, references that are bare URLs need to be filled in. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and your time, I used ms. Ozturk's work extensively, condensing chapters into this paragraph, that sentence must have escaped me. The references lacking details were also fixed; please let me know if there are other issues. Eli+ 21:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there's more work to be done on the close paraphrasing. You only seem to have rewritten the first third of that quote: "the capital of a province which also carried its name, the Vilayet of Beirut" remains untouched and problematic. And I did note that this was just an example; the full report with this source using WP:Duplication detector is here. (The bulk of the shorter strings aren't relevant, but sometimes there is similar material before or after that makes them rather longer and a problem.) Duplication detector is a useful tool for checking similar phrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Eli+, it has been a while since there has been anything added here. I'm puzzled by these two sentences in the second Background paragraph: "The municipality of Beirut was created in 1863 by the name of Meclis al-Baladi. Hence, starting from 1860 and for twenty years, the Tanzimat impacted the transformation of the Beirut space heavily." Who was Meclis al-Baladi, and how did his name create the municipality? Or was it called "Meclis el-Baladi" rather than "Beiruit"? (The source uses that version of the name once and "Meclis el-Baladi" twice; under the circumstances and given the near-identical phrasing all three times, I'm not convinced the thesis author knew either.) Might you be able to get ahold of the Yerasimos 2006 source used for Meclis in the thesis to clear this up? If not, maybe this bit of information should be dropped; the connection with the second sentence's "Hence" is questionable given that said sentence is starting from 1860, and the municipality just mentioned is from later, 1863. Otherwise, the only identical phrase of note between article and paper is "one of the most important port cities in the ottoman empire". When you make further changes, please be sure to mention them here, so the review can continue, and hopefully conclude. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thank you for your input. Meclis el-Baladi in Turkish (al-Majlis al-baladi in Arabic) simply translates as Municipal Council, the municipality was called or known by this name, it was not created by an entity other than the Ottoman authority... the rephrasing made the sentence unclear, i will fix it or drop the info. The bit about the municipality falls in the greater context of the Tanzimat reforms; the next sentence beginning with "hence" is in connection with Tanzimat context.--Eli+ 22:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Progress continues, and the above issues appear to have been dealt with except for the eleven-word "one of the most important port cities in the Ottoman Empire" phrase, which remains the same in source and article: there must be a way to rephrase this. Also, I'm not sure the hook's "conceived to be a casino" is ideal wording. Maybe "intended" or "designed" or "planned" or even "built"? The second Construction paragraph is completely unsourced, and that's the one that has to support the hook. In particular, the second-to-last sentence seems to be the one have an inline source citation. (The first and third History paragraphs are also unsourced, and need at least one inline source citation.) There is one puzzling thing to me: if the building was started in 1916 and not completed until 1920, it wasn't finished until after World War I ended in 1918. If the building was used as a hospital while it was under construction, or even that construction was temporarily halted so it could be used in that way, then I think you need to explain that. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the residence of the French ambassador to Lebanon was originally intended to serve a casino?
the second paragraph is a part of the whole and all the sources are at the bottom... I fixed that...
The building Was started amid WWI, the Beirutis and the Lebanese were suffering of famine due to a blockade while the wali was dreaming of a grandiose city center. the article does not mention this but Alfred S had wheat transported on camels and mules all the way from Palestine to feed the workers on site, most of whom were locals from the nearby Mazraa area. During the later years of WWI the building was used as a military hospital and after the Armistice of Mudros, the Ottoman holdings outside Anatolia were confiscated by the french among which the pine residence _which was still by then incomplete_ I will explain these later when i have time. In the meanwhile could we end this Byzantine discussion, I'm not applying for FA status... Eli+ 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry you're getting discouraged, but in certain matters my hand is tied. By DYK rules, each paragraph needs at least one source citation, so those History section paragraphs need at least one germane citation each. More, all hook facts must be cited by the end of the sentence that they are in because they are considered extraordinary claims: whichever sentence says the building was originally supposed to be a casino must be appropriately cited. (I've added "citation needed" templates to the article that show what DYK needs.) Once that's done we can end the discussion with an approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Eli+. I just noticed that the original review never addressed some of the DYK basics, like newness and size, so now that the citation requirement has been addressed, it needs a final full review; barring anything unusual it should be ready for approval. I'm putting out the call... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
As at the last version on 23 January, size and newness were ok. On the current version, refs in place & hook supported by French embassy webpage. Some refs to what seem to be books lack page numbers though. I am assuming "close translation" issues dealt with in the many changes since the nom; I have not done full checks for this. Thanks to alll for your patience. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
