Template:Did you know nominations/Hebraization of Palestinian place names
- 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 SL93 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hebraization of Palestinian place names
- ... that there is a recent trend to reverse the Hebraization of street names in mixed Jewish-Arab cities in Israel? Source: Rekhess, Elie. “The Arab Minority in Israel: Reconsidering the ‘1948 Paradigm.’” Israel Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, 2014, pp. 187–217. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.19.2.187; "A new trend that has become particularly popular in recent years in mixed Jewish-Arab cities, is attempts to restore original Arabic street names, “Hebraized” after 1948."
Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC). comment
- Comment There are few problems in the article there are active discussions on the talk page --Shrike (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Shrike: Can you advise when the article has reached a stable version? Also, @Onceinawhile: I think more Alt hooks would help this get passed. A QPQ is still needed. --evrik (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
QPQ done now. Article new and long enough; though plenty of inline citations the references seem to still need work. The hook fact only appears in the lead, and at least one of its two sources seem to have some bias in its report (the other is inaccessible). Still needs work. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination has many issues which need to be resolved and appears to be abandoned by the nominator. Unless this is adopted by someone else soon, it should be rejected and closed. Flibirigit (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging @Davidbena: who wrote two thirds of the text in the current article.
- Kingsif please could you be more specific when you say that some references still need work? I have added the relevant text to the main body of the article. On the sources for the hook, they are both accessible online – please let me know which one you have concerns with and I will bring a quote. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Onceinawhile (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- When I reviewed it, many of the Harvard style inline citations did not point to any source either in the ref list or the bibliography; this seems to have been mostly fixed (there are still several that do not link), but the refs are in different formats. Some of them are more quote than ref, which is good except they don't seem to be contextualized (or I'm missing something), i.e. I can't tell how some of the quotes relate to the article text. If you're/whoever is struggling with linking the refs, a simpler ref format might be easier? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I retract my closure request as long as discussion or progress continues. Flibirigit (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: would you be able to find time to fix the reference formatting for the references you added per the comment above by Kingsif? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- When I reviewed it, many of the Harvard style inline citations did not point to any source either in the ref list or the bibliography; this seems to have been mostly fixed (there are still several that do not link), but the refs are in different formats. Some of them are more quote than ref, which is good except they don't seem to be contextualized (or I'm missing something), i.e. I can't tell how some of the quotes relate to the article text. If you're/whoever is struggling with linking the refs, a simpler ref format might be easier? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Kingsif: please could you take another look at the article? It has been meaningfully tidied up over the last couple of weeks. The refs are still not all consistent format, but they are all acceptable formats per MOS and consistency is not a requirement for DYK. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
It's improved, could still see the prose tidied and should have some expansion in 'Modern trends'. Assuming all the refs do source the text, it meets requirements, with no evidence of copyvio. Created on the same day it was nominated, long enough, the article is interesting enough (as a topic of interest) and the hook is interesting - but, as said, there is no more context to the section it links to. Kingsif (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
