Talk:Turkey's President Erdogan proposes converting Hagia Sophia Museum to mosque

Assistance

Appreciate your assistance! I'm new in the Wikinews, so please excuse any inconvenience. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemomagister (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 March 2019‎ (UTC)

Review of revision 4473127 [Not ready]

Revision 4473127 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: What is the focal event here? It should be specific, relevant, and fresh; those three things, together, are the basic elements of Wikinews:newsworthiness. Here, though, it's not clear from the lede just what specific thing happened, nor on what day it happened. The lede should briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about it, and in the process, the lede should show that the focus is newsworthy. There's no "day" word in the lede (like today, or yesterday, or the name of a day of the week), which is a tip-off that it likely doesn't answer "when" (which is one of the five Ws) and likely doesn't establish that the focus is specific-and-fresh. Our audience is general international readership, so it's probably best that the headline provide some clue to who Erdogan is and what Hagia Sophia is. We ask for two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. There's only one source here. We recommend choosing the sources and reading them all before starting to write, which makes it easier to avoid accidental copying/plagiary and to be accurate and neutral. In the current draft, I see some length passages verbatim-identical to source; we not only don't want passages identical to source, we don't even want them similar — the facts reported come from the sources, but the presentation should be original. (There's some advice on this at WN:PILLARS#source, and some discussion of the issue at WN:Plagiarism.) Minimal length for a Wikinews article is generally at least three paragraphs, and total text at least about 50% more than what's here atm. Btw, no external links in the body of an article; only wikilinks, using {{w}}. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4473127 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: What is the focal event here? It should be specific, relevant, and fresh; those three things, together, are the basic elements of Wikinews:newsworthiness. Here, though, it's not clear from the lede just what specific thing happened, nor on what day it happened. The lede should briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about it, and in the process, the lede should show that the focus is newsworthy. There's no "day" word in the lede (like today, or yesterday, or the name of a day of the week), which is a tip-off that it likely doesn't answer "when" (which is one of the five Ws) and likely doesn't establish that the focus is specific-and-fresh. Our audience is general international readership, so it's probably best that the headline provide some clue to who Erdogan is and what Hagia Sophia is. We ask for two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. There's only one source here. We recommend choosing the sources and reading them all before starting to write, which makes it easier to avoid accidental copying/plagiary and to be accurate and neutral. In the current draft, I see some length passages verbatim-identical to source; we not only don't want passages identical to source, we don't even want them similar — the facts reported come from the sources, but the presentation should be original. (There's some advice on this at WN:PILLARS#source, and some discussion of the issue at WN:Plagiarism.) Minimal length for a Wikinews article is generally at least three paragraphs, and total text at least about 50% more than what's here atm. Btw, no external links in the body of an article; only wikilinks, using {{w}}. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Fact-check

I couldn't find the sofia thing in https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/?search=sofia&order=country or w:List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription or w:List of World Heritage Sites in Israel not sure why. Including the official name of the site into the article would have been nice. Gryllida (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is still not clear in the present version. :-( Gryllida (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Timing

I think this happened on March 26; March 29 is the latest publish day. There is about one hour and fourty-three minutes left if a reviewer wants to publish this story.

I don't think the freshest source actually revealed any new information which was missing previously.

--Gryllida (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been addressed by adding fresh details from Thursday and Friday. Gryllida (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Headline

I don't like the "UNESCO halts Turkish President Erdogan's proposed changes for Hagia Sophia museum" headline. It implies the plans become canceled. But in fact the President may still wish to proceed with these changes and UNESCO may approve them. There has been no rejection of this proposal to date.

I would suggest that any volunteer or reviewer considers these options:

• UNESCO halts Turkish President Erdogan's proposed changes for Hagia Sophia museum
• UNESCO says renaming Hagia Sophia museum in Turkey would require its approval
• UNESCO says changing Hagia Sophia museum to mosque would require its approval

I do not like the focus on the rename because there is no official current name plus the official proposed new name available in the text. As remarked above in an earlier section I had difficulty obtaining this information; this information may be required for publication, and particularly so in the case the headline focus on the rename...

--Gryllida (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems the issue of changing the status to mosque is more central here; I'm renaming accordingly. Gryllida (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Is "pre-election" a typo for "re-election"? Technically it's before the election, but "re" seems better to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a valid phrase. If you are not editing the content now, and if you don't rename it yourself, then I will be able to rename it. Gryllida (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Renamed. That's a bit too long, I hope we can find a way to make it shorter somehow. Gryllida (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The subject relevance

The relevance of the subject is unclear. Were the focus on the proposed change of status as a part of election campaign, the significance would be a little bit clearer: the change of status would impact many people, if I may say. However I have had difficulty focusing on this because I do not know the date on which the President made the announcement.

If the focus is placed on the remark by UNESCO that this change requires its approval, then the relevance moves from "president wants to rename it" to "UNESCO requires paperwork". This in itself is less significant: paperwork is common, and we do not have any evidence of the President wishing to do the rename illegally without having the paperwork processed first. If this evidence is present then the significance is clear; if it is not, then the significance becomes lost.

--Gryllida (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is partially resolved by the addition of more details Gryllida (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4473606 [Passed]

Revision 4473606 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Quite a bit of background information was not apparent in the sources. Perhaps I missed a pocket of information somewhere? All information in an article must be from documented sources (this is even true of original reporting, though the form of documentation is different). Note, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; nor can its text be reused here, as the licenses are incompatible. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4473606 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Quite a bit of background information was not apparent in the sources. Perhaps I missed a pocket of information somewhere? All information in an article must be from documented sources (this is even true of original reporting, though the form of documentation is different). Note, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; nor can its text be reused here, as the licenses are incompatible. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.