Template:Did you know nominations/Khorashan of Kartli

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 Allen3 ^talk 16:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Khorashan of Kartli[edit]

(

)

~~... that Khorashan of Kartli was the queen consort of Georgian king Teimuraz I of Kakheti?~~

Created by Kober (talk). Nominated by SL93 (talk) at 01:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC).

If anyone is wondering about the edit which changed the hook, I had two articles open at the same time and pasted the wrong name. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am reviewing this nomination. Firstly, I corrected the hook, one 'the' will be sufficient. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Step 2: direct link to the List of Georgian consorts. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you continued editing elsewhere after making this comment. If you want me to do that for this nomination to be accepted, that is not part of DYK criteria. The article isn't an orphan anyway. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer means that they changed the wikilink for queen consort. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is new enough (created on 14 July), long enough, and cites sources. The bibliography consists of four works, two of them are very recent (2012 and 2013) publications. The third is a French work from the 19th century, but it is easily accessible by the Google Books. Maybe an infobox could further strengthen the quality of the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a very good article but I have to say that the proposed hook is unremarkable. There are much more interesting facts about her. Here is one suggestion:

ALT1: ... that the Georgian queen Khorashan of Kartli avoided being captured by enemy soldiers thanks to a nightmare that frightened her into hiding?

If you don't like this one, perhaps you can come up with another one, but try to avoid the "... that X is Y?" form. The article fascinated me, so it should be fairly easy to come up with an equally fascinating hook. Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, your hook is far more interesting. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for Surtsicna's ALT1 hook; striking original hook as uninteresting. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 is interesting, but the article kind of implies that this is just a story ("According to the Georgian chronicles...", "This description of events..."). It can still be used as a hook, but if it isn't known to be true, that has to be made clear. It would be helpful to know exactly what the French-language source says – I'll ask the article's creator to comment. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a story? "Chronicles" were how historical events tended to get passed down in earlier times: think Roger of Wendover and other chroniclers from earlier in England. No one can ever be sure that any of the histories and chronicles are completely accurate, but I've never seen this kind of requirement on any other historical hook. In fact, the paragraph is relying on two independent ancient sources that basically give the same account of events, one of which is said to have been written by a contemporary of Khorashan. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just trying to make sure the hook is factually accurate. I can't read the French source and I don't have access to the other one – if you're telling me that the sources report this as fact, I'll take your word for it. I wasn't intending to review this DYK, by the way, just to comment on the hook. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not telling you that the sources report this as fact since my experience with them is basically the same as yours. However, the quotes you selected did not seem to me to support your concern that these were stories rather than recountings, which was my point. This is all moot, however, since you are not reviewing the hook and article, and that's what's needed here. Reiterating my call for someone to review ALT1, who can also look at this issue and see if it is a concern. It would be nice to have a comment from the article's creator, of course; with luck, Kober will return to editing soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. First off, thanks for nominating the article. Regarding the ALT1, I would agree with BlueMoonset. The story of the queen's dream may well be a legend, but that's how it has come down to us as part of the chronicle which was written more than a century after those events. What if we omit the nightmare part from the hook and focuse only on the story of the queen's attempted abduction by the Persians which is also supported by the contemporary European source?--Kober^Talk 16:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reiterating need for a new review of ALT1 that also looks at the issues raised above. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no problem with the new hook. It is well sourced and interesting. Also as the creator said, this is how historical sources has passed down to us and even if it was a legend rather than fact, it would still be a good hook. KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)