This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
A fact from Izvestiya Askhabadskogo Soveta appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Izvestiya Askhabadskogo Soveta was the first Bolshevik newspaper published in present-day Turkmenistan?
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.
Comment: We've had issues with hooks about "firsts", particularly when it comes to newspapers. It's best to avoid superlatives that are difficult to substaniate, but it's also not that interesting. Also, why not have the title in English? RoySmith is working on an essay that explores the idea: First is worst. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a few different issues here. I see the argument that RoySmith is trying to make in the draft essay, but at the same time that's a draft essay and not a policy at this stage. Blanket avoidance of any superlatives will have a pretty big impact on the entire DYK process, and whilst I think it fair to reflect on the issues linked to claims of 'first', 'biggest' etc I would not agree to that it should be enforced as a strict rule.
One say to perhaps make the hook slightly more interesting would be to rephrase Transcaspian Oblast (unknown to most readers) to 'present-day Turkmenistan'. It is slightly different than to say 'first Bolshevik newspaper in Pskov', it illustrates that the political organization of the movements of the Russian revolution covered what is today many different countries and societies.
Another approach for ALT could be to focus on the role of the newspaper in the tensions inside the Ashkhabad Soviet, that the newspaper supposedly published by the Soviet frequently attacked the leadership of the Soviet. But I find it more difficult to construe the sourcing to explicitly state that the newspaper was indeed the organ of the Soviet (in spite of the name), it seemingly was a Bolshevik party organ de facto.
In regards to the name, I generally think translating newspaper names is a bad idea. We refer to Le Monde as Le Monde, not The World. We refer to Pravda as Pravda, not Truth. And so forth. With Chinese newspapers there are some cases where it possible to argue to that names like People's Daily could be considered WP:COMMONNAME, although I think that is gradually becoming an anachronism. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, the paper was known by a nickname that can be used? It seems unlikely that anyone would say, "Hey comrade, did you read the News of the Council of Workers and Soldiers Deputies of the City of Askhabad this morning?" Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, neutral and a QPQ is done (only one required at time of nomination). Hook is cited and discussion above seems to show consensus that it's OK. On sourcing, all citations link to Google Books results, and the literature dates from the 1958 to 1982, and seem reliable. However, is there anything published post-1982 that could also be included? Also it would be good to indicate in the citations what language the sources are in. On plagiarism, Earwig brings up nothing, but that would be expected as there's little else in English in the topic, so I'm trusting the nominator to not have plagiarised from the Russian sources. One small point, it would be good to describe Annakurdov's profession in the final section - it's unclear to me who they are, historian? politician? Overall it's a nice article with just a couple of things to address Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed now that new hook has been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- ?
Article is new enough, long enough, neutral and a QPQ is done (only one required at time of nomination). Hook is cited and discussion above seems to show consensus that it's OK. On sourcing, all citations link to Google Books results, and the literature dates from the 1958 to 1982, and seem reliable. However, is there anything published post-1982 that could also be included? Also it would be good to indicate in the citations what language the sources are in. On plagiarism, Earwig brings up nothing, but that would be expected as there's little else in English in the topic, so I'm trusting the nominator to not have plagiarised from the Russian sources. One small point, it would be good to describe Annakurdov's profession in the final section - it's unclear to me who they are, historian? politician? Overall it's a nice article with just a couple of things to address Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)