Talk:Hacı Abdullah Restaurant

Did you know nomination

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 12:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Gave this a copyedit, feel free to review. New enough, long enough, neutral, every sentence has in-line citations and I trust that the translation process has eliminated any close paraphrasing issues that could have popped up. The corresponding sentence in the body for the hook fact is directly cited. QPQ completed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hook was pulled from the Main Page after discussion at WP:ERRORS. I failed to catch that the hook fact is not entirely true, as the article brings up a few of instances where unconnected non-cooks have taken ownership of the restaurant. Reopening this in case CeeGee can think of another interesting angle for a hook; I am also willing to adopt this nomination. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DigitalIceAge: First of all, thank you very much indeed for your efforts. You did a great job. I was not aware of the discussion in my absence, so that it was impossible for me to intervene. I did now a copy editing in the artcile, and suggest the following hooks: CeeGee 09:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm the copper pots hook as interesting and referenced. The article has the correct inline citations and the QPQ is done. When nominated it was new enough and long enough. I spot checked one of the foreign language articles and I did not find copyright violations. Bruxton (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Interested in your thoughts about this DYK hook and article as the resident restaurant expert. Is it good to go from your point of view? Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How long was it on the MP? Will a promoter still want to re-promote? I'm not sure I've seen this before.
Re: ALT2... the fact they use copper pots is interesting to me, as a person highly interested in cooking, but I'm not sure it's going to interested someone who might not know that's at all unusual. (And even for me the fact a 130-yo Turkish restaurant uses handcrafted copper pots is not at all surprising, they probably are using the same pots they opened the restaurant with in 1880, and of course all of those would be copper, it's Turkey.) Also that statement is sourced to an interview with one of the owners, who is saying a lot of typically promotional stuff. I actually think the fact the restaurant was the "first registered" restaurant in Turkey and is still open is pretty interesting, but the support for "first registered" are the restaurant's website and what appears to be a blog. Actually I'm a little concerned about the sources in general. We're leaning most heavily on the restaurant and the blog. The Hurriyet source is only showing up for me as being a few sentences, and we're citing to it six times. The other sources we don't have an article on so more complicated to assess notability Valereee (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CeeGee and DigitalIceAge: Could you please see Valereee's comments above and address? Restaurant articles seem to run into issues with regard to notability and sources quite a bit, so it would be great if we could have a couple more reliable secondary sources in the article, and/or if you could provide a bit of background on the current sources here. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cielquiparle Thank you for your note. I've slightly expanded on the "copper pot" cited with an extra newspaper article. CeeGee 09:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

|}}

Translation issues and apparent contradiction about ownership

There are a lot of language issues in this article. Some could be cleaned up with a copyedit, but there are a lot of things where I can't figure out the intended meaning, I'm guessing due to translation issues from Turkish (and since all the sources are in Turkish I can't use them to clarify). Examples:

  • "After 1916, the restaurant was relocated due to earthquake with a close epicenter at the Passage Rumelia at İstiklal Avenue in Beyoğlu, Istanbul" - this makes it sound like the Passage Rumelia at İstiklal Avenue (what is a "passage?") is where the earthquake happened, but I think from context it happened near the old location and forced them to move TO the Passage Rumelia at İstiklal Avenue?
    • Changed to "After 1916, the restaurant was relocated due to an earthquake that had an epicenter close to its original location." DigitalIceAge (talk)
  • "the restaurant's name was changed in conformity with the present owner"
    • Changed to "restored its original name of Hacı Abdullah Restaurant." DigitalIceAge (talk)
  • "frequently visited by rulers, state officials, and high-ranked politicians, as well as by official and private delegates." - what are "official and private delegates?"
  • "the restaurant was about to be vacated as per the agreement with the property owner" - this makes it sound like the issue was just their lease was up and the owner didn't want to renew, but in that case it's not clear how the customer stepping in helped.
    • Changed to "When Hacı Salih Efendi died in 1982, the restaurant was about to be vacated." DigitalIceAge (talk)
  • "The name Hacı Salih had to be changed due to Turkish business laws. In 1983, the place returned to its initial 1988 name of Hacı Abdullah Lokantası." I assume this is a typo and should say 1888? It would also be nice to get context on what these "business laws" were and why they required the name change. Also this seems to contradict the previous section which said this name change was "in conformity with the present owner" and nothing about a legal requirement (unless we're talking about two different name changes around the same time?)

Also, more significantly, I don't see how this claim (about to be featured on the main page DYK) is true:

  • "Ahi-Order businesses are long-established organizations that have been passed down from father to son or otherwise changed hands through purchase by individuals or companies against a fee. The situation at the Hacı Abdullah Restaurant is an exception to both cases, as it was passed down from master to apprentice throughout its lifespan. The ownership was handed over from chef de cuisine to sous-chef."

As far as I can figure out from the article, this was the chain of ownership:

  1. Abdullah Efendi
  2. His son, Hikmet Abdullah Bey
  3. An unnamed relative
  4. Haci Salih Efendi, a longtime employee
  5. Ferit Intiba, a customer of the restaurant and businessman who bought it when Efendi died and it was in some kind of unclear trouble
  6. Whatever ownership group "ousted" Intiba
  7. Abdullah Korun, Haci Salih Efendi's longtime sous-chef, and three of his partners, who took over years after this ouster
  8. The son of one of those partners, Turgit Gülen

So I'm seeing three times where it was passed to a son (or other relative), one time when it was sold to an outsider (possibly more depending on the details of #6, which aren't clear), and two times when longtime employees took over. And in neither of those two times was the restaurant passed down from one employee to another. How does that add up to "an exception to both cases" or "passed down from master to apprentice throughout its lifespan/history?"

(pinging main contributor @CeeGee:)

-Elmer Clark (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Elmer Clark, reviewer here. I have addressed some of the wording issues that I glossed over in my original copy edit. In most cases I simply cut excess detail in lieu of trying to find the right way to recast the sentence in more standard English while retaining text-source integrity. I hope CeeGee can clarify the other comments soon. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the hook off the main page. Way too many issues. Schwede66 00:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schwede66: Very interesting for me that a hook was pulled off from the Main Page. It should have occured during the Prep or Queue phase. I see that the reviewer DigitalIceAge spent a lot of effort and did really a great job to address the issues you mentioned again and again. And now, I kindly ask you to list the issues you think are not addressed one by one for me because it is very confusing for me. Maybe I can do something. I hope next time you can check DYK nominations before they are on the Main Page. CeeGee 10:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. Schwede66 10:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schwede66: I saw above, but I really could not understand anything. Therefore, I asked you kindly to list for me what else remained explicitly since I guess some of them are already fixed. CeeGee 10:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I pulled the item at 13:46 pm yesterday. First reason was poor English (although I see that was mostly fixed 5 min before I pulled the hook, i.e. I would have made the decision to pull without seeing that fix). Second is that the hook fact does not appear to hold true. Thirdly, all this was triggered by which you can read up on at the report at Errors. You say that it should have occured during the Prep or Queue phase and I agree. But I cannot influence that this did not happen. And just for the record, it is absolutely not my responsibility to check DYK nominations before they are on the Main Page. I patrol Errors and act on what is reported there. If it bothers you that your hook got pulled, maybe you should try and produce articles of better quality. I'm sorry that you ended up with a reviewer who didn't spot those problems. But either way, don't make your problems my problems. Schwede66 11:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schwede66: You are trying to cover up your mistake. And, you are not able to repeat the issues whatsoever for me. You should be better more careful when you start a big move like pulling a hook off the Main Page. How nice that you are very good in English.CeeGee 12:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it WP:CIVIL. Removing the hook was the right move until this is sorted out. I left you a userpage comment that hopefully might help. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hacı_Abdullah_Restaurant&oldid=1204148023"