Template:Did you know nominations/Serhiy Kot

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) 01:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Serhiy Kot

(

)

~~... that Serhiy Kot was editor for Ukrainian Question, a book collection of articles by British journalist Lancelot Lawton about the status of Ukraine in the 1930s?~~ Source: [1]
- Reviewed: ~~to come~~

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Self-nominated at 09:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC).

I appreciate the effort with these Ukraine hooks but I really don't think this particular hook appeals to a broad audience. It doesn't help that we don't even have an article about Lawton, and I really don't see how him being an editor for a book makes for an interesting hook. I think a more promising option would be a hook based on this particular fact: In 2020, Kot was instrumental in seeking restitution of a painting by Lucas Cranach, a diptych of Adam and Eve unlawfully taken to Saint Petersburg and now at the Norton Simon Museum in Pasadena, to Ukraine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
We can help to an article about Lawton. But - with or without - the fact that the Ukrainian Question was already regarded as a key question for the future of Europe in the 1930s seems of higher interest than the wanted restitution of a single artwork which is not likely to happen. Sharper wording of the hook welcome, - I couldn't get in all into 200 chars. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed now Template:Did you know nominations/Mordecai Strelisker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The connection isn't going to be that clear to a reader even with the Russo-Ukranian War currently ongoing. It's likely to get over their heads. The taking to Saint Petersburg painting thing would probably catch attention more easily, and it's even still topical since it's still related to Russia-Ukraine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I could not word the incident correctly in 200 character. Could you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that historian Serhiy Kot was instrumental in seeking the return of a Lucas Cranach painting, which had been unlawfully taken to Saint Petersburg, back to Ukraine?

How does this sound? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, but I'm afraid it's too simplified for my taste. A reader will think it's in Saint Petersburg now (vs California where it got by a dubious sale). It misses dates for when instrumental, when to Saint Petersburg. Without any date, this could have happened 100 years ago. "Ukraine" comes very late in the hook. Today, no valuable piece of art of art would be returned to Ukraine, regardless of laws and justice. It would be safer where it is, sadly. - These were some considerations why I gave up wording a hook around that. - That Lawton, however, spoke to the UK House of Commons about the topic, - will be in article-to-be, - just giving weight to his point of view in the 1930s, - about the time when Hitler invaded Poland. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Would this wording work better then?
ALT1a ... that historian Serhiy Kot was instrumental in seeking the return of a Lucas Cranach painting, which had been unlawfully taken to Saint Petersburg, Russia in 1929, back to Ukraine?

The 1929 date isn't explicitly mentioned in the article yet, but it is mentioned in the DW source. I also don't see how Ukraine being mentioned so late in the hook is an issue, since it's meant to be the "punchline" or "hook" of the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Look, the article had 21k+ views just by his name, - not by any hook. I had hoped we could say something about the Ukrainian Question in the 1930s, so frightening similar to what we have now. I give up, unwatching, do what you want. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
For a compromise, how about this? We don't have an article about the author so we'll probably have to drop his mention, but if the goal is to highlight the Ukrainian question, there's this option:
ALT2 ... that Serhiy Kot was editor for Ukrainian Question, a book collection of articles about the status of Ukraine in the 1930s?

The hook is much more concise too since it's more direct to the point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. (Please ping me next time when I say I unwatch, so I happen to see this only by chance. Watching again now.) I'm going to write the article about Lancelot, but fine not to mention him here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Narutolovehinata5|, waiting. Lancelot article nominated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If Lancelot already has his own separate nomination then I don't really see the need for Lancelot to be mentioned in the hook anymore, especially when the focus is on Kot. I would have suggested that ALT0 could have been modified to make the hook a double hook with both Kot and Lancelot as bolded links, but I guess that's moot now with the separate nomination for Lancelot. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Obviously my English is not sufficient. I said that I don't like double hooks, and I said it's fine to not mention him, as in ALT2. You can approve ALT2, because it's the same facts already mentioned and approved, just shortened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Since I proposed hooks earlier, a new editor will be needed to finish the review and choose a hook. Note that per the above discussion, I have struck the original hook, leaving ALT1/ALT1a/ALT2 as the hooks for discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
de:Serhij Kot is now on the German Main page, with a hook similar to ALT2, in case of interest. This is the second time that the Germans are faster, although they manage only 2 new hooks each day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
This is going to be a bit long and harsh, but I think you'll get my point and take no offence. This is one of the best cases to illustrate that while technically anyone can nominate any article to DYK if it meets certain predetermined criteria (not a stub, 7 days blah-blah-blah), there is that problem of creating something that could be interesting for a wider audience that visits the main page. There are simply certain articles that you can't squeeze a viable hook from, and this is the case here. DYK should and will remain a good tool to promote article creation/expansion, but arguably the most important thing is not advertising your skills of writing an encyclopedia article but more or less creating a clickbait title that is still true. As was said in this humorous show from the 1990s: The plot is brewing nicely... though I'd need a pinch of salt... and spices! The viewer loves it when everything is spicy!.. And there we go! Unfortunately, the "plot" here is as bland as it gets.

We don't know about Mr. Lawton (in fact, an article about him was created just three weeks ago, which indicates that he's a low-profile personality, and indeed he is, since we don't hear about him much and he's not known in schools or even at most Ukrainian history courses in Ukraine), Serhii Kot remains a personality which in Ukraine/Russia etc. would be called someone who is "widely known among the few" (широко известный в узких кругах), the Ukrainian Question book is a rather obscure book of which no one knows virtually anything (does the nom know anything about the book at all?) and in general the article simply doesn't have the tidbits that would merit attention for the millions who land on the talk page. DYK is OK for trivia, but this one isn't even trivia - it's a random guy writing a book about another random guy who wrote a random book that isn't known to virtually anyone, let alone for anything hooky, and the only reason this article appears in DYK is because the late Serhii Kot is Ukrainian, and also because Russia started a barbaric invasion of its neighbour whom it claimed to be an (elder) brother of, and some people started writing about Ukraine on the wave of interest in the country where hundreds die daily.

I'm deeply grateful for the effort, and hell, do expand the articles on Ukraine, but if that's your way to advertise Ukraine to the outside, I'd suggest improving the articles with maintenance tags and making the Top-, High- and Mid- importance articles GA/FA-compliant. Same effort but with a much better impact for everyone. As you know, you can nominate GA articles to DYK too, so no problem with that (but with the same caveat that the hook should be interesting - it is indeed the whole point of DYK!).

The short point is, DYK stands for "Did you know" not "Do you kare" [to know]. Since this hook falls among the latter lines, I urge to

reject this nomination as this article has no chance to promote a hook that it noteworthy to anyone but the selected few specialists who might not be reading Wikipedia anyway. Otherwise, if more of the hooks like these get promoted to DYK, then we could just as well get rid of it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and by the way, according to the rules of transliteration from the Cyrillic to Latin alphabets, the letter "й" is expressed as "i" if it's not at the beginning of the word, the convention that is apparently used by most govt institutions. Therefore, Serhii Kot, not "Serhiy Kot". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not go by "correct" but follows the sources, and the sources don't have it your way. I have no time to read your wall of text., sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Responding to above request for new reviewer. I do not agree that we should close this nom on the grounds that the article is "not interesting for a wider audience". I don't think that any of us has the right to decide what is interesting and what is not. If I were to take that attitude, I would be trying to close down all noms relating to team sports, computer games, maths, scientific analysis and anything else that I personally did not like or did not understand or know about. However, intelligent readers tend to welcome new subjects and information, and Wikipedia (including DYK) needs to have something for everybody. The Main Page's DYK section always has plenty of crowd-pleasers, so we can afford to include a few items that serve minority interests. In this case, though, the fact of the Ukraine-Russian situation not being a new one is of general interest, and the name of Cranach is a always a clickbaiter to anyone in the history-of-art world. There is currently great pressure on Western museums to return stolen artworks to their countries of origin right now, and that Cranach artwork is a case in point - so another clickbaiter there. In conclusion, I see nothing to close down, here.

I would approve ALT1 and ALT1a if they included the fact that the painting is "now in the US" - not too many extra words, surely? That would ensure that the hooks were conveying the whole truth. The fact that people are still struggling with the fact that the artwork is away from its home is fine, even though we all know that Ukraine is not currently a safe place for it.

I think that ALT2 is fine as it stands. Many of our readers have been learning about Ukrainian history during this conflict, therefore they will already understand the reference to "Ukraine in the 1930s".

In summary: I approve ALT2. (I would approve ALT1 and ALT1a if they were to include something like "now in the US".) Storye book (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)