Talk:Bayraktar (song)

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 Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an Ukrainian soldier has written a song dedicated to the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 combat drone? Source: The New Arab
  • Reviewed: The Cutie Map
  • Comment: Moved back to mainspace from draft just yesterday.

Created by Styyx (talk). Self-nominated at 12:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC).

• Article meets criteria (1-3). The source inline in the hook strikes me as odd though. Phiarc (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Phiarc There are so many sources confirming the obvious relation of the song and the drone that I guess I tangled up the sources a bit. The source listed above now also sources the sentence in the article itself. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Promoted to Prep 5. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a more popular pro-Ukrainian song in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Actually GOOD EVENING (WHERE ARE YOU FROM?) by PROBASS ∆ HARDI is much more popular/used in pro-Ukrainian home made patriotic/propaganda videos during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine then this Bayraktar song... I have not heard this Bayraktar song being used since late February 2022...

Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to write a wikipedia article about GOOD EVENING (WHERE ARE YOU FROM?), I am writing this also as a remember to a future self who has free time at his hand... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, the reason that you haven't heard of this song until late February 2022 is.... because it was released in early March. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Still on youtube

The quote from the Spectator is correct but the Spectator is wrong - the song is on youtube now, at least nine versions. No idea why they think it would have been taken down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo Not clear how to contradict RS with fact. Anyone? Thelisteninghand (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite late but six months later, it appears that the video you linked is down. I assume that's what happened with the original original video, which I guess is what The Spectator reported on. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bayraktar (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall the article does not have any problems, however it seems quite short, which might not be a problem, but that's the first impression.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is good.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Compliant

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   sources should be listed as Last name, First name

Actually, that isn't clarified in WP:CITEHOW, which just says "byline (author's name), if any" for news articles. The "Last, First" method is used in books to make the {{Sfn}} template work.

Ok.

1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources generally reliable except for https://theaviationgeekclub.com/ which is a blog and may or may not be reliable depending on the credentials of the author and the editorial policy of the blog. I see that the author of the referenced blog-article is "William Cobb" who is a " licensed Instrument Flight Instructor in Single and Multi Engine Airplanes who is the founder and director of the Pensacola Aerospace Museum. Mr. Cobb spent from 2008 to 2015 instructing for the U.S. Navy's Initial Flight Screening program. After 8 years of full time Flight Instruction, Mr. Cobb started his own Commercial Drone Business, obtaining the first FAA Part 107 certification in his FAA region. Subsequent Drone work led to his becoming involved in Film Production work, and his establishing the Pensacola Aerospace Museum, an entity dedicated to honoring the memory of all those who ever gave their lives to flight." so the source seems to have some credibility despite being a blog. If it is made clear in the text that the information sourced from the blog is from based on what "William Cobb" ... a flight instructor and founder of bla bla bla... said then that might be ok.

Removed source.

Ok.

1. C. It contains no original research:

   No original research.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvio.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Adresses the main points, may be some new aspects that can be written about such as crackdowns on people playing the song. Selcuk Bayraktar stating that Russia won't get the drones might be also mentioned as they are the victim of the song and the drones. A bit more context in how the drones have become a symbol of resistance for ukraine, via the song, in a similar way that the Javelins have become a symbol of resistance as well via the St.Javelin meme.

There wasn't coverage about the song for a loooong time. The prof getting fired is very recent and worth mentioning. I don't see the relation of the song and Russia not getting the drones. Added the symbol of resistance.

Ok.

1. B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Stays focused.

2. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Given that it is a "propaganda" song, it might be mentioned that it is such. Mentioning the word "propaganda" may have negative connotation but there can be a more neutral way to say it like the song is intended to motivate Ukrainian soldiers and intimidated the Russians.

Yeah makes sense. Added in body and lead, because it clearly is one.

Ok.

1. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit war, only real war.

2. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are no images about the song. Could perhaps use a still capture from one of the various music videos, or the official music video. Can also include audio clips or video clips of the song being played at public protests/demonstrations in support of Ukraine.

There isn't a requirement of having images in GAs.

Not required, but appropriate when talking about music videos and video clips. If you can it would be a good addition to the article over all.

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The one included image is ok because it is the drone that the song is about.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article seems to need a bit of expansion, perhaps including also the Lyrics and their translation in the Lyrics section.

That's a clear  Not done: the lyrics are, as far as I know, copyrighted. Unless a reliable source states that it isn't, we can't add the lyrics. Some people have tried in the past, but were reverted.

Ok. International Business Times published the entire translated lyrics however.

The first paragraph of the "Reception and legacy" section reads rather like a list, perhaps this can be written in a more digestible way.

I'm not sure how I can do that, but I'll look into it tomorrow. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok will check again.

• Comment: You mention that the video was removed. But it is worth mentioning the various versions that have been uploaded and are still up, and the diffrent video clips. Also when you are talking about the original video clip specify that (because the one with the explosions is the original clip that was later removed).

Also worth mentioning Army FM and that “The soldiers love that music,” Davidov said. “They request the Bayraktar song all the time.”. And give some context about what Army FM is.

Also the Bayraktar song and Bayraktar’s impact on the ground have developed a special relationship between Ukraine and Turkey. The band of the Ukrainian Army released a video on the day of Eid al-Fitr, . The source is technically a blog but a reliable one written by someone qualified in the field affiliated with LSE.

Gazozlu, added the LSE source. However, I'd like to withdraw this GA nomination and renominate it at a further date. Can you mark this as failed for me? Thanks. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. The article is almost there it just needs a little work on the organisation and perhaps to be a bit updated with newer information. In the mean time you or someone else can re-nominate it when they feel like it is ready. Gazozlu (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Suspending review at the request of the nominator, who has requested more time to work on the article on a longer term timeframe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazozlu (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)