Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Kharistan
- 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 — Maile (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Battle of Kharistan
edit... that the Battle of Kharistan, fought between the Umayyads and the Turgesh in 737, was a turning point in the conflict over control of Transoxiana?
- Reviewed: Girolamo Maiorica
Improved to Good Article status by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 16:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC).
- Comment only I have trimmed the hook a bit, but it does not strike me as being very interesting. Is there nothing better? Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the trimming. I am open to suggestions on the hook. More context is difficult to fit in the length requirements, and if I were to claim that the battle "ensured Muslim control over Central Asia" it would be an exaggeration (although in fact the Arab victory did lay part of the foundation for the fact that Central Asia is Muslim to this day). Keeping it factual means it sounds "boring", even if it isn't. Constantine ✍ 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Had a quick look for something more interesting, but this isn't my sort of topic. Perhaps something about it being a surprise attack? Edwardx (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, how about ALT1, "... that in the Battle of Kharistan in 737, the Umayyads caught the Turgesh khagan off guard with only a fraction of his army, and secured a victory that saved Arab rule in Central Asia?" Constantine ✍ 06:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Constantine. That passes the interesting test. Full review still needed though. Edwardx (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Full review needed now that hook is set. (Struck the original hook due to issues noted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Article is large enough and promoted to GA just the day before nominating. GA appears genuine. Article is sufficiently cited and neutral. Copyvio's not found by the tool. Hook ALT1 is 182 characters and so short enough. QPQ performed. Correct person credited. For ALT1, it is a simplification of several cited paragraphs. The books referenced exist, and it does not appear to be a hoax. But I cannot confirm the exact detail of the hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
