 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- 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: rejected by Cowlibob (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Burmese–Siamese War (1584–1593) freed Siam (now Thailand) from domination by Burma for 174 years...?
- ALT1:... that despite a force of 25,000 troops, 1,200 horses, and 220 elephants during the second campaign of the Burmese–Siamese War (1584–1593), the Burmese king was unable to capture Siam (now Thailand)?
- Reviewed: Ernest Fahmy
5x expanded by Tanakorn Srichaisuphakit (talk). Nominated by Paul2520 (talk) at 19:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC).
Article is new enough, long enough, neutral. However, the article begins very abruptly with "The Ava rebellion turned out to be just the opportunity Siam was looking for." There seems to be some background information missing before that. Also, many references used are not listed in the bibliography, which seems very strange. The first hook is uncited in the article. -Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I did a bit more searching and realized that almost all of the content was lifted from Nanda Bayin, which was largely written by our Burmese history expert Hybernator, without attribution. This explains the abrupt beginning of the article and the missing references from the bibliography section (which was not properly copied over). @Tanakorn Srichaisuphakit: please read WP:Copying within Wikipedia about how to properly attribute copied content. Since this article contains little original content, it is ineligible for DYK. -Zanhe (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Referencing edit
The references need to be cleaned up. None but one of the short citations have a bibliography entry. The article also relies way too much on very dated works (esp. Prince Damrong's). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)