Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Tawahin
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Battle of Tawahin edit
- ... that at the Battle of Tawahin between the Abbasids and the Tulunids, the commanders of both armies fled the battlefield?
- Reviewed: Mongol siege of Kaifeng
Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self nominated at 13:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC).
- Article new enough, long enough and well referenced; hook short enough, interesting enough, and cited. That aside, I prefer the structure as it was when Cplakidas last edited it, with Abbasid invasion of Syria and the Battle of Tawahin as one section -- it seems unbalanced now that the battle info is in such a short section of its own. Also recent edits seem to have introduced out-of-order citations (and rather too many bunched together for my liking) as well as Harv errors in the reference list. So although it technically passes the main DYK criteria I think the article needs a clean-up before it hits the front page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a minor clean-up, I think it is OK now. I'd like to thank Ro4444 for his additions, and credit his name as well for this article. Constantine ✍ 10:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay tks Constantine. I'd still prefer to see the referencing a bit more granular that four citations in a bunch (I always try to make it two at the most, three rarely) and, when they are bunched together I think the style preference is to sort them in ascending numerical order (see second para of Abbasid invasion of Syria and Battle of Tawahin), but admittedly that's something I'd only seek to enforce if I was reviewing at GAN or higher -- for a B-Class DYK I'd say it's good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
