Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Indus

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 Bruxton (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Indus

Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Indus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Hi AirshipJungleman29 (talk), review follows: article passed as GA on 3 August; article is well written; sources look reliable and are cited inline throughout; hooks are sourced offline, I am happy to AGF that the sources support the facts base don the contributor's track record; ALT0 is stated in the article, ALT1 also, in that al-Din escaped the battle on horseback but Genghis Khan ordered his archers not to shoot at him. Preference for ALT0.
I had one query about the quote "Fortunate should be the father of such a son", when the Khan brought al-Din's sons to witness his escape. It feels as this should be the other way around ("Fortunate should be the sons of such a father"), is this as the source has it? A QPQ has been carried out, so this is good to go. I'll approve on the basis that my query has nothing to do with the hooks - Dumelow (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Dumelow, the quote is correct. Genghis was praising Jalal al-Din's bravery by saying that his father should be proud of him; it was also slightly a veiled insult at his father and Genghis' enemy, who was not in fact fortunate and who had died a few months earlier. Also, it was Genghis' sons who were called to witness, not Jalal al-Din's. Thanks for the review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, understood. Perhaps changing "his" to "the Khan's" sons would make this clearer? All by-the-by with regards the DYK anyway, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)