Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Corycus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 10:41, 11 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Greece}}, {{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleBattle of Corycus has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starBattle of Corycus is part of the Roman–Seleucid war series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2023Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Cielquiparle (talk16:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Catlemur (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 13:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Corycus; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article was promoted to GA status on 14 March, and was nominated within the required time period. Article is plenty long enough, at over 10,000 characters. Article is well-sourced and neutral. Spotchecks on "Graigner, John (2002)" references reveal no issues of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and the article is consistently supported by the citations. Hook fact is accurate and cited, and a Google books snippet lets me confirm it. Good to go. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]