Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Anglon (543)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Anglon (543)

[edit]

Created by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The hook is interesting, but only with proper context to understand what it means. It also has some issues with grammar and flow.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook needs some improvement to better "hook" the reader. I would suggest something like "... that the Byzantine army during their 543 invasion of Sasanian Armenia was unexpectedly ambushed and defeated by a force one tenth their size?". The article itself could do with some cleaning up, but with the exception of the non-neutral turn of phrase mentioned above this is outside the scope of this review as far as I (new to DYK) can tell. --NoCOBOL 14:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. Regarding the hook, I want to emphasize the unexpectedness of the campaign's outcome, which is also pointed out by the reference I linked above. I want to propose this alternative based on your suggestion:
ALT1: "... that a Byzantine army was unexpectedly defeated by a force one tenth their size during their 543 invasion of Sasanian Armenia?"
--Z 17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The revised hook looks to be good to go, and I see the issue with neutrality has been corrected. If you can fix those red-links somehow, then this should be ready to be approved. -- NoCOBOL 05:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Reading the rules again, it appears I have made a mistake. Red links are acceptable in DYK articles. As such, approved - I've also added the proposed alt into the header, to make sure things are clear for anyone who comes through. -- NoCOBOL 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)