Talk:1958 Lebanese presidential election
Appearance
A fact from 1958 Lebanese presidential election appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 December 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the 1958 Lebanese presidential election was held during an armed rebellion while 10,000 US troops were deployed in the nation? Source: the first major step towards ending the armed rebellion [... one of the main unanswered questions was that of what the election portended for the 10,000 United States troops that began landing here on July 15]
5x expanded by Eddie891 (talk) and Maudslayer (talk). Nominated by Eddie891 (talk) at 18:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC).
- Article was expanded fivefold since the 23d, is well-written and has no outstanding disputes or copyright issues. The hook is short, interesting and to the point and is indeed supported by the source and hence seems ready. One minor suggestion I have is that the ref, as it is now, is somewhat confusing to read (though it does essentially follow the title of the article). I'm not sure, but it might be a good idea to shorten to
LEBANON ELECTS A NEW PRESIDENT
or similar. Best, Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Blablubbs! I've added a QPQ above. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Article was expanded fivefold since the 23d, is well-written and has no outstanding disputes or copyright issues. The hook is short, interesting and to the point and is indeed supported by the source and hence seems ready. One minor suggestion I have is that the ref, as it is now, is somewhat confusing to read (though it does essentially follow the title of the article). I'm not sure, but it might be a good idea to shorten to