Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Musayfirah, Battle of al-Musayfirah
Appearance
- The following is an archived discussion of Al-Musayfirah, Battle of al-Musayfirah's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
DYK toolbox |
---|
Al-Musayfirah, Battle of al-Musayfirah
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that in 1925, an assault by Druze rebels against French troops based in al-Musayfirah resulted in the French Mandate's first victory during the Great Syrian Revolt?
- Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Earl Rose (coroner), Template:Did you know nominations/Revolutionary Palestinian Communist Party
Created by Al Ameer son (talk). Self nominated at 13:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC).
- Both articles are good to go. Length, date and hook refrences are in order. No copy vio,--Nvvchar. 23:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the pass. I made one little change in the hook, removing the word "unsuccessful" since the term is debatable (success means different things to different people) and the hook already mentions the French victory anyway. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- As this is a two article hook, doesn't it require two QPQs before being passed? The rule I'm looking at is "H4: Where a hook has more than one new or expanded article in it, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required: one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook. The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations. As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth DYK credit, each of those require a separate QPQ review." SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I added a second QPQ. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- As this is a two article hook, doesn't it require two QPQs before being passed? The rule I'm looking at is "H4: Where a hook has more than one new or expanded article in it, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required: one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook. The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations. As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth DYK credit, each of those require a separate QPQ review." SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)