Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Irtysh River (13th century)
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Battle of Irtysh River (13th century), Mongol campaigns in Siberia
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that during the Mongol campaigns in Siberia, the Mongols defeated rival tribes at the Battle of Irtysh River?
Created by 3family6 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Irtysh River (13th century); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Two nice articles, well-written and within policy. New enough (new and expanded from redirect, respectively) and both are long enough. The hook is not overly inventive, but the subject matter itself is probably not very well-known and it thus works well to pique the interest of the reader. However, the eligibiloity criteria state that "The facts of the hook need to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentences in which they appear", which is not exactly the case right now. I know it is a nitpicky thing, but I think it is easily fixed, and the hook will in my experience not be promoted if this rule is not adhered to quite closely. Otherwise everything looks fine, QPQ has been done an no image. Yakikaki (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Yakikaki. I looked through these respective articles to address this issue and I don't see where the citation is missing. Could you highlight the sentence please?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi 3family6, thanks for the quick reply. I'm sorry if I was a bit vague. What is lacking is a direct citation in the article supporting all the facts of the hook. At the moment I don't see any such citation supporting the claim that the Merkits and the Naimans were "rival tribes" of the Mongols (nor actually is there any direct citation to support the claim that the Mongols won the battle in the article about the battle, but there is one in the article about the larger campaign so it is fine). It is clearly apparent from the article itself, but the rules also require that every fact of the hook is supported by an inline citation, so it needs to be spelled out (or did I somehow miss it perhaps?). I hope this clarifies what I meant? Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can add some citations in the section about the Merkit–Borjigin rivalry. I think I intended to do that during the writing and didn't end up putting them in.-3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Yakikaki: Done. How does it look now?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- @3family6: Definitely better, thanks a lot! Would it also be possible to add an inline citation after the sentence that runs "The expedition also encountered remnants of the Merkits and the Naimans, who were enemies of Genghis Khan and opposed his rise to power."? Then we would definitely be on the safe side. Yakikaki (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi 3family6, thanks for the quick reply. I'm sorry if I was a bit vague. What is lacking is a direct citation in the article supporting all the facts of the hook. At the moment I don't see any such citation supporting the claim that the Merkits and the Naimans were "rival tribes" of the Mongols (nor actually is there any direct citation to support the claim that the Mongols won the battle in the article about the battle, but there is one in the article about the larger campaign so it is fine). It is clearly apparent from the article itself, but the rules also require that every fact of the hook is supported by an inline citation, so it needs to be spelled out (or did I somehow miss it perhaps?). I hope this clarifies what I meant? Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, Yakikaki. I looked through these respective articles to address this issue and I don't see where the citation is missing. Could you highlight the sentence please?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Yakikaki: Done!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
