Talk:Battle of Saseno
Latest comment: 4 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Saseno article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Battle of Saseno is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-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 SL93 (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
( )
- ... that in 1264, the Genoese captured an entire Venetian trade convoy after tricking the Venetian fleet into thinking that they had sailed for the Levant?
- ALT1:
... that only the giant Venetian cargo vessel Roccafortis escaped being captured or sunk by the Genoese in the Battle of Saseno?
- ALT1:
- Reviewed: Xu Chang's rebellion
- Comment: The suggested hooks essentially summarize larger portions of the article, so no single citation is applicable.
Improved to Good Article status by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 18:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC).
- @Cplakidas: Made GA recently enough. Article is well-written, well-referenced and written in a neutral manner. The main hook is an accurate summary of the battle per the content of the article, whose details are sufficiently referenced. Good to go after QPQ. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- @HaEr48: thanks for the review, QPQ now done. Constantine ✍ 14:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good to go now. HaEr48 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)