Talk:Chem River Battle

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bunnypranav talk 04:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that it is unclear what exact year the Chem River Battle actually happened?

• Source: Discussed at length in the article, with each historian's opinion cited to them

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cormocephalus rubriceps

Moved to mainspace by 3family6 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 110 past nominations.

3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: New enough and long enough. Article appears to be OK (I took the liberty of making some minor copyedits) and QPQ has been done. Hook cited (assuming good faith on some of the sources since not all are available online, but the ones which are available make reference to different years so the hook in general is verifiable). I would reword the hook slightly to something along the lines of:

• ALT1: ... that the exact year when the Chem River Battle was fought is unclear?"

@3family6: What do you think on the above? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• • that hook is more concise. I like it --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Good to go using ALT1. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Xwejnusgozo and @3family6 per WP:DYKCRIT "The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in". Besides that I don't find the hook that interesting. The precise dating of many historical occurrences is a matter of debate. Do we have anything more interesting? TarnishedPath^talk 06:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

the current hook fact is stated with different phrasing, with a citation, in the first sentence of the Chronology and date section. I will try and find a more interesting hook.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Alt 1: ...that the Mongol forces for the Chem River battle used carts with iron wheels for the rough terrain?

Xwejnusgozo TarnishedPath, how is that for an alt?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

approve a slight variation on ALT1, ALT 1a: ... that the Mongol forces at the Chem River Battle used carts with iron wheels to handle the rocky terrain?

TarnishedPath^talk 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)