Talk:Battle of Lashkargah
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Theleekycauldron in topic Did you know nomination
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Battle of Lashkargah appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Taliban secured victory in the Battle of Lashkargah soon after suicide car bombing the police headquarters, a crucial chokepoint of the city's defense? Source: Long War journal the Guardian
- ALT1:... that the police supposed to be defending a part of Lashkargah in the Battle of Lashkargah had surrendered, retreated, or paid off by the Taliban? Source: NY times
- ALT2:... that border soldiers were defending an area instead of the police that were supposed to be defending it in the Battle of Lashkargah? Source: NY Times
- Comment: QPQ not needed, 3rd nomination
Moved to mainspace by Danre98 (talk), Applodion (talk), and QuaintlyLittoral (talk). Nominated by Danre98 (talk) at 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC).
- This seems fine to me, recommending hook 1 as it seems the most interesting and is the most identifiable in the article. QPQ not necessary. Article new and long enough, spot check found no issues with sourcing or paraphrasing. Looks good to go to me. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)