Template:Did you know nominations/Burebista


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Burebista

 * ... that the Dacian king Burebista would have been at conflict with Julius Caesar had not both of them died by assassination before Caesar's planned campaign could begin? Source: material comes from the Caesar's civil war section of the article; Caesar was also aware of the growing strength of the Dacians and had himself planned to lead an attack against Burebista cited to and But Caesar was never able to start his intended campaign because he was assassinated in 44 BC.[11][2][8] Burebista met with the same fate as a civil uprising had him killed in either 45 or 44 BC and cited variously to
 * ALT1:... that the Dacian king Burebista came into conflict with Julius Caesar for supporting Pompey in the Roman civil war of 49–44B.C., however, the untimely death of both parties prevented any campaign? Source: Same sources as above, material comes from the same section, with addition citation to; During the Roman civil war of 49-44 BC, Pompey gained the support of Burebista through Akornion of Dionysopolis cited to . Note: You can replace "Roman civil war of 49–44B.C." with Caesar's civil war or Great Roman civil war for some character reduction (Rcwo49-44 as in hook 28 chars/Ccw 18chars/GRcw 21chars).
 * ALT2:... that looming war between the Dacian king Burebista and Julius Caesar was preempted by the assassination of both leaders in 44BC?

Improved to Good Article status by Mr rnddude (talk). Self-nominated at 05:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg For a GA, it could still use some copy-editing (I fixed a couple of things), but since GA status has already been granted, that is neither here nor there. Covers its topic well. Hook is certainly justified. I've proposed ALT2 as a possibly tighter wording for the hook.