Talk:Expedition of Uyainah bin Hisn

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force

First. Here are what i think are valid reasons to keep info boxes 1. In this particular expedition , 63 people were captured according to some sources. So i think it justifies an info box, as it is large number, similar to the number captured in the Battle of Badr (which has an info box) 2. Consistency, some battles/expeditions have them and some dont e.g Battle of Badr has it, while others dont. Which i dont think is consistent 3. Summary, the info boxes summarise the article, this is beneficial to anyone

also, a criticism is that the results section might be biased because i claimed that the expedition was a "succesfull" in many of them? however i said this from an objective point of view. i try identify the objective, and see if it is met. if it is, then i claim it is successful. The the objective in this expedition i believe was to get tax. so saying it was successful i dont think is biased. However i dont mind removing the word successful and just explaining what happened in the results section--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"63 people were captured", eh? In that case its a rubbish infobox, cos it says: Result: 50 men, women and children captured. But the number captured is irrelevant. The point is that this page is too short to need a summary, and the infobox itself is nearly empty. Other, longer pages might need summary William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]