The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 21:15, 6 May 2016 [1].
This article is about the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 which is an important but largely unknown part of European history. I believe that by promoting this and other similar articles to Wikipedia's featured content with help understanding the complex history of the Balkans and hopefully, raising the awareness about the region. Before the nomination, the article was kindly copyedited by Corinne of the Guild of Copy Editors. Regards, Gligan ( talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article. I only have a quick comment/observation at the moment (sorry, not feeling up to a full read through at the moment due to illness). AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comments This article looks great overall. I have only a few comments:
The article is a nice piece of work and, once these minor issues are resolved, I look forward to supporting. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Other than that, this looks like a fine article, but I'll withhold my support until the above points are addressed since such issues appear throughout. 23 editor ( talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. Note for coords: the nominator has made two edits since March 25; this one said they would be back on April 24. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 21:15, 6 May 2016 [1].
This article is about the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 which is an important but largely unknown part of European history. I believe that by promoting this and other similar articles to Wikipedia's featured content with help understanding the complex history of the Balkans and hopefully, raising the awareness about the region. Before the nomination, the article was kindly copyedited by Corinne of the Guild of Copy Editors. Regards, Gligan ( talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article. I only have a quick comment/observation at the moment (sorry, not feeling up to a full read through at the moment due to illness). AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comments This article looks great overall. I have only a few comments:
The article is a nice piece of work and, once these minor issues are resolved, I look forward to supporting. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Other than that, this looks like a fine article, but I'll withhold my support until the above points are addressed since such issues appear throughout. 23 editor ( talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. Note for coords: the nominator has made two edits since March 25; this one said they would be back on April 24. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC) reply