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 Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Terror Units (YAT) fighters.

• ... that the leader of the United States-trained Anti-Terror Units was suspected to have been assassinated by Turkish Intelligence operatives for conducting "terror operations"? Source: "Less than a day after the IED explosion, Turkey’s Anadolu News trumpeted the assassination, saying that Ali Boutan, also known Haji Kurkhan, was the 'leader of the YPG special forces.' 'Boutan was responsible for sending [PKK] fighters to Turkey to conduct terror operations,' the report further claimed." ([1]); "[YAT] members were able to receive direct US Army Special Forces training. Ranking unit members were sent to the US to go through intense training at Ft. Bragg and Ft. Campbell, in addition to regional training at a special compound outside of Amman, Jordan, and in Kurdistan, under the guidance of the Central Intelligence Agency. In late 2016, Boutan was targeted and killed by what is believed to have been Turkish Intelligence operatives as he was traveling through Syria as part of the YPG Special Forces command" ([2])

• Reviewed: Battle of Gegodog

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 21:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

• (In the article) "YAT members were simply the most brave and devoted fighters", "but not true special or elite forces". "Brave", "devoted", "true"—these labels need attribution. I would rephrase the sentence as follows: "Initially, YAT members were chosen by the YPG and YPJ as simply the most brave and devoted fighters within those units, but not as true special or elite forces." Aside from this non-neutral bit, the article meets length and newness requirements and is very interesting. Nice work. 23W 00:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and the suggestion. I have changed the sentence accordingly; now it is much better. Applodion (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

23W Full review needed. If you are now satisfied this needs a tick. You didn't mention the image, the hook or the QPQ? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• Full review still needed; some aspects were not originally covered. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• This article is long enough and was new enough at the time of nomination. The hook facts are cited to what look to be reliable sources, the article seems neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The image is appropriately licensed and this is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)