Talk:Laohushan culture

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good work! Some copyediting is needed, but otherwise it's a good start.

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! 梦随飞絮 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|A Laohushan li vessel, a tripod cauldron with hollow legs, unearthed in Qingshuihe county, Hohhot, from the collection of the Ulaanqab Museum ]]

A Laohushan li vessel, a tripod cauldron with hollow legs, unearthed in Qingshuihe county, Hohhot, from the collection of the Ulaanqab Museum

• ... that the Laohushan culture was an early Bronze Age urban society that existed in Ulanqab, Inner Mongolia, China, from approximately 2700—2200 BC? Source: https://govt.chinadaily.com.cn/s/202112/30/WS61cd63db498e6a12c121c18b/the-neolithic-age-laohushan-culture.html
  • Reviewed:

Created by 梦随飞絮 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Laohushan culture; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General eligibility:

• New enough: - 13 days.
• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - an unsourced paragraph.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Cut and paste copy vio.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - part, the date range, is not in the article.
• Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - Seems to have been posted to commons without permission.
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Already has four DYKs and has offered no QPQ for this nomination.
Overall: The article was created by the nominator, but 13 days ago. Part of the article is not cited. Part of the hook - the date range - is not in the article. Much of the article is copy vio cut and pasted [1]. The PD status of the image is not addressed. QPQ has not been done nor promised. I think that six separate shortcomings means that this is a no. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)