- 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) 21:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Bhitargarh
- ... that the ancient fortified city of Bhitargarh served as a node to the strategic trade routes connecting Tibet and eastern India? Source: Seshan, Radhika (2016). Narratives, Routes and Intersections in Pre-Modern Asia. London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 48, 49. ISBN 1-315-40197-5. OCLC 963575191. "Both Bhitargarh and Garh Mendabari were hubs or junction points on strategic routes, with their radials spanning many directions: To the Middle Ganga Valley, to the Middle Brahmaputra Valley, to the Trans-Himalayan region, to the peninsular India, to Southwestern China and toward Laos/Cambodia (Champa or Cochin China). Because Bhitargarh was situated on the main channel of Karatoya - the Talma - people could access Tibet through the Tista in Sikkim, by way of its riverine port of Dhumgarh."
5x expanded by Kmzayeem (talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
- Cited:
 - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting:
|
Overall:
New enough and long enough (expanded greatly from a stub). The text is OK, seems neutral and has no plagiarism (
Earwig is at 7.4%). I also made some copyedits and other minor changes to the article. Hook cited (in an offline source so it's a case of AGF) and interesting, and QPQ has been done. Seems good to go to me.
Xwejnusgozo (
talk) 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
New enough and long enough (expanded greatly from a stub). The text is OK, seems neutral and has no plagiarism (Earwig is at 7.4%). I also made some copyedits and other minor changes to the article. Hook cited (in an offline source so it's a case of AGF) and interesting, and QPQ has been done. Seems good to go to me. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)