A fact from Bhitargarh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 August 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the ancient fortified city of Bhitargarh served as a node to the strategic trade routes connecting Tibet and eastern India?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
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.
... 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. ISBN1-315-40197-5. 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."
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
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)[reply]