Template:Did you know nominations/Beixin culture
- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 10:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Beixin culture
[edit]- ... that the Beixin culture, a Neolithic culture in northeast China, showed evidence of early millet farming, improved nutrition, and a longer lifespan?
5x expanded by Liangshan Yi (talk). Self nominated at 05:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC).
- Well expanded. Please add inline citations, see WP:REFB if possible. If you have more than 5 nominations, you need to do a QPQ. Tito☸Dutta 10:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Add a citation after the last paragraph. The type site at Beixin was discovered in Tengzhou, Shandong, China. The site was excavated from 1978 to 1979. Tito☸Dutta 11:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have added this citation. Liangshan Yi (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Full review needed. Nominator does not need to do a QPQ review; this is the first DYK nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough. I have a few questions pertaining to DYK rules:
- The material is based on only 4 references, which include About.com and a snippet page of the Encyclopædia Britannica. IMO, this is not enough to satisfy Rule D7. A quick check of Google Books on the topic turns up a lot more material that would produce a more rounded presentation than just the work of 2 authors.
- I am concerned about possible copyright infringement. Is Encyclopædia Britannica material considered public domain? If not, it should not be copied verbatim in the article. Please check that you are paraphrasing and not directly quoting the material from Liu and Xu as well.
- I have formatted the references. Please provide the page numbers that you are citing in Liu and Xu, and in any other sources that you will add. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yoninah, only the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica is considered public domain (and if info from it is used verbatim, a special acknowledgement needs to be added in the references, as is required with reusing material from any public domain source); the current online EB is not, so any verbatim text is a copyvio (which is why I've used the more serious DYK icon here). Close paraphrasing is also an issue; any paraphrasing needs to use the article writer's own words, not a rearrangement of the source. I believe that About.com would problematic in terms of its reliability. Having two good sources might be enough for D7, though more is definitely better. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been over ten days; the nominator has done minimal editing this month, and nothing since October 14. I have removed the overly close paraphrasing of the Britannica article; it had waited too long already to be dealt with. Closing the nomination, given its significant problems and the lack of response. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
