Hi! I recently contributed a significant amount of information to this stub. I'm nominating for review both to receive some feedback and suggestions on the contributions and as well, to hopefully remove the template for "additional citations" and if possible to reassess the article's classification.
Thanks in advance :) OK872 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hello OK872 - I am by no means an expert of archaeology, but here are some suggestions. (First, thank you for contributing and improving the article!) I recommend that you "cheat"! Find an article on a different archaeological period that has a Good Article or Featured Article rating, and pattern Subneolithic after it. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time, here are things I noticed with very little effort. The intro should be a quick summary of the entire article. Your introduction should be two or three paragraphs with no citations. Any facts in the intro should be backed up by cited text in the main body of the article.
Some sections appear too small. Not required, but any section should be at least two paragraphs.
Wikilinks: Could use more of them. In the Infobox, Mesolithic and Neolithic should definitely be Wikilinked. There has to be a few other terms that can be Wikilinked. As always, do not have any duplicate links—although the Intro and text for images do not count for duplicate links.
Citations: I always use the Harvard Style. That means there is a Notes section with Footnotes, Citations (author-year-page for book, cite web, and cite newspaper), and References (the books). That does not mean Harvard Style is the best. In your field, it may be more common to use a different reference style.
Images: Good images can make a difference, especially for less informed people (like me) that may have a short attention span. The ‘Artemis’ of Astuvansalmi is really good.
Once you do this minimal amount extra work on the article, someone from WikiProject Archaeology or Anthropology may be willing to do a quick review, and could give it a B-class or C-Class rating on the Quality Scale. This is all I can contribute. Good Luck! TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the feedback, any suggestions are always welcome! :) OK872 (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
