Talk:Bahmani Tombs
Appearance
Bahmani Tombs was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 1, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahmani Tombs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Thank you for your work on improving this article. Unfortunately, this is quick fail due to it being far from meeting several GA criteria. Among other issues described below, the article attempts to cover too many topics at once without providing sufficient historical context and by relying on a very limited number of sources. Paragraphs are too short and the reader is left wanting and confused. I would encourage the nominator to rethink the structure or consider splitting the article. More details are provided in the review table. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ppt91talk 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- It appears that the two sources are verifiable and correctly referenced, although it primarily relies on two books, which does not seem to be enough for such a broad-ranging architectural topic with multiple different buildings.
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- The article significantly lacks in coverage and the information provided is insufficient to adequately contextualize the subject.
- b. (focused):
- Lack of coherent structure results in numerous tangents, confusing an unfamiliar reader.
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Fails at least 3 criteria, which results in a quick fail.
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- Start-Class Historic sites articles
- Low-importance Historic sites articles
- WikiProject Historic sites articles
- Start-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- Start-Class Cemeteries articles
- Low-importance Cemeteries articles
- Start-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Karnataka articles
- Unknown-importance Karnataka articles
- Start-Class Karnataka articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Karnataka articles
- WikiProject India articles