Talk:Jal Mahal

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No ad copy please

I object to "eye-popping makeover," that's advertising. NPOV, and Wikipedia isn't a tourism promo. Let the facts and the pictures speak for themselves. ZoneSeek 00:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoneSeek (talk • contribs)

That's not the only text that's problematic. As currently written, the entire article reads like a travel brochure. For example: "A gentle splashing of oars on the clear lake waters takes you to Jal Mahal. You move past decorated hallways and chambers on the first floor to climb all the way up to the fragrant Chameli Bagh. Across the lake, you can view the Aravalli hills, dotted with temples and ancient forts, and on the other side, bustling Jaipur." This is NOT encyclopedia language. Curious georgianna (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Only damp damage on four lower levels below the water?

I don't understand, did they seal it off watertight as the water levels rose? This is very vague in the English version of the page and I can't read Hindi etc. at all to translate.

Also I want photos of the inside and the garden like you wouldn't believe. Are there any, or would anyone in the area be willing to take some..? I'm in love with this place. It is magnificent! Tabbycatlove (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Very good questions, which three years later, have not been addressed. Very disappointing. Unschool 12:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Shockingly incomplete article.

The most obvious questions about this unique building are not even addressed in this article.

• Was it built originally to be all above ground? OR
• Was it built knowing that the lake was going to rise (perhaps due to construction of a dam)? OR
• Was the lake's rise a surprise to the people who originally built and occupied the building?
• Was it originally occupied on all floors? Indeed, has it ever been occupied?
• Are the underwater floors sealed from the lake's waters, or are they flooded?

Seriously, this article appears to have been written with the assumption that the reader already knows the answers to all of these questions (the first questions that come to my mind, and I'm sure many of them to the mind of most readers), which of course makes this the exact opposite of what a Wikipedia article should be. So an "A" for piquing the interest, and an "F" for being informative. I'm just incredibly annoyed. Unschool 12:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. It's like the whole article was written by a restoration nerd. 66.25.26.199 (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

I've now removed the entire section, as personally I don't think "In popular culture" sections even belong in a serious encyclopaedia, except for things that have had a tangible, lasting influence on popular culture. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Are primary sources - such as the films themselves - allowed as sources in such cases? That's the only possible source I could conceive of for such information. Then again, perhaps that means it's not the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopaedia - it can certainly be argued that it's little more than trivia. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• A close look to Jal Mahal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)