Talk:Malik Hasan Bahri/GA1

GA Review

Passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs) 05:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

No images; no review needed

Prose review

foreign prime minister at the time - "foreign" being... ?

"Foreign" can refer both to the fact that he was of the Foreigner faction (proper noun, the same as the mentioned Afaqis) and that he was not native to South Asia (the dictionary usage of the term; i.e. he was a foreigner); as the faction is not introduced in the lead, this means only that he was an immigrant. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that South Asia isn't mentioned until the second paragraph, and then only talking about genealogy rather than spatial location, it would be best to indicate roughly where in the world this was.
Might be worth splitting the biography section into two smaller sections, to ease readability
he was taken captive by the sultan and converted to Islam - Two things: Unless he was physically captured by Ahmad Shah I Wali, "by the sultan" is not necessary here, and "converted to Islam" is ambiguous: was it a forced conversion, or did he embrace the religion of his own volition? The context suggests the former, but it could be made explicit if supported by the sources.

Some sources do actually say that he was "captured by the sultan" (which was why I used that wording), but for accuracy and to comply with the sources which don't, it was changed to "taken captive by the sultan's forces". Sources (that I've seen) also solely use "converted to Islam"; they do not specify the method by which this conversion took place. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gajapati Empire is piped as Orissa; consequently, it is not linked on first mention, and readers may not know what this was
and other campaigns - Do sources provide further detail?

Last I checked, one of Sherwani's books does, but those do not go as far to establish what is due weight here (they practically copy everything Firishta or other court historians wrote; hardly any summarising is done); the more recent sources (Shyam, Fischel) only mention the Gajapati campaign; the "other campaigns" is used in this article only because of the wording by Mitchell and Zebrowski "...who [Malik Hasan] gained recognition by waging wars on behalf of Mahmud Gawan" (which does not state what these wars were); if you wish for any other campaigns that were led to be mentioned I would have to wait until the Internet Archive is working again. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he had been sought killed - feels like we're missing a word here
without the arising of strife - Why not "without strife"?
Earwig detects 9.9% probability of copyvio. Looking at the first result, the only matches are the title of the book, and thus no copyright issues have been detected.

Source review

Reference numbers are as of this version.

In any article this short, comprehensiveness is generally going to be questioned. I've reviewed Google Scholar and Google Books, and aside from a mention that Malik Ahmad was the first to break away, I'm not seeing anything not covered in our article.
Please ensure that references are in order (see [7][2], [36][34])

When using all sfns, this is somewhat hard to do; if you have text[1], text[2], and then text[3], but [1] also supports the text supported by [3], then out-of-orderness is going to arise. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using SFN almost exclusively myself, it's just a matter of moving them. I've made one edit, so the one that was previously [7][2] is now [2][7]. I did not mean that the references had to be numbered 1 through n with no interruption; sorry if that was ambiguous. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for clearing that up. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the page number for Fischel 2017?

None; as you can see here, it is an online encyclopedia article; there are no page numbers (hence it is not in the "sources" subsection). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[20] - Should be p. 361
[35] - should be pp.
Please ensure consistency in whether you include publication location (compare Haig and Mitchell)
Please ensure consistency in whether you use ISBN 10 or ISBN 13. This tool will help ensure consistency (I think ISBN 10 is deprecated, but I'm not 100% sure).
Please ensure consistency in whether you include the OCLC when ISBNs are not used.
Please ensure consistency in reference formatting (compare Haig and Majumdar)
Spotchecks:
- [2]
  - a: Supports "Hindu prisoner taken by Ahmad Shah's army". Snippet provided to me on Google does not show the rest of her discussion
  - b: Not in snippet available on Google. Could you provide a quote?

The snippet should (or the one I got) state that he was the governor of Telangana, but the book (which you should be able to wholly access through the Wikipedia Library) does not mention how he became governor. This is given in Haig (and Sherwani), which unfortunately are inaccessible through the Internet Archive being down. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- [8]: No snippets available. Could you provide quotes for a and b?

Should be accessible through the Cambridge press website via Wikipedia Library. I can provide quotes if you have trouble. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- [17]: Supported (also supports a few other statements in the article, should it become necessary.
- [32]: I've not been able to get this page in any of the snippets available to me. a) is certainly supported by other sources, but b) hasn't been mentioned in anything I've reviewed. Would it be possible to get quotes?

Until the Internet Archive is back up, the source is also inaccessible via that method; I will get back to you if I find the book somewhere else online. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other:
- Shyam 1966 gives the father's name as "Bhairon". Is this a difference in the transliteration between today and 1966, or are there different versions of the father's name?

There are (slightly) different versions; "Bhairon" seems to be the minority version, while the preponderance of sources use "Bhario", including the most recent Fischel. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Overall, this is a well-written article. Just a few things to discuss, and we should be golden. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Woodrich Most of these comments should be addressed. Responses given to ones not fully actionable. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This looks like it easily meets the GA criteria, and I am happy to promote this to GA status. Congratulations! If you are interested, you may nominate the article for WT:DYK, which would allow for some main page exposure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.