Talk:Orchha Fort complex

Orchha Fort complex has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 28, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Orchha Fort complex appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 August 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Rama, worshiped as a King in a temple (pictured) in the Orchha Fort complex, is honoured with a daily gun salute?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Orchha Fort complex.

Wikipedia

India: Cities / Madhya Pradesh Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian cities (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Madhya Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in August 2015.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orchha Fort complex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is great. Bundela rajput should be wikilinked in the History section like it is in the lead.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead adequately summarizes the article. The layout is fine and there are opinion words or flowery language.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I was bold and fixed the reference style. The references section used a mix of citation styles, but the main reason I was bold and fixed them is because the authors used in the short footnotes were odd (eg. "Out, Time Ltd" and "Ltd, Data And Expo India Pvt"). Since this was the only thing preventing promotion to GA, I went ahead and fixed it.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The resources all appear reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no copyright violations or apparent plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the subject to a sufficient degree for GA status (see WP:GACR, footnote 7), although the "History" section is quite short. You should consider consolidating more of the history into this section, rather than divide historical information between this section and the "Monuments" section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	None of the content is too detailed to the level that it should be split into a separate article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article does not have any content that is not neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring. There was a lot of recent constructive edits by the nominator just prior to nominating the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have valid, free licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Decent article, although it is on the short side and could use some more history information.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orchha Fort complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304031836/http://164.100.196.72/mptourism/pages/23/orchha.html to http://164.100.196.72/mptourism/pages/23/orchha.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]