Talk:Ranighat Palace

Ranighat Palace was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 08:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Pleased to pick this up. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

Quite a lot of work is needed. The prose contains spelling errors, e.g. "Arhitects", missing words, e.g. "built a palace that named after his wife", missing punctuation, e.g. "Queens Palace", repetition, e.g. "It took four years to build the palace. Arhitects were called from India to design and build the palace", a lack of clarity in places , e.g. "Rani Mahal was largely turned into rubble" (this would imply it was almost completely destroyed. Was it?), unnecessary words, e.g. "Rani Mahal is also referred as the Taj Mahal of Nepal". These are only examples, there are other problems. Overall, the prose is not currently of the standard required for a GA.

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Work needed. Sources 4 and 7 are the same. It should not be listed twice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

As above, work needed on prose.

b (citations to reliable sources):

See above re. Sources 4/7. Also, the sources aren't that strong, in particular, there are only six, of which one (Source 6) looks closer to a blog. I appreciate I cannot read 2 and 5 (in Nepalese) but what is Source 2? And are these really all that have been written about the site?

c (OR):

Not sure about this. Take this sentence, which also has grammar issues,: "...because both building are constructed by a lover in the memory of their lover and due to its location in a rocky terrain besides a river." I can see nothing in the sources that says the parallels with the Taj Mahal are drawn because of their settings. Is the Taj situated on "rocky terrain besides a river"? To me the river bank on which the Taj stands looks grassy and flat.

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Earwig shows up a 47% match with this, [1]. This will need to be explained.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

At present, I don't think the article is comprehensive. For example, there is nothing on the architectural style of the building, or its structure/layout, or its building materials. And see 4. below.

b (focused):

It seems suitably focussed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

It does not appear to reflect the negative aspects referenced in the sources, e.g. vandalism, looting, loss of artefacts/materials, poor condition, poor maintenance etc.

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

Seems stable.

6. 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):

Illustrations look fine.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Fine.

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail:

There is quite a lot to do, as it is some way from meeting the GA criteria. It would have been possible to Quick Fail, but I shall give the nominator time to fix. KJP1 (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While some work has been done, there is more to do to bring it up to GA standard. KJP1 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]