Talk:Vastupala

Notes

Utcursch, thank you for recent edits. I have nominated it for GA and has requested User talk:Vanamonde93 to take it who has given few points for improvement. Please improve the article as you are good with subject matter. You can give suggestions as well. Vanamonde93 has opined to make it about Vastupala and Tejapala as both topics overlap a lot. Please help me to make it GA. :) Regards,-Nizil (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to spend some time on this article. Meanwhile, consider nominating this for DYK. utcursch | talk 03:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Utcursch Thank you for changes. I have nominated for DYK. I see that there is enough material out there to create independent articles on Vaghela kings as you did with Chaulukya kings. What do you think?-Nizil (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Starting. Sourcing ain't impressive, at first glances.∯WBG^converse 15:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Source issues

• I am not going to accept a PhD thesis by some non-distinguished scholar. In India, quality control of PhD thesises, for all practical purposes is non-existent and the quality varies extremely.

• Removed.  Done -Nizil (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You have not yet removed the references; Ctrl+F "Nasaru 2001", all of which are showing Harvard errors.∯WBG^converse 15:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry. Removed missed ones.  Done -Nizil (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am skeptical about Sandesara. There exists ample criticism of his methodologies but I need to read more of his reviews.

• Bhogilal Sandesara's work is a foundation of this article. Should I continue to use it?-Nizil (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  The broader problem that crops up in using works by old historians is that we ignore the huge influence of zeitgeist in the field, and the Marxist and/or post-modern methodologies that have heavily influenced Early Medieval History are completely absent.

  His works have been mostly reviewed in a barebones manner by Giuseppe Tucci. Not much of anything to gain from them. There's a line of criticism by Bipan Chandra but nothing of a red-flag. Overall, I guess we don't need to discard this source. ∯WBG^converse 15:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Not going to accept this and this. Have no clue about the former and the latter is a completely non-mainstream journal with questionable peer review (if, any).

• Removed both.  Done -Nizil (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not going to accept AK Chaterjee's work, either. No reviews except these few words which paint it in a poor light.

• Removed.  Done -Nizil (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Integrity

• Will conduct an WP:INTEGRITY test on a random sample of paragraphs.

• YSatisfactory. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Prose, grammar and all that

At this point I'd close this, the above hasn't been addressed at all and all involved are still active. Wizardman 14:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wizardman: Could we just close this review since it has been 6 days since your comment?--Dom497 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Winged Blades of Godric; this review has been open for over four months. If you don't take any action, it will be closed on Monday as unsuccessful, due to lack of response by the nominator. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric, Wizardman, Dom497, and BlueMoonset: Any updates? In marginal fairness, I notice that the nominator, Nizil Shah, has never been pinged here, although an automated talk page notice was posted when the nomination was opened. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry all of you. I had a message when the review started but I found that the review is ongoing so waited for complete review. I had forgotten to watch the page so was unaware of the comments added later. I have waited very long for the review and initial enthusiasm for the topic waned. Let me immerse again in the topic. I want to continue to review. Regards and sorry again.-Nizil (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I will be taking a re-look, very soon. Apologies to everyone, for floating away. ∯WBG^converse 07:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah and Winged Blades of Godric: Another 5 weeks has passed. Are we any closer? AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn:, I had removed the concerned sources and made comments on Sandesara source above. There is no further response from WBG. @Winged Blades of Godric:, if you are busy, let someone else took over the review. -Nizil (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The still seem to be active. I will give them a chance to respond otherwise I will take over the review. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nizil Shah, I asked on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page if they would be back; the reply two days ago was "On it", so I certainly hope to see something in the next few days. In the meantime, you might want to expand the one-paragraph lead section, since it currently is too short per MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria, and will need work regardless of when the review starts up again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks. Will look into it.-Nizil (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Break

• I feel that it's better to transpose the entirety of first section (about sources of information) to the end. This is per the usual style-guide of most journals, utilized in sketching biographies of relatively-unknown historical figures. It gives a better idea to the reader about the identity of Someshwara and Arisimha. An average reader is probably more interested to get into the details of the subject rather than information about how these information were retrieved from which inscriptions and medieval texts. ∯WBG^converse 16:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Done I agree with your point. Moved below. -06:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• We typically mention sources iff there are conflicts across them. ∯WBG^converse 16:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will do these copy-edits.

• Scholarly disputes, which are not very relevant to the subject are usually dealt in footnotes. For an example, whether Vastuapala has indeed constructed some mandir or not, is a significant dispute central to his patronage and we need to cover various conflicting views in the body, itself. But, whether Vastupala's mother engaged in widow-remarriage, ain't. ∯WBG^converse 16:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will do these copy-edits. Please check that the references, that get pulled into the notes, stands true to the content of note. I don't have Sandesara's work. ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am unable to get what ....Vayajalladevi (or Sokhuka or Saukhyalata) means. Was Vaya also known by these 2 names; maiden name and all that? Or, do a few sources record Vaya and a few as Sokhuka which (with some other aid) leads to the inference that all of them were same? We need more clarity. ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• These are names of one person. The same person is addressed by different names. How should I put all three names? -Nizil (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Tejapala was married to Anupama and Suhavadevi (also spelled Suhadadevi). Anupama was a daughter of Dharaniga, a counselor to the brothers, and his wife Tribhuvanadevi The part about being a counselor of the brothers is weirdly inserted and does not belong at this place. May-be, somewhere later. The underlined part probably means that Anupama was the maiden-name of Tribhuvanadevi, but we need to re-frame, in that case. ∯WBG^converse 16:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Dharaniga was a couselor of the brothers. Anupama was a daughter of Daharaniga and his wife Tribuvandevi. Tejapala was married to Anupama. How should I put it? -Nizil (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for review/help so far. The Sandesara reference is accessible at Internet Archives. I have not linked it in article due to copyright concerns (copyrighted material uploaded illegally on platform) but reading there is OK, I believe. Please go through it. If I have missed or messed up anything, please do correct me with help of it. I will go through reference check very soon once again. -Nizil (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Nizil Shah:: I was just looking through the nominations when I noticed this article has been marked as having been under review since last May ... nine months ago. Neither of you have done any work on it, nor returned to this review, since late December, about seven weeks ago.

So, what's the status of this review? Is there any chance you could reach a decision soon on pass or fail? Or, Nizil, if you don't think you have time to resolve the issues WBG has raised, you could let him fail it and renominate it later when you have. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, I have addressed points raised by @Winged Blades of Godric:. The review has been delayed because WBG did not respond and carried further review. I have waited patiently for months and over the months I lost enthusiasm for the topic. I am still interested in completing the GA review. If WBG is busy and agrees to let someone else carry on the review, I am OK with it as well.-Nizil (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

Hi, I'll leave some more comments to finish up this review! Kingsif (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• The lead is much too short for the article
• or Porwad as they are known today may read better if it was just Porwad in parenthesis - it breaks up the flow of the sentence and the extra words are both narratorial and add nothing
• wikilink Jain
• The listing format of the ancestry is quite hard to follow. If more prose between the many names could be added, or if it could be condensed to not use so many names, this would help
• Punctuation in the penultimate sentence of 'Ancestry and family' is inconsistent
• Can you really know "even less" about a date of birth - it's one thing, it's either known or not. Now, year of birth and speculation of date of birth are other matters, that could be better expressed if this is where the little-known comes from.
• The wife's name is listed as Lalita and Vayajalladevi (or Sokhuka or Saukhyalata) - I don't know if there were two or one, and I wouldn't know who the alternate names refer to. Perhaps pick the most common and write up an efn that makes some of this clear
• Why is there more about the brother's wife than Vastupala's? That can just be removed. Or cut down to the more relevant part that his brother's father-in-law was a counsel to them both.
• When did the brothers travelled to the Vaghela capital at Dhavalakka - is there a specific time or a frame of reference (like, when they reached adulthood, when their mother died, or something)?
• Who is Someshwara?
• And, this king appointed them as what?
• Hmm, since the Bhima II story is presented as the more common and plausible version, this should probably go first, with a mention that "in X sources, it instead says they ..."
• The bit about poverty and Luniga should be its own paragraph, and could be rephrased in some parts for clarity. Also needs a comma after 'Abu' to close that clause
• The administrative career part seems like its connected to the part in the career section introduction. You could think about the structure of this
• The Military career section needs improved punctuation, and some rephrasing for clarity (lots of names and places almost like a prose list) and formality again
• ultimately concluded a peace treaty with him is an awkward phrasing
• This article has a lot about the brother. It could be renamed/moved to be Vastupala and Tejapala, something I've seen before with Indian brothers
• The style (phrasing) concerns occur throughout the article, suggest rewriting. Part, but only a little part, is the over-reliance on names of ancient locations that it seems only scholars on the topic understand.
• The footnotes might need more refs
• The last paragraph of the Death section doesn't seem related? It doesn't make a massive amount of sense.
• Some of the information in the later sections mentions the brothers' early life and other random things. Organization seems weak.
• Most of the refs are from offline sources, and obscure ones, so I can't be confident of verifiability.
• Images all seem appropriate and are licensed
• on hold @Nizil Shah: I'm going to put this on hold and see what you can do, but I think there's some work to do. Kingsif (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am going to address your points soon.-Nizil (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Close as fail, based on no constructive edits in several weeks and no comments for over a week. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)