Wikipedia:Peer review/Bahadur Shah I/archive1

Bahadur Shah I

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have added greatly to the article, now I want to promote it to GA and eventually FA. So I need suggestions.

Thanks, RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Thanks for your work on this article! I'm not an expert on this area, and I'm sorry to say I don't have time to review the whole article, but I'll make what suggestions I can. Some issues of wording and grammar were easy for an outsider to fix, so I went ahead and did them; the suggestions below are for cases where the solutions weren't as clear.

"through his Hindu wife": This phrase appears twice, but a non-expert reading this page won't understand what its significance is. Is the point of the phrase to distinguish Begum Nawab Bai from Aurangzeb's other wives, or is there additional significance to the fact that she was Hindu rather than Muslim?
"Mu'azzam was born": This is the first time we've heard his birth name; it should also appear in the lead. See WP:OPENPARA.
"In the very year only": Do you mean "In the same year"?
"he attacked Pune", "he made him a prisoner": The grammar is unclear; I don't know which "he" refers to Mu'azzam and which one to Shivaji.
"came about the plot": Do you mean "learned of the plot"?
"This time also Aurangzeb followed the same policy to neutralize him, but his vigilance over him was increased": The reader will want more details here. Do you mean that Aurangzeb sent Nawab Bai to dissuade Mu'azzam from the rebellion? Did she succeed this time? Did the rebellion continue (with or without Mu'azzam), and did it cause any damage?
"He reabsorbed some his servants who were dismissed from job": Do you mean "He rehired some of the servants who had been previously sacked"?
For consistency, the book by Patwant Singh should be in the bibliography with the other sources, with a Template:Sfn reference. I can't add it, though, because there's another book by an author named Singh already in the bibliography. This problem can be fixed by adding the year of publication to each of your sources, which in fact is the standard Wikipedia policy. See WP:CITEHOW.
"He also sent a letter" and "he refused and was killed in a fight against him": Who are the "he" and "him" here? The grammar is unclear.
"bring him to the city": Again, I can't figure out who "him" refers to.
Finally WP:BTW says: "as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." Some terms are linked multiple times; those links can be removed.

Thanks again, and happy editing!--Lemuellio (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't get to finish the article the first time around, here are some further thoughts:

"The Bahadur Shah Nama says": It would be good to explain what the Bahadur Shah Nama is.
"He was so enraged by it, he decided to wage a war against the king": The grammar is ambiguous; I can't tell if the sentence refers to Amar Singh being enraged by Shah calling him an unbeliever, or to Shah being enraged by Amar Singh fleeing to Udaipur.
"Taqarrub Khan reported it to him": Who is "him" in this sentence?
"In that same month, he started his journey": Who is "he" in this sentence?
"In reply he wrote a letter thanking him": Who are "he" and "him"?
"Records show that on 20 December, he had twenty five hundred cavalry": Who is "he" here?
"He made his son Jahandar Shah the commander of the vanguard, but was replaced by Khan Zaman": The grammar is ambiguous. Was it Jahandar Shah who was replaced? If so, why and when, and who made the replacement?
"Shah imprisoned him": Does "him" refer here to Bahadur or Bhup Prakash?

Best of luck with this article!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]