Talk:Mazagon Fort/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I am not prepared to pass the article for GA at this time, although I will give you an opportunity to improve it. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Below are just some of the more serious problems, if they are dealt with, I will address the rest of the problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

It is not well written. I have listed some problems below, although the entire wrticle requires a thorough copyedit.

"The harbour proved eminently apposite" - what? This is not clear and is written in over-complicated langauage.

"and the Mughals were constantly waging war on" - be clearer, which wars are we talking about.

"Mughal Aurangzeb to reign in Sakat for a price" - for a price is a cliche.

"Enraged at barter" - do you mean the negotiations?

"A popular recreation ground" - what is?

The lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article.

Why is it demolished and destroyed in 1690? Just use destroyed.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

More references needed. One reference is not enough for an article at GA. Its actually not enough for B class. I recommend between 5-6 sources, preferably including some academic book sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

No. Although it does seem that most issues are covered in some way, they are not covered in anything like the required level of detail. More is needed on the siege of the fort in 1689, the nature of the wars between Britain and Siddis and the modern uses of the fort to name just a few areas that require expansion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Hard to tell during sourcing problems. It is also worth noting that the articel needs to think carefully about nomenclature - what was the city known as when the events being described happened? When talking about the present fort, use Mumbai, but when referring to the city before 1996, you need to use the term that was then in use by the city authorities, probably Bombay.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Just saw on the primary user's page that they've been caught up in the attacks in Mumbai. Don't worry about this, I'll keep the review open as long as needed. Here's hoping you are OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, its been a month and there is no action happening. How likely are you to get to this in the the near future?--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing Sewri Fort, and I am having the same problem with regard to coverage. There is a lack of detail. I've taken a look at other Mumbai fort articles and note that Castella de Aguada is also under review and failing for the same reason: Talk:Castella de Aguada/GA1. There doesn't appear to be a parent article that discusses all these forts, and that might be a way forward. Group them all together and make a detailed single article on the Mumbai forts, using summary style break outs for those forts which have greater information which can be covered in detail. If there isn't the information out there to cover these forts individually in detail it may be the case that they are not able to achieve Good Article status - but a parent article covering the m all just might do it. SilkTork *^YES! 12:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been months without any action, I'm afraid this article cannot pass as it is. When you have time, sort out the problems listed above and renominate. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)