Talk:Rai dynasty/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article and a cursory glance shows it is likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, the standard of the article is good.
It is of substantial length, with 1,058 words of readable prose.
The lead is significant with a length of 141 words. It is split into three paragraphs. Suggest combining these into one. This will help mobile readers.
Authorship is 64.1% from the nominator with contributions from 52 other editors. The most significant otherwise is पाटलिपुत्र, who has contributed 29%. The remainder of editors have provided smaller contributions to the current version.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.
It previously failed a GA nomination.
Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT to the images for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- Please confirm that the concerns raised in the previous GA review have been addressed.
  To the best of my knwoledge, they have been addressed - TB.
- Please replace the pronouns and similar features from the first sentences of paragraphs, including "Under his regime too, the kingdom exhibited socioeconomic prosperity".
  Done - TB.
- Amend "No epigraphic or archaeological or numismatic evidence".
  To what? - TB
- The article uses both "Chach Nama" and "Chachnama". Is this the same writer or writing? Please clarify.
  Same; changed the lone "Chach Nama" to "Chachnama". - TB
it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- Please check the grammar to make it more encyclopedic. There are a few phrases that read more like an essay or similar piece, including "our sole source of knowledge about the dynasty remains" and "Thus, says Manan Ahmed Asif, the Brahman dynasty, as portrayed in Chachnama, was established out of the intrigues of a femme fatale working in conjunction with a willing yet ethical apprentice".
- Please look at "Rai dynasty's origin probably laid", both "probably" and "laid".
  Suggest a better phrasing and incorporate it? - TB
  I have made some copy edits, but it is probably worth submitting to the Guild of Copy Editors for a full copyedit. simongraham (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Combine the shorter paragraphs, particularly those of one sentence.
  Done. - TB
- Please review the titles and subtitles. I feel the one titled Usurpation should be probably renamed as it is currently unclear.
  Done. - TB
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
- Add the missing page numbers to the references Asif 2016, Baloch 1983, Habib 2017 and Wink 2017.
  I do not have Baloch 1983 anymore but might have a scan somewhere. Will add missing page numbers for the rest. - TB
- Add the missing ISBN numbers to books like Jafri 2012 and Siddiqi 2013. If these are not available, please add OCLC references. Suggest looking at the worldcat.org for information if you do not have access to the physical books any more.
  Done. - TB
- Please make the ISBN formats consistent.
  Done. - TB
all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Please confirm the reliability of the sources so that I can undertake spot checks.
  They are reliable. - TB
it contains no original research;
- The lead states that "Sahasi II's relatives—Rai Mahrit, ruler of Chittor and Bachhera, the governor of Multan province—took on Chach, individually, but in vain". Please add a cited statement on the former to the body.
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 16% chance of copyright violation, which is reported as "violation unlikely". The highest correlation is with a book review of Asif's A Book of Conquest: The Chachnama and Muslim Origins in South Asia that is included in the references. The shared text is mainly the title of the book.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article covers the main aspects of the dynasty and some of the scholarship behind it. Is there any information on the social aspects of the time or any legacy like building projects undertaken by the dynasty?
  No. I think a line (or two, at most) on the social aspects of the time can be added from McLean's scholarship; will consult it. - TB
- The article states coins and numismatists in multiple places. Suggest putting this together.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article is compliant.
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is was some prior content dispute as recorded in the talk page but the editors do not seem to be substantive to the current version and there is no current evidence of edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The images have appropriate CC tags.
images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The map is appropriate. Are there any other relevant images, for example of any structures built during the period?
  No, there aren't. - TB

@TrangaBellam: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Feel free to make copyedits, though. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]