Talk:Bahmani Tombs/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Thank you for your work on improving this article. Unfortunately, this is quick fail due to it being far from meeting several GA criteria. Among other issues described below, the article attempts to cover too many topics at once without providing sufficient historical context and by relying on a very limited number of sources. Paragraphs are too short and the reader is left wanting and confused. I would encourage the nominator to rethink the structure or consider splitting the article. More details are provided in the review table. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ppt91^talk 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

   The article's lead consists of only two sentences and the article does not follow WP:LAYOUT guidelines, tackling too many topics at once without providing sufficient historical detail.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   It appears that the two sources are verifiable and correctly referenced, although it primarily relies on two books, which does not seem to be enough for such a broad-ranging architectural topic with multiple different buildings.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The article significantly lacks in coverage and the information provided is insufficient to adequately contextualize the subject.

   b. (focused):

   Lack of coherent structure results in numerous tangents, confusing an unfamiliar reader.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Fails at least 3 criteria, which results in a quick fail.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.