Talk:Daud Shah Bahmani

Daud Shah Bahmani was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 28, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Daud Shah Bahmani was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 13, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in August 2024.

Age of sources

@Noorullah21 The sources used in this article are not very recent; ideally something better than Haig could be used, but the main issue is directly citing Briggs-translated Ferishta, which should never be done; while Ferishta is frequently cited by scholarship in this area, what is and isn't essential or factual from it (including dates and Briggs' antiquated transliterations) should be determined, by the nature of it being written four centuries ago, by the writers of recent scholarship themselves, not the editor of this article. As it seems most direct citations of Ferishta here are reinforced by ones to more recent work, removing these citations shouldn't be much of a problem, while the rest of the content supported by them, if not paraphrased by recent sources, should be removed. Problems with sourcing, including the mentioned Ferishta issues, the lack of more recent scholarship, and in addition the one somewhat-recent source, Iranica, not supporting the text, should be resolved before this is nominated to be a GA. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about... the cohesion here and slight WALL makes what your saying difficult to read.

You're saying the sources are not recent..? Can you reword and reiterate this more clearly? Noorullah (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources are not recent.

Ferishta should not be directly cited as it was written four centuries ago. Elaboration provided above. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flemmish Nietzsche I see.

I think Haig is still WP:RS, as he is on google scholars.

You're right about Ferishta -- though typically primary sources can be cited [when backed up with secondary sources]. Noorullah (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	see comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Per above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I feel like there is some unnecessary detail here but I haven't quite decided yet. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Nevermind strike that the detail is fine. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm unfortunately going to have to fail this nomination due to 2 of the sources not being verified, the prose issues, and the NPOV issue. I think this article needs quite a bit of work and significant rewording before it can meet GA status. I hope this does not discourage you from continuing to improve this article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the Jr 2010 source and there is nothing in the source from the year 1378. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? - Page 268 [1] "Sultan Mujahid Shah became the third Bahmani ruler. Mujahid Shah indulged in too much drinking and was murdered in 1378 by his uncle Daud Shah, who became the Sultan." Noorullah (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm I found it in the google books version but not the one I downloaded. Maybe I downloaded the wrong version? (even tho it does say it is the same version). My mistake ethier way. I'll strike that comment. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the assassination of Mujahid Shah, Daud Shah was proclaimed the new King, becoming the fourth Bahmani Sultan not seeing this in the Ansari 1988 source. Could you give me the quote for it? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected that to the proper citation. Noorullah (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need a page number for ref 3. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to page seven. Noorullah (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the IA to be back up to verify the Haig 1925 source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During one battle of Mujahid Shah's campaign, Daud Shah was left in charge of guarding Dhuna Sodra with seven thousand cavalry in case the Muslim army had been defeated I feel like this could be worded a little better. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After an engagement began, Daud Shah abandoned his post and directly engaged in battle. What does engagement mean in this context? I also feel like the wording is a little awkward here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite showing bravery, including having over three horses killed under him, was outraged that Daud Shah had entered the battle, and scolded him following their victory, for if the Muslims had been defeated, they wouldn't have been able to escape. Who scolded him? you don't make this clear. Again this sentence is a bit confusing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Returning from his campaign against the Vijayanagara Empire Was this the battle talked about previously. If not is there any info on it? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The campaign is linked in the first sentence at Second Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1375–1378). Noorullah (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while also being attended by Daud Shah, Musnad-I 'Ali Khan Muhammad, Azim Humayun and Safdar Khan. The wording here is a bit confusing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are names (of nobles and Daud Shah). Noorullah (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with nobles that were present submitting homage to him. what do you mean by this?

Well, that's exactly what it means. Nobles that were present submitted homage to him. Noorullah (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the immediate aftermath of Mujahid Shah's assassination saw the Bahmani Sultanate fall into a period of extreme instability, with nobles such as Safdar Khan and Azim Humayun after learning of the news at Bijapur, refused to pay homage. Could you re-word this sentence so it's easier to follow? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ruh Parwar used remorse for her to strengthen her own position at court The wording here is awkward. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bakah attacked him while he was in prostration, who stabbed Daud Shah and either killed him immediately, or grievously wounded him This doesn't make sense. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Noorullah (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
numerous court factions. your source only mentions 2. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
after learning of the news at Bijapur What news at Bijapur? This name isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be in reference to the assassination, further clarified. Noorullah (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead for this article is kind of hard to follow and read. Is there any way you could reword it a bit to make it easier to follow? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daud Shah showed bravery in Mujahid Shah's campaigns against the Vijayanagara Empire Doesn't seem very NPOV to me but I'm on the fence about that one.IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Despite showing bravery. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the above two. Noorullah (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since your so commited to making these changes I suggest you make the changes I asked and possibly even submit the page for peer review and then re-nominate the article (since I already failed it as a GAN). I'm happy that me failing it didn't discourage you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense Thanks for all this, will do. Noorullah (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daud Shah Bahmani/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs) 18:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 08:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The article does not provide us with a context about Daud Shah's life (for instance, we do not know when he was born, who were his parents). Readers who do not have knowledge of the history of India cannot understand the article. I suggest you should request a peer review (as it was suggested by the previous reviewer) before a new GAN. Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]