Talk:Khalji dynasty (Bengal)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I will take this review. Shouldn't take too long, although quite a few changes need to be made, on first glance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (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?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

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:

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UserNumber:, you will notice that I have edited the structure for better flow — one paragraph sections are generally avoided, and the length of the dynasty is not so long as to warrant separate sections on establishment and administration.

Things you need to work on: there are multiple instances of events being related twice (see the Ghurid rejection, the Tibet campaign, and the granting of estates); sources 7-12 all cite the same sentence, while there are paragraphs with no sources at all; the lead should be better developed; and sources 4, 6, 10, 11, and 12 have maintenance messages (see Category:CS1_maintenance if you're confused). I'll leave this to you, and put this article on hold for the moment — it could be GA, but needs some work. If you have questions feel free to ask. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29:, I have worked on all of the things that you have suggested. I am still confused regarding the maintenance messages and do not know how to fix them. UserNumber (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UserNumber:, the issues are with the reference templates and the parameters you have used in them. For example, you have used the authors-list parameter with the {{cite encyclopedia}} template in references 5 and 7; however, the authors-list parameter is not a recognised parameter for the template—please use author-last1, author-first1, author-last2, and so on. Similarly, the {{cite book}} templates of references 12, 13, and 14 do not support the postscript parameter—please use quote instead. While you are working on that, please take a look at the overciting of the sentence Many of the members traced their origins to Garmsir and under the leadership of Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji, they desired to be employed by the provincial Delhi army of the Ghurid Empire.[9][10][11][12][13][14], and the unreferenced coinage section: The Khalji dynasty of Bengal used an innovative coinage with the warlike imagery of an armed ruler on his horse. The legends were usually bilingual, using the Nagari script and the Arabic script. Once this is done, I will take an in-depth look at grammar, prose, and citations. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29:, I have changed the parameters to author-last1, author-first1 etc. but now the names of the authors of the article can no longer be seen. Everything else is looking good. I would request @पाटलिपुत्र:, if you could please cite a source for the coinage section as you contributed to it most, that would be brilliant. Thanks. UserNumber (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added references for the coinage paragraph. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @पाटलिपुत्र: for your references and your subsequent editing. @UserNumber:, I would recommend paying attention to the changes they've made, since they fix some of the article's remaining problems. I will resume the review once पाटलिपुत् is done editing—it now looks much more likely to pass, and quicker too! Thanks for both of your quick response.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @AirshipJungleman29:. I do not especially intend to edit this article more, except if there are specific resquests. Thank you for your efforts! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, @पाटलिपुत्र:. (FYI, I think I am around halfway done on my rewrite of Ai-Khanoum in my sandbox) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now then.

Lead

"was the first dynasty to set the foundations of Muslim rule in Bengal" too vague and imprecise. "was the first Muslim dynasty to rule Bengal" or similar, better.
"Hailing from...the dynasty was founded ..." --> "the dynasty, which hailed from...,was founded..." better English
"Effectively, the Khaljis independently ruled Bengal from 1204 to 1231, while continuing to nominally pledge allegiance to Sultan Muhammad of Ghor". Two problems: firstly, effectively is unneeded, secondly Muhammed of Ghor died in 1206.
The sentence about Iwaz Khalji should follow that about expanding eastwards and southwards.
Connect the sentences about Nasiruddin Mahmud and the general Mamluk takeover. Perhaps Nasiruddin Mahmud, the son of Mamluk sultan Iltutmish of Delhi, managed to conquer Bengal in 1227; although the Khaljis briefly reasserted their independence, they surrendered to the Mamluks in 1231, who replaced them with a series of regional govenors.
Maybe replace one 'the Khaljis' with 'the dynasty' - better flow.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

"It is said" by who?
"Many of the members" be specific -->"Many of the members of the dynasty"
"platoons" is that the right military term? I'm fairly confident the words is usually used in conjunction with guns.
"in North India" do we know more specifically?
"Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji" - decide on whether you're referring to him as Bakhtiyar or Khalji (I would suggest the former, so that it doesn't get confusing)
" Lakhnauti (Gaur)" just Lakhnati is fine; many cities have multiple names but only one should be used at a time
"With Bakhtiyar as the dynasty's inaugural ruler, the conquered territory" --> "Bakhtiyar became the dynasty's first ruler"
"With the failure of the Tibet campaign" --> "Failing to conquer Tibet"
"His death led to the start of an internal feud" --> "His death led to an internal feud"
"an invasion by the Mamluk Sultans of Delhi." never mentioned again after this point. I don't think it's cited either. Soon it says "With the absence of conflict" so presumably it didn't account for very much, but please clarify.
"He founded Bengal's first naval force, innovated flood defence systems and linked Lakhnauti with the Grand Trunk Road." move the citations here from the lead (see WP:LEADCITE).
"made to denounce his sovereignty" unclear, clarify. Who's 'his' - Iltumish or Khalji?
"A few years after the Delhi takeover, Alauddin Dawlat Shah bin Mawdud Khalji took back control for the Khalji tribe in 1229" you give the year, so "a few years after the Delhi takeover" is unneccessary.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural influence and legacy

"21st-century British historian" there should be a 'the' at the beginning. Similar for "for Muslim preacher"
"One example is that of" --> "for example"
"who arrived from" more "he travelled from" no?
"who first founded Islam as Bengal's state religion" see above, perhaps "who was Bengal's first Muslim ruler"
"Litterateurs" really? Poets is fine. See WP:TECHNOCRAT.
"demonstrated Khalji" --> portrayed
Picture caption shouldn't be that long — I'm not even really sure what it depicts.

Once you've fixed those, I'll take another quick look, and then promotion should be on the cards ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UserNumber:, some of the above is still not done; the uncited text added to the coinage section must also be sourced. A one-week deadline should be sufficient—GANs shouldn't go on forever. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I have now edited all the points that you have raised. Thanks. UserNumber (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UserNumber:, I have made some edits of my own. One last thing before promotion: could you please provide a source ending the second paragraph of the 'Rule' section — the sentence ending in "was nominated as Bakhtiyar's rightful successor by the Khalji nobles." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I added a source with the quote. If you feel like the sentence should be rephrased, please let me know. UserNumber (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and well done! Promoting now ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @AirshipJungleman29: I appreciate your assistance and support throughout the process! UserNumber (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]