Talk:Palamu fort

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   see comment 12

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "...who ruled for thirteen years from 1662 to 1674 from Medininagar in Palamau, which was then his capital..." This seems very much like unnecessary trivia and makes the sentence hard to understand. It should be removed or the sentence reworded to be easier to understand.

   Corrected

2. "...the fort was rebuilt into a very extensive and formidable defensive structure." this is a lot of puffery with the use of "very" and the grand words "extensive" and "formidable". The language should be toned down.

   Puffery words removed

3. "Ray was, by far, the most famous in the whole Chero line of tribal kings and was known for his "just" ways of ruling his kingdom." coatrack and puffery.

   Puffery words removed

4. "the Chiro forts" what are those? Are they the same as the Palamu forts? The terminology should be consistent throughout the article.

   They are Palamu forts. Corrected.

5. "Chiros defended the forts bravely..." puffery

   Corrected

6. "Following the death of Medini Ray there was rivalry within the royal family of the Chiro dynasty which ultimately lead to its downfall; this was engineered by the ministers and advisers in the court. The rulers who followed Medini were Raja Pratap Rai, Raja Rudra Rai, Raja Dikpal Rai, Ranjeet Rai, Devi Batesh Rai and Jai Ksihan Rai. Jai Kishna, who died while fighting an adviser, was followed by the 12th ruler Chitrajeet Rai in 1770." What does a list of every ruler have to do with the fort? Seems like coatracks.

   Superfluous text deleted

7. "New Fort" and "Old Fort" should likewise be refered to consistently. Having three different names for the same forts is confusing for readers.

   Yes defined as old fort and new fort at all places

8. "...is built with "lime-surki sun-baked bricks"..." because this is a quote it needs an inline citation.

   Cited

9. "This fort is superior in its construction compared to the old fort as seen in the features of the entrance gate known as Nagpuri gate." more puffery. Describe the construction and let readers come to their own conclusion.

   Corrected

10. "The inscription states that the fort's construction was started in the month of Magh, in 1680 Samvat according to the Hindu calendar." When is that in Gregorian or Julian dates?

    Provided. Samvat is 56.7 year ahead of Gregorian calendar. Clarified in the text

11. "'Palamau', meaning the 'fanged river.'" The source is less definitive in that conclusion, saying: "Thus Palamau may perhaps mean 'place of the fanged river'"[emphasis added]. The prose should follow the source.

    Yes, agreed. Made changes as per the citation

12. The puffery needs citations, but they should probably be removed anyway. Absent those, it is cited fine.

    Made changes as per the citation

• I recommend you look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Describing aesthetic opinions as this article seems to suffer from the problems described in that section.

Results

On Hold for 7 days pending revisions. If you have questions, comments, or disagree with my comments feel free to respond here and we can discuss them. I'm looking forward to the revisions. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wugapodes Thanks for the review. Your comments are all relevant to the text. I have addressed all issues raised under comments. Please see, if I have missed something. Will be happy to make any further corrections as needed, Nvvchar. 14:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Promoted Thanks for the quick response! I'm very satisfied with the changes, and want to thank you for your work on this addition to our coverage. A lot of our coverage focuses on American and European topics, and so your work to expand this coverage is not only appreciated, but important. I look forward to more quality contributions from you! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Wugapodes Thanks for promoting the article and for the appreciative words.Nvvchar. 04:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)