Talk:Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque

Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 21, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque in Purana Qila, Delhi, was originally intended to be built in marble, but as it ran out of supply, red sandstone had to be used?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque.

Wikipedia

India: Delhi 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as Low-importance).

Islam: Mosques Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mosques task force.

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samee (talk · contribs) 08:26, 26 May 2015 (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.	Some wrong spellings observed include rectillinear (replace with rectilinear), sunked (replace with sunken).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead of the article does not sufficiently summarizes the article. Suggestion is to merge Location section into lead in addition to emendations per WP:LEAD. Also remove words in brackets in first sentence (For example; instead of Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque (Mosque of the Old Fort) use Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque or Mosque of the Old Fort). Lots of "double quotation" marks have been used; remove them and where necessary italicise the phrase.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	Most of the references are offline and could not be verified.
	2c. it contains no original research.	At least this sentence (which is wrongly attributed as Humayun's library) appears to constitute original research. I could not find any reliable source; suggestion is to remove
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It does not reflect the present status of the mosque.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Since Gallery is small, its images should be placed in Features section
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Outcome subject to revision~~ Article was not revised within due period. Main concern was inadequate summarized lead and its present status. It requires significant edits. Therefore, it fails.

@Samee: Hi, I am currently away; I will be active from Friday only. I hope you can keep it on hold till then. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've failed the nomination because the article was not edited even after Friday and I am not very active these days and the article has many concerns. Please prepare the article well before nominating it for GA review. sami ^talk 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.