Talk:Sultanate of Bijapur/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Flemmish Nietzsche (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 11:17, 8 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:

I am really sorry, but the article must be quick failed for the following reasons:

it does not address the topic's main aspects because we receive almost no information on the geography, population, and government of the sultanate
it does not stay focused on the topic because it goes into unnecessary detail in regard to the sultanate's history (for instance, we are informed many details of the conquest of Goa by the Portuguese)
the prose is unclear, so it should be copyedited (I refer to the introductory text before section 1.1 and section 1.1 - I doubt that those who have no information about the sultanate's history could easily follow them)
its lead is too long.

I suggest that the present article be splitted to create a new, detailed article on the sultanate's history. Then section 1 "History" should be radically shortened (at least by 60%), and the article should be expanded on the missing fields (government, geography, population, etc.) If you need any assistance or further comments, please ping me. Again, I highly appreciate your hard work, but the article needs significant improvements. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka The extensive coverage of history and the lack of coverage of the subjects you mentioned is done because there really is no information in reliable sources on content beyond the history (of which there is copious amounts, thanks to Firishta and Shirazi) and culture. I believe it does address the main aspects of the subject as, based on what the most reliable sources say and cover, more content on history and some on culture is due and in the article's scope, while the things you mentioned are not, as they are not covered by those sources; I should not have to adhere to arbitrary standards of completeness that cannot be reached using the most reliable and relevant sources.

I can take the article to GOCE if you think it would help, but some suggestions on what in the prose is "unclear" would be great. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some examples above. Try to develop a separate history article into a GA. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the amount of content on history is, as I said above, due, while information on the other topics you mentioned is not covered in reliable sources; a split is not necessary. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]