Talk:Bahadur Shah I/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Will review this later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is an interesting article, but there is one big problem: Often, the reader cannot really follow the content since people are not introduced, leaving me wondering who the persons are, why they are significant and in what relation they stand to the others. But let's start from the beginning:


 * Lead: You can move the reference for his reign into the infobox.
 * Removed as the dates are sourced in the body


 * Early life: There seems to be a contradiction here. In the first paragraph, he is imprisoned for eight years in 1663, but in the next paragraph, he starts an insurgency just seven years later.
 * corrected


 * You should always place citations directly behind quotes.
 * Which quote?
 * I meant "grudgingly obedient son". Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Annexations: Here, my confusion starts. It begins with the first section. You talk about the leader in Jodhpur, but the section is about Amber. What does Amber have to do with Jodhpur? Does it lay in there? Who controls it? I am lost!
 * Corrected
 * I still don't quite understand this. So Amber was a city that was lost before? How? When? What does it have to do with Udaipur? Also, the wikilink is wrong, it doesn't point to Amer, India. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is Durgadas Rathore?
 * Added, anyway he is linked


 * He fought a war to prevent what? For Singh to come to Delhi? But if that is so, then why did he do so?
 * Added
 * I still don't understand what he fought for and why? How come he has the authority to fight for something in the first place? What rank is he? Just telling me that he is wikilinked does not help, because every article is supposed to give all the information I need to understand the matter without having to click further, and so far, I don't have all the relevant information. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is Mihrab Khan?
 * One of Bahadur Shah's close aids
 * Well then, add that information!


 * Who are the people who are sent to bring Singh to the city?
 * His men ofcourse
 * And why are they significant enough to give their names? Are they important?


 * What is Ajmer? Where does it lie?
 * It is linked. It was an important city in the history of Rajputana. Currently it is in our country's Rajasthan state
 * Again, wikilinking is not sufficient!


 * How dod he take Jodhpur "without bloodshed", when Mihrab Khan fought a battle against Ajit Singh? Does Khan not belong to Shah? It seemed to me he does, even though you did not say anything about that.
 * Remove


 * Udaipur: Where is Udaipur? And who is Amar Singh II?
 * In Rajputana.
 * So why it is important that he went there? Does it have to do with the annexation? Is the city important in that context? If so, how exactly?


 * Court rivalry: Who is Sayyid Ahmed? Why is he important enough to conspire with Khan against the other Khan (so many Khans, this is so confusing, that's why you need to point out who is who, otherwise the reader is completely lost...!).
 * All are members of his court
 * That does not answer my questions!!


 * March to South India: What is a zamindar? Shouldn't that term be italic?
 * Done. Zamindar means a landlord of a villahe
 * Should also be explained in the text.


 * Death of Kam Bakhsh: At the end of the second paragraph, which Khan do you mean? Both bodies were led by a Khan (there is the confusion again).
 * Done


 * Sikh rebellion: What is a khalsa? Does it need to be italic?
 * Done, Khalsa means Sikh army


 * Efforts: template at the end.
 * Removed


 * Death: You should mention who his successor was. Now, we only learn this from the table below. Also, in the lead you mention that the rebellion kept on going after his death. That should also be in the article body.
 * Added and I am not sure of the second so removed from lead.

So far, so good. On hold for now! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any chance you'll get to this today? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, the article is still not really understandable for people who are not familiar with Indian history. Maybe even not for those who are, I wouldn't know. You introduce so many characters, but you don't give reasons for why you do, why exactly they are significant enough to be in the article. Also, you give places without saying where they are and why they are significant, for example in the context of a military annexation. In this state, I cannot pass it. I will give you another three days to try and sort it out. Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made the appropriate changes. I have also removed the name of Sayyid Ahmed who does not play significant role in the context. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Will check again later today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Very good additions, much more understandable now :) Pass! Congratulations! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Third son
In the article, it's stated that Bahadur Shah I was the third son of Emperor Aurangzeb; while the same thing has been stated about Muhammad Azam Shah! Aminabzz (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)