Talk:Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute/GA1

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this. A Simple Plan (film) is next on my list, but this will be next. BenLinus 1214 talk 21:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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):
 * In addition to the one source issue, there's one OR thing in the lead.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Death section is mostly irrelevant and too long.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The British "wanting it to be unknown forever" is a bit troubling
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I think that this page is mistitled—it's not really a dispute about the location, it's just about the fact that it was lost. Maybe Grave of Bahadur Shah II" instead.
 * "last Mughal emperor" not "last Mughal"
 * "is disputed" by whom?
 * You don't say that this was primarily due to lack of measures or infrastructures later in the article—possible original research? Tagging it for now.
 * Third sentence—this is kind of confusing. It was forgotten in 1903?
 * "some protests" Very informal
 * I don't think the British were technically "forced" to do anything.
 * Next sentence: "when, not while"
 * This article must be copyedited. I understand that you're not a native English speaker, but it's not really prepared for GAN right now. Can you copyedit it yourself? If not, get it copyedited and renominate later. I'm not going to go through sentence by sentence because you seem to have a lot of experience in copyediting problems during GANs.
 * Much of the death section is kind of irrelevant—it would be nice for the main article to have it, but only burial information is relevant here.
 * You have a lot of bizarre short quotes throughout, i.e. "it was "inappropriate of the Government" to construct "anything" over the remains of Zafar as a tomb "which might be a place of pilgrimage.""
 * The burial of his wife and son shouldn't get their own section. Make it a coda to the death/burial section.
 * It worries me that much of this article relies on one source, especially the section on protests, no less. I'm tagging it as well.
 * "But at that time 'even the exact location'…" specify who this quote was from. Same applies to the rest of the paragraph. Also bizarre that a whole group of people is demanding in a specific quote. :)
 * Mohammedans is an archaic term.
 * The beginning of the Dargah section jumps startlingly—most readers won't know what a "Dargah" is, and we have no idea what railing you are talking about.
 * "The British wanted the actual place of the tomb to be unknown forever." Repetition/dubious claim ("forever"?)
 * "Zafar is respected as an 'Emperor-Saint'" Why is this part of the sentence necessary?

I will give you the opportunity of a few days to adequately fix these issues. However, there are so many problems with it right now that I find that this would be difficult for any editor. Or, if you rather, you can just list it for a copyedit (and possibly a peer review) and fix the sourcing issue in due time. But in that case, it will fail for now and you can renominate in the future. Thank you! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 00:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be active in the last few days and have not made any contribs to the article. Some other editors have, but the article still fails. Once again, list it for a copyedit and a peer review before renominating. Fail for now. Best of luck to you. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 18:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)