Talk:Demolition of the Babri Masjid/GA1

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

It's more than time someone reviewed this well-written article. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review as always. I'm afraid I'm a little busy over the next few days; it might be as late as Wednesday before I get to this. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments
This is a well-written and properly cited and illustrated article, so my comments will be brief.


 * I wonder if the 'volunteers' gloss on 'kar sevaks' shouldn't go at the first instance rather than the second (both in the lead).
 * This is a fair point, but I don't want to overburden the first sentence with detail. I've reworked it so that the non-English term isn't introduced without explanation.
 * The image of 'Ayodhya city' is rather small, could be wikilinked and maybe shown a bit bigger. As far as I can tell it doesn't show the 3 domes of the Babri Masjid? Would be ideal if it did... we really ought to have some kind of photo.
 * I agree that we should have an image, but finding one has proven quite difficult. First off, there are a half-dozen popular images of the mosque before its demolition that have been copied so often that determining their provenance is quite impossible. Second, it's recent enough that I'm not sure if taking a screenshot from a news article and claiming fair use would fly. If you think a reasonable NFUR could be written, I'm willing to upload an image from one of many news articles; there's some of the actual demolition, too.
 * Why not? There can be very little commercial interest in these already heavily-exploited images, and if we use one at low resolution it should be fine. Not a requirement, of course.


 * Side boxes: both are somewhat obtrusive and would be better replaced with navbars at the end of the article (indeed, of all relevant articles).
 * These boxes have been contentious for a long time; getting consensus to reformat them would take me longer than rewriting this article.
 * Ah. Like the planning committee accepting the skyscraper in a minute and spending the afternoon arguing about the bike sheds.
 * " in later in the 19th century" - remove first "in".
 * "..... idols of Rama ... the idol": one or more?
 * More.


 * Perhaps we should italicise and wikilink sanctum sanctorum and maybe also status quo.
 * Done.


 * " former Intelligence Bureau (IB) Joint Director," - maybe this can be said more briefly, maybe without the acronym at least.
 * Done.


 * "Hindutva" appears without explanation. Needs wikilink and probably a gloss.
 * Done.


 * pralaya nritya: is glossed (maybe needs italics), but it might be worth linking Pralaya and stating that it concerns the dissolution at the end of an age in Hindu religious cosmology.
 * Done.


 * Could wikilink intercommunal violence in lead and body.
 * Done.


 * Aftermath: "destruction of numerous others [i.e. mosques] that day": perhaps some examples needed here, and perhaps a separate citation really.
 * Guha doesn't give examples, I'm afraid. I've duplicated the citation.
 * They could presumably be discovered in some official report, but never mind.
 * Bangladesh: no need to repeat the date.
 * Done.


 * In popular culture: could gloss Raam ke Naam with ("In the Name of God").
 * Done.


 * Not sure we should list films that just "mention" the demolition; I saw Slumdog Millionaire and don't recall the nanosecond involved, while having 5 "mentions" really says trivia rather too loudly. The other films (including Black Friday are sufficient.
 * Done.

OK, the article meets the criteria. I hope to see an image soon! And if details of the other temples turn up, they'd be welcome also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)