Talk:Murshid Quli Khan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.


 * Review
 * Multiple dead links
 * In the info box, replace "currently" with "present-day"
 * In the info box, which back of Islam (in brackets)
 * Structurally, I don't see why the lead has been split into four extremely short paragraphs. Two would be fine.
 * , also known as Mohammad Hadi → Comma after Hadi
 * serving in the post → Irrelevant
 * I find the lead to be scattered and not summarising the article good enough.
 * Nothing much is known about → Too informal
 * echoes the same fact that he was a Brahmin. → Poor phrasing
 * when Khan was around ten years old, he was bought by a Persian man called Haji Shafi → he was bought by a Persian man named Haji Shafi when he was approximately ten years old
 * and was brought up with the name Mohammad Hadi. → and he was raised with the name Mohammed Hadi.
 * But he treated him like his own son and Quli Khan also grew under his guidance. → Too conversional and not encyclopaedic enough
 * and returned to Persia and was → Repetitive
 * But after his death around five years later, → Starting successive sentences with 'But' is really jarring to read
 * Due to his "fine work", he was noticed by the then Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. → What do you mean by he was "noticed"? Just looked at or something else?
 * I don't really don't see the point of having Marriage and family as such a short sub-section. May as well have it as part of the previous paragraph.
 * Aurangzeb shouldn't be linked in the Conflict with Azim-us-Shan sub-section because he has been previously mentioned
 * currently Dhanka → I don't know why you keep using 'currently', because it makes sound like it is going to change sometime soon, and it's not.
 * Azim-us-Shan made a plan to assassinate Quli Khan. The soldiers were previously enraged as they were not paid their salaries. So he brainwashed them then he was responsible for the due of their salaries. → Again, successive short sentences is jarring to read. Have to keep stopping, there's no flow.
 * The Reign section has too many sub-sections, and they are really short.
 * Most references are from a book. So I'll assume good faith with them.
 * I don't see why the only two images in the article are images of the same thing which look very similar and taken from practically the same angle. The first of which doesn't have a good enough caption and essentially doesn't tell the reader anything.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Summary


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I don't think this is good enough to be promoted yet. I have concerns over the structure, layout and prose. I suggest asking the Guild of Copy Editors or perhaps nominating the article for a Peer Review.
 * Outcome