Talk:Nagore Dargah/GA1

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I will begin this review ASAP.  dci  &#124;  TALK   17:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll address this later, if not tomorrow. I was planning on doing it this evening, but my first attempt was lost due to the insertion of an incorrect template (such things are quite frustrating) and I don't have the energy right now to redo it.   dci  &#124;  TALK   02:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

As I mentioned at the nominator's talk, the article isn't bad. Upon further thought, though, I don't think it could feasibly reach GA quality in a week, and am not promoting it at this time. I would suggest a thorough copyedit (please see the GOCE page) before requesting another review.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are a variety of prose problems throughout the article. Spelling inconsistencies and grammatical errors are a significant issue; again, a copyedit would be advisable.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Sourcing is excellent.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is another problem. The article tends to get mired in a recitation of details, which are explained immediately.  Generally, I would suggest introducing a major topic, then providing supporting details following the introduction.  An example of my concerns can be found in the "Festivals" section.
 * 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):
 * A higher-resolution image from a greater distance would be nice, but the current images are good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Given the concerns detailed above, I don't think it would be appropriate to promote the article at this time. I may be available for copyediting assistance if time permits, but cannot guarantee that it will.   dci  &#124;  TALK   22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Given the concerns detailed above, I don't think it would be appropriate to promote the article at this time. I may be available for copyediting assistance if time permits, but cannot guarantee that it will.   dci  &#124;  TALK   22:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Somehow feel the regulation period of one week can be offered as the nomination/review process itself waited for so long. If there are still no scope of improvements then, a decision could be taken. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerns have been addressed at the user talk page.  dci  &#124;  TALK   01:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Content review
Lead –
 * Check for spelling, grammar, capitalization errors throughout.
 * Should both words be capitalized in "Nagore dargah"?
 * The word dargah is treated a common noun as i see from other articles - just like temple. So I have maintained caps in the first position (lead/infobox) and used small in others.


 * It would be nice if the intro could give a bit more of a description on what exactly the Nagore Dargah is. The lead should mention briefly why Shahul Hamid is such a key figure in Sufism.


 * The second paragraph is far too detailed for the lead. Descriptions of the festival in the lead should stick to why it's so important.
 * ✅ - trimmed some portions


 * Instead of the excessive festival information, it would be nice to get a more descriptive explanation of the "unique bond of amity between [Islam and Hinduism]. While it's important to give an overview of the festivals, other information should not be neglected.
 * ✅ - trimmed some portions

History –
 * The paragraph reads somewhat choppily. It would be best if the information and beliefs about Shahul Hamid were to be reordered; I'm not sure how this would work best, but parts of this paragraph are basically lists of unrelated info that doesn't flow well.  For example, the info about his relationship with the Prophet doesn't really have much to do with what he was called.


 * There should be more information about how, when, and by whom the dargah was established; this should be separated from the biographical info about Shahul Hamid.


 * Further information on its history would be helpful; more dates, if possible, would be useful to the reader.


 * The last sentence is somewhat confusing; would there be any way to reword it?


 * There are numerous spelling and grammatical errors, such as:
 * The omission of articles (generally "a" or "the") - I don't mean to sound obnoxious or nitpicky, but these can make sentences seem a bit choppier than they would otherwise.
 * Make sure that information makes sense to the reader. For example, it's very difficult for me to understand the significance of a name meaning "the doorway of one and a quarter".
 * Check for word usage: "struck with pins" would be one example.

Architecture –
 * The first two sentences seem to contradict each other.
 * ✅ - reworded.


 * What anniversary of Shahul is referred to?

Festivals – Worship, rituals, and administration –
 * I'll put more here shortly.
 * A source is needed for the first sentence of the first paragraph.


 * Sources are needed for the legend of the childless couple.
 * ✅ - removed Gyan ref earlier, fitted now with diff refs.


 * Generally, I would suggest italicization in lieu of quotes (e.g. "Shifa Gunta") for non-English terms, even when proper names.
 * I have modified them - please suggest if i still miss something.


 * More info on the khalifa would be nice (a more in-depth explanation of his lineage, duties, identification of the current khalifa)
 * This is not identified even from the official website, but what is all known is the heriditary part. Yusuf was the spiritual successor of Shahul and there may be others who might have had similar successors. But this info couldn't be obtained from available sources.

Generic
 * the usage of italics for the non-anglicized vernacular terms and quotes for proper names is effected.
 * I left a note as to this in the "Worship, rituals, and administration" review.  dci  &#124;  TALK   16:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll do another run-through of the article and will make subsequent comments below here. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Second round

 * I've done a copyedit, but have a few more issues which are laid out below.
 * Is there a more formal way of saying "a holy dip" when referring to the Shifa Gunta? Also, I changed the word "tank" to "pool," which sounds more accurate.
 * fine.
 * The religious dip is referred as holy dip as in Kumbh Mela. It is quite common in the temple tanks in South India.
 * I suggest "holy immersion" would be okay, the google translation of "immersion" is ( निमज्जन, وسرجن , غوطه, ஆழ்த்தப்படுதல் . Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm a bit confused about the description of the Khalifa. Is the word meant to be capitalized for generic usage (for example, one would refer to the Abbasid caliph, but would refer to a specific one as Caliph ar-Radi)?  I am unfamiliar with Sufi tradition; is this the term used for a saint?  I would just like to clarify this as the word has been used in very different contexts.
 * Immersion is used with Hindu religious deities dipped during festivals.Ssriram mt (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is same in context, but Khalifa would be more appropriate in Sufi terminology. The major difference is the religious and administrative side of things. I will reword a bit.


 * Sorry; there has been a slight interruption to the review. My apologies for the rather all-over-the-place nature of this; I had taken it on without expecting a variety of real-life events to occur.  I am committed to finishing it by the end of the day; if I do not, I will refer it for a second opinion so you do not have to undergo a frustrational experience here.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats fine - please continue with the review at your convenience.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some changes suggested by another user and those are also plugged in the article. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I will pass the article tonight.  Issues have been remedied.  —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)