Talk:Naulakha Pavilion

My GA Review of this article
A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * one lakh equals 100,000 what? U.S. dollars?
 * Specify which Dept. of Arch.
 * Clarify common use language (Urdu?) and add citation
 * Shouldn't "pavilion" be capitalized throughout when referring to "Naulakha Pavilion" since it would be a proper noun (place)? If so, article will need to be moved as well.
 * The following sentence could be broken up for easier readability: "This unique feature is symbolic of Shajahani architecture[3] and reflects a mixture of contemporary traditions (at the time of its construction) of sloping-roof from Bengal, and Baldachin from Europe, to demonstrate imperial as well as religious image."
 * "of the finest quality" is POV unless a direct citation.
 * Fix prose tagged-section
 * I added some citation tags, the information for which might be covered in the References section, but WP:inline citations still need to be used.
 * Section "Environmental concerns" is really only one concern--section is small and perhaps should be integrated into History or elaborated upon
 * Why not put picture of Pakistan Embassy at Washington DC next to pertinent section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) contains no original research.


 * Please find citations for the text I marked accordingly

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).


 * For the most part.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Good

5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.


 * No prior issues

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]


 * Seven images, all in good standing

Conclusion
In its current condition, I will put the GAN on hold (for one week) until the above issues are addressed. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention to these issues and for moving the article. I'm happy to pass this on to GA status now...congrats! --Eustress (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Naulakha fall.jpg
The image Image:Naulakha fall.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7
This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

This article is short but it seems to be good for the topic. However, it does not appear to be important enough to make it into a selection that aims to include the top 1% of Wikipedia. I think what is needed is some expansion work on the main article (Lahore Fort), and perhaps also to bring that to the GA or FA level, and then perhaps this article could be included as a nice support article. See Angkor Wat (FA) or Alhambra (only C-Class or weak B) to get an idea of the sort of expansion possible for this sort of topic. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)