User:The Herald/Taj for FA

This is a page to discuss the issues related to the article Taj Mahal and the subsequent expansion and polishing works related to the article to bring it up to the featured article standards.

To do

 * General expansion
 * To include the points from the last peer review
 * May be now. But I'd say, its a ✅..


 * Copyediting
 * Paraphrasing
 * almost covered, but its a ✅


 * Grammar and tone


 * MoS


 * Last minute decorations and clean up
 * Using semiautomated bits and stuffs
 * Pending....


 * Creating the FAC page
 * Featured article candidates/Taj Mahal/archive2


 * Adding the FA topicon

At work

 * The Herald
 * Atsme

Discussions
Atsme, thanks a lot for joining me.. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And I would prefer to leave the cite 3 in the lead as its a controversial one..-The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem - don't hesitate to revert me. I'm trying to work in small chunks for that very reason.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  06:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Taj is a hot issue in India and there over a score of controversies around it. Plus there is a good deal of discussions on the type of architectural style in the talk page. I'm thinking of a RfC. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Need to get that all taken care of before this article is reviewed. It must show stability. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why I am thinking for a RfC to get at least a clearer consensus from our colleagues. Almost a similar situation is with Black Stone..-The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I realigned images, deleted quite a bit of the construction and architectural details since it is already included at the origin-arch article. Still tweaking here an there. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  19:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So the original article lessened our job? Anyway, the article will not be ready till its stable. I mean, the edit wars and RfC (the latter was unnecessary) are to be solved. Should I remove the RfC as we now have a clear cut idea on architectural styles? -The Herald • the joy of the LORD my strength 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. Yes remove the RfC.  We've cited the sources.  Edit wars? I didn't notice. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I was mentioning that moonlight image (editwar).. Ready to roll out for FAC? Or wait for something...-The Herald • the joy of the LORD my strength 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me a few more days. I like to go back and read with fresh eyes.  Once I get that done and make sure all the copy and punctuations, etc. are good, we can move forward.  And that is when the work really begins. 🙏 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fire begin then..-The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 17:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let the games begin! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result
Awaiting..