Talk:Sewri Fort/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
What is a good article?[edit]
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes[edit]
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
- ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, 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.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Comments[edit]
1. Well written:
(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.
- Poor prose - unclear what is being talked about - poor conveying of information. I had thought this might be a B class, but the writing is so unclear that it more closely fits C class.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it 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, it 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; [ and
(c) it contains no original research. 
- Not enough resources and citations
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 
- The main problem is lack of detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- "Relentless attacks" - "The Siddis, who were of African descent and noted for their navies, had allied themselves with the Mughals." These statements are unsourced and may be political.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Excellent images. A lovely photograph and an interesting and detailed map.
- Initial inspection.
The article is rather incomplete. It contains very little information. More facts can be gathered from an examination of the books that are available. The lead section tells us that the fort existed, but fails to give notability - though that emerges gradually from the article itself. There are very few cites. The initial impression is that this article is at the early stages of construction and could do with some development. Looking at the article history, it was created in 2005 by User:Nichalp who returned to the article recently and made substantial improvements - though there are only a total of 14 edits since 2005. Nichalp is currently taking a Wikibreak, though the user has listed a number of similar Mumbai forts for GA review, and already there are concerns about lack of response to queries: Talk:Mazagon_Fort/GA1. The topic is interesting and deserves to be developed to GA status. I doubt if I have the time to do the work neccessary, and I have doubts, giving lack of attention since 2005, if there is anyone else. I am wondering if there would be any benefit to putting this on hold, or if it would be better for this to be withdrawn now to allow Nichalp to work on this and the other fort articles without pressure, and when the user has returned from the Wiki-break.
- Interim comment.
I am having a problem with regard to coverage. There is a lack of detail. I've taken a look at other Mumbai fort articles and note that Mazagon Fort and Castella de Aguada are also under review and failing for the same reason: Talk:Castella de Aguada/GA1 and Talk:Mazagon Fort/GA1. There doesn't appear to be a parent article that discusses all these forts, and that might be a way forward. Group them all together and make a detailed single article on the Mumbai forts, using summary style break outs for those forts which have greater information which can be covered in detail. If there isn't the information out there to cover these forts individually in detail it may be the case that they are not able to achieve Good Article status - but a parent article covering them all just might do it. SilkTork *YES! 12:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Concerns arising.
- Lead section is very short and does not reflect the main body.
- The opening sentence raises questions. "Built by the British" - does that mean the army, or the government, or a trade mission, or a British company such as the East India, or some holiday-makers, or ex-pats? What is a "quarried hill" - is that a hill that had once had a quarry somewhere? Is the fort built inside the remains of the quarry? Also: "The harbour proved eminently apposite" - which harbour? and what was it appropriate for, and why use the word apposite when appropriate is clearer?
- There are not enough references for the material - scant though it is. Most of the first paragraph of the History section is unreferenced.
- Addressing concerns.
- See WP:Lead and develop the lead section.
- Consider the reader and ask yourself if all the information is clear and easy to follow, and what questions may arise.
- Either more research is needed or the article can be upmerged along with other Mumbai forts articles to a parent article: Mumbai forts
- Conclusion.
As the same concerns have arisen on two other Mumbai forts articles listed for review, and there is no evidence of any attempt to address these concerns; and as the addressing of these concerns would involve considerable research and writing as this article is only just out of Start class, it is better to withdraw this now and allow concerned editors to build the article in their own time and resubmit for another review later. Even though this has not passed GA review, I wish people good luck with working on it for the future. If anyone has any questions arising from this review please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *YES! 12:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)