Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 10:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Starting review

Hi, Magentic Manifestations. I'll do this review. There is a GAN backlog drive this month. Hope to have some feedback soon. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I would like to point to User talk:Magentic Manifestations#Taj Mahal, regarding other major contributors/co-nominators of the GAC. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, The Herald and DreamRimmer. I'll include you both if I have any questions. I'm afraid I haven't had much time for WP today and I've only skimmed the article so far. Hope to have something for you soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Spot-checks

I've looked through the list of sources and have no immediate questions, so I'll move on to the required spot-checks. I'm starting with six statements taken in no particular order:

• FN 10 & 11 – The Taj Mahal was commissioned by Shah Jahan in 1631, to be built in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, who died on 17 June that year while giving birth to their 14th child, Gauhara Begum.

FN 10 is Asher 1992, page 210 which links to Google Books. I input a search for Shah Jahan and, although several pages were returned, page 210 was not and so this citation doesn't appear to verify the statement.

Because you cannot access the book does not mean that the source is not there. As per WP:CITEHOW and WP:RS, onus is on providing the required details and not that the book should be available for free or in Google books, I presume. This is not a valid grounds for the rejection of the source.

FN 11 is a direct link to Tresures of the World. This says Mumtaz Mahal died in April 1631 and does not name Gauhara Begum. While it does say that Shah Jahan "laid the foundation" six months after she died, it is rather vague and does not convey the sense that he purposefully commissioned the building.

Unverified.

The source states everything from the birth of fourteenth child, Mumtaz's death, Shah Jahan laying the foundation and the building being the tomb of Mumtaz. I do not even fathom what it means by "vague sense".

• FN 28 – The calligraphy on the southern gate roughly translates to "O Soul, thou art at rest. Return to the Lord at peace with Him, and He at peace with you".

The link is to a page that is "no longer available".

Unverified.

Again same here. It has been clearly mentioned it is a book source where registration is required for accessing it. Without even attempting so, again a blind revert that it is unverifiable.

• FN 36 – The elevated marble water tank is called al Hawd al-Kawthar in reference to the "Tank of Abundance" promised to Muhammad.

The statement expresses certainty but Begley actually says: the raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar, promised to Muhammad (my italics). Begley's meaning is different and the article does not reflect what the source says.

Unverified.

The source clearly says that the "raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar, promised to Muhammad". Again an invalid rejection citing dubious and assumed comments.

• FN 83 – Lists of recommended travel destinations often feature the Taj Mahal, which also appears in several listings of seven wonders of the modern world, including the New Seven Wonders of the World, a poll conducted in 2007.

The source only verifies the fact of a 2007 poll in one newspaper. It does not confirm "lists of destinations" or "several listings".

Partially verified. More sources are needed for the first two clauses.

The given source does state so that it is part of the seven wonders of the modern world. If additional sources are required, it can be given.

• FN 98 & 99 – Several court cases and statements by right-wing politicians about Taj Mahal being a Hindu temple have been inspired by P. N. Oak's 1989 book Taj Mahal: The True Story, in which he claimed it was built in 1155 AD and not in the 17th century.

The citations link to news stories in the Hindustan Times and India Today. Neither piece mentions 1155 or right-wing politicians.

Unverified.

This feigns ignorance on your part. Please do not take up reviews if you have limited knowledge on the subject or in that case, request to ask for clarity. The sub-title itself says it was by a leader of the BJP, which is the prominent right wing party in India. So again a dubious reason without due research.

• FN 102 – Another such unsupported theory, that the Taj Mahal was designed by an Italian, Geronimo Vereneo, held sway for a brief period after it was first promoted by Henry George Keene in 1879. Keene went by a translation of a Spanish work, Itinerario (The Travels of Fray Sebastian Manrique, 1629–1643). Another theory, that a Frenchman named Austin of Bordeaux designed the Taj, was promoted by William Henry Sleeman based on the work of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier. These ideas were revived by Father Hosten and discussed again by E. B. Havell and served as the basis for subsequent theories and controversies.

I cannot read more than one page of The Vereneo Controversy so I cannot tell if the whole of Dixon's article supports the above paragraph.

Confirmation is needed that Dixon's article covers everything in the paragraph, especially Keene in 1879; the Itinerario; Austin; Sleeman; Tavernier; Hosten; and Havell. Incidentally, the source begins with a view expressed by Lutyens but he is not mentioned in the article.

Again a similar issue. It is a subscription issue. So if you want to read, you need to subscribe to read the source. Again dubious discounting of the source because you cannot access it.

Result

Of the six statements chosen for the required spot-checks, four are completely unverified and one is partially verified. The sixth requires confirmation of seven specific points and it is already apparent that the article does not include the source's opening and, presumably, most salient argument.

WP:GACR states unambiguously that an article may be failed without further review if, prior to the review it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. The second criterion is that all sources must be verifiable, but none of the six chosen for spot-check can be fully verified. I have to conclude that the article is "a long way from meeting GACR #2" and I am therefore closing this review with WP:GAFAIL.

A lot more work will be needed before this article is ready for WP:GAN and, in particular, all citations need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@PearlyGigs While I appreciate the review, there are a few points of note: One, I have add a detailed note for the comments. The review seems to have been done in a haste. If the source cannot be accessed by you, it does not mean that it is not there, particularly for book sources. It is not a valid reason for discounting the source as unreliable. Multiple statements are indeed verifiable, but you have given dubious and assumed reasons claiming it as unverifiable. Also, request you to go through the background, details of the previous review etc. Your review does not help address or improve the article in any way as most comments are contentious/self-assumed. Please do not take up reviews if you cannot do justice to them and do it as per all the criteria. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Here from Magentic Manifestations's request for a second opinion at WT:GAN. It's true that not having access does not mean it failed verification, and PearlyGigs might consider simpler reviews than the Taj Mahal since they're a relatively new reviewer (and if you're participating in the drive PearlyGigs, there's a second part where new reviewers request feedback from an experienced reviewer before finishing). But most of these points are valid:

• FN 11 does not mention Gauhara Begum. Unless it's mentioned in FN 10, Gauhara Begum being the 14th child is unsourced. It also does not say he "commissioned" it, it says he "laid the foundation", which is vague, and I'm not convinced that this supports "commissioned".
• According to the quoted passage here, FN 36 does not express certainty, but the article does. Meaning the certainty does not exist, it was made up when it was added to the article.
• For FN 83, I have no idea why this source would be used to support "Lists of recommended travel destinations often feature the Taj Mahal". It doesn't mention anything close to that.
• For FN 98/99, if an article claims that "right-wing politicians" made a given statement, then the source had better say in plain language that right-wing politicians made a given statement. Not politicians that we consider right-wing, even if it seems obvious. We don't decide the facts for ourselves. This is a pretty critical error when sourcing information, which is explained in the first paragraph at WP:SYNTH. The fact that you're asking a reviewer to do research so they can infer information that a source doesn't verify makes me worry about how well text-source integrity holds up throughout the article.
• For FN 102, I don't see the source being discounted, I see a request for clarification.

Based on some of these points, I probably would've failed this for original research as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thebiguglyalien. Thanks for looking at the points raised. I am actually in the process of drafting a reply to User:Magentic Manifestations.

You're probably right that I should find shorter articles till I have more experience of WP, although I do have extensive reviewing, proofreading, and copyediting experience in the real world. WP, of course, is quite unlike the real world! I've been following the GA review instructions closely and that took me into the spot-check process which requires that the sample citations must directly support the material. Anyway, thanks again and best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien

• While Gauhara Begum is indeed the fourteenth child (evident from the article linked), I agree that FN 11 does not mention Gauhara Begum. Again two issues here: It vaguely mentions the statement is unverified. Fails to state that it is a mere clarification of a part. If FN 10 was not accessible, it certainly does not become unverifiable, at best a clarification should have been sought here and not a failed verification.
• On the part of Shah Jahan commissioning it, FN 11 clearly states he was the emperor, the events after Mumtaz death and that he laid the foundation for it. Are you suggesting that it should be an exact WP:COPYVIO of the source?
• Again if the article does express certainty, it is at best a minor correction here, which can be made in a jiffy and not an issue of failed verifiability as projected.
• For FN 83, I have agreed as such that additional citations would be required.
• For FN 98/99, better read what WP:SYNTHNOT is. Here there is no combination or inference of two sources, it is not a binding rule to be used. It is merely a generalization instead of taking a host of names of who ever have filed cases.
• For FN 102, the net result was based on that it was not verifiable.

It is nowhere close to quick fail criteria based on your explanation. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)