Talk:Bahmani Tombs

Bahmani Tombs was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 1, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Karnataka Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka.
	This article was last assessed in December 2019.

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Ppt91 ^talk 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahmani Tombs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ppt91 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your work on improving this article. Unfortunately, this is quick fail due to it being far from meeting several GA criteria. Among other issues described below, the article attempts to cover too many topics at once without providing sufficient historical context and by relying on a very limited number of sources. Paragraphs are too short and the reader is left wanting and confused. I would encourage the nominator to rethink the structure or consider splitting the article. More details are provided in the review table. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ppt91 ^talk 18:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

The article's lead consists of only two sentences and the article does not follow WP:LAYOUT guidelines, tackling too many topics at once without providing sufficient historical detail.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

It appears that the two sources are verifiable and correctly referenced, although it primarily relies on two books, which does not seem to be enough for such a broad-ranging architectural topic with multiple different buildings.

b. (citations to reliable sources):

c. (OR):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

The article significantly lacks in coverage and the information provided is insufficient to adequately contextualize the subject.

b. (focused):

Lack of coherent structure results in numerous tangents, confusing an unfamiliar reader.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

Fails at least 3 criteria, which results in a quick fail.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.