Talk:Hiroji Indulkar

GA Review

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:Hiroji Indulkar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 07:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ✗ Fail

2. Verifiable?: ✓ Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: ✗ Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: ✓ Pass

5. Stable?: ✓ Pass

6. Images?: ✓ Pass

Article is a long ways away from meeting criteria 3.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

I have added all the information I get from reliable sources. Please, review it again.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hiroji Indulkar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hoary (talk · contribs) 06:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The prose is somewhat awkward.

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

   The boldface of "There are two contemporary records of Hiroji's business and transaction activities:" doesn't square with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Unfortunately, the formatting of references counts for little when the sources being referenced are distinctly sub-standard.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   The sources are poor. Let's look at some of those cited. Vijay Joshi's Memories Revisited appears to be an e-book that's a self-published essay collection. "KONKAN & GOA COASTS" is a list of hits at Google Scholar. Maratha Generals and Personalities: A gist of great personalities of Marathas appears to be a self-published e-book. It is described by its author: "History student or a general reader is clue less [sic] about the background of the great people fighting from Maratha side .I have complied [sic] this book to give you a summary of all the personalities with mention of their contribution to key events in the History." All three of those are underwhelming. "Farzand (2018) - IMDb" is user-generated, so no. All four sources should be replaced; and perhaps other sources should too, but I think I've looked at and commented on enough for now.

   c. (OR):

   Not checked, because the average quality of the sources is so poor that even if they were cited faithfully, the citation would be of little or no value.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have no reason to suspect copyright violation or plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   We're told that "He is credited with building Raigad, the second capital of the Maratha Empire, and the sea fort of Sindhudurg. He was also entrusted with the construction of fort Pratapgad along with Moropant Pingle." Yet more is said about the placement of a tile with his name on it at Raigad Fort than the sum in this article of (i) material about his feats of architecture (or engineering, or whatever) at Raigad, and (ii) material about ditto at Sindhudurg Fort and (iii) material about ditto at Pratapgad. How were/are these forts different from their predecessors, or from forts attributed to Hiroji's contemporaries? We're not told. This article about an architect says remarkably little about the architecture attributed to the subject.

   b. (focused):

   If the "two contemporary records of Hiroji's business and transaction activities" show anything beyond the facts that he was alive and active in both 1675 and 1686, then I don't understand what this might be. The matter of who or what was involved in each transaction seems to me extraordinarily trivial compared with the man's architecture. I'm willing to believe that this information is not trivial; but if it isn't trivial then its significance should be pointed out.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It's stated that Hiroji was an architect, but so little is said about his architecture that there's little opportunity for bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   The sole image is relevant. But as the subject is an architect and buildings attributed to him are still standing, why no images of the buildings, in order to illustrate substantive text about Hiroji's strengths/weaknesses/tendencies (etc) as an architect?

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   From this article in its current state, Hiroji comes off as an architect about whose work there's very little that's worth saying. Unfortunately this makes it less like a B-class article (let alone a GA) than like a start-class article. Is there substantial literature (of architectural history, military history, or whatever) from academic or other reliable sources about Hiroji? If there isn't, then no recourse to self-published e-books and the like will ever bring this article near GA quality. But if there is, then the nominator (or of course any other editor) is welcome to make considerable improvements to this article. I doubt that this can be achieved within half a year, and urge any editor to think hard before prematurely nominating this a third time.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)