Talk:Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung

Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 26, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

India: History 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Article name

His name is spelled wrongly in this article...it should be spelled: Zulfiqar Ali Khan. 182.182.82.177 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011

It's now been moved from Zulfikhar Ali Khan to Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung. The names of this kind of article can be difficult, as there's different transliterations used in the sources, it's best to try and establish a consensus here before making any moves. FlagSteward (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gowhk8 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Prakashs27 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article has correct spelling and grammar, and can be understood to a broad audience.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead explains the general info pretty well. There aren't links to common words and no multilinks.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This article does have a reflist in accordance with the guidelines.
	2b. 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).	References are all from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Does not contain any original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Explains the article without unneccessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article meets all requirements necessary for Good Article status.

Comment: @Gowhk8 and Prakashs27: Where are we with this review? It looks like you meant to pass the article but didn't get around to it. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the lateness; will get to finishing it today. Thanks for the reminder! Prakashs27 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review is complete as of last night and the article is now a Good Article. Prakashs27 (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]