Bajirao I was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result July 13, 2020 Good article nominee Listed August 11, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted August 30, 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 18, 2018, August 18, 2021, April 28, 2023, April 28, 2024, and April 28, 2025. Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Biography / Asian / Indian / South Asia / Early Modern C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Biography: Military 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 This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). India: Maharashtra / History Low‑importance 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 WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indian history (assessed as Mid-importance).

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Baji Rao I/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article was recently accorded GA status by a somewhat prolific sockpuppet who clearly did not understand GA criteria. It is obvious from my recent edits that it fails even on basic issues, such as overlinks, inconsistent spellings, WP:MOSHEAD, WP:MOSDATE, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:RS. In addition, I think Abbasquadir was correct to tag for lack of focus etc and I note that they, too, have done some cleaning since the article was promoted. I further note the comment of Kingsif here regarding the likelihood of a quick fail if the article were nominated as of today.

Despite my efforts and those of others, there remain significant problems even among the issues I have specifically highlighted above. I note that I had to remove one quotation because it had three cites, all of which had different versions of what Baji Rao supposedly said - that suggests we may need to review every statement against the cited sources. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per the issues raised by Sitush. Clearly not GA standard at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, while I don't feel the article is overly detailed given its very specific topic, it is clear from an initial look that it could do with more work, including copyediting and a more sufficient lead (Criteria 1). Issues regarding sources raised are concerning. CMD (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, per the concerns raised above and my comments here. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, I was quite surprised that it was granted GA status. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome - clear consensus that the GA assessment by what turned out to be a sock was flawed and the article remains below GA standard. Delisting. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits are glorifying this personality, with utterly ridiculous non encyclopedic claims such as "Bajirao was a very tall and strikingly handsome man of fair complexion" have been added to the lead which are nowhere to be found in the body. Glorifying statements such as "Bajirao is considered the most charismatic and dynamic leader in Maratha history, next only to Shivaji" ,"Remembered among Marathas as the incarnation of Hindu energy" are not found in the body either. Consider working on the body first before stuffing lead with such contentious material. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the body then what is this BasedKashmiri tell; Tall height.png and Physical Appearance.png , Should I teach you how to navigate or what? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the quotations attached for charismatic and dynamic one in the sources attached. Besides for Remembered among Marathas as the incarnation of Hindu energy" are not found in the body part see it BasedwithouteyesKashmiri: He died, as he had. lived, in camp under canvas among his men; and he is remembered to this day among Mahrattas as the fighting Peshwa, as the incarnation of Hindu energy. His death, like that of his father, was premature, no doubt owing to ceaseless exposure undei it vicissitudes of a tropical climate.
His eldest son, Balaji Baji Rao, obtained the succession as third Peshwa in 1740. To prevent confusion, I shall abbreviate his name to Balaji. This is taken from Sivaji and rise of the Mahrattas available on archive. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not focusing. You are literally citing snippets from the sources that support the content, not the part where it is covered in the body (it isn't). You should where exactly is the content you have added to the lead is in the body. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying the snippet is from body part only. I posted it in order to save time else I had to write it what's the problem in it? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not understanding me, where exactly is this content in the body of this revision [1] ? You have only made edits to the lead. Consider reading WP:BODY & WP:LEAD too. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1.)Sentence added by me in last para: Bajirao was a very tall and strikingly handsome man of fair complexion. Here are quotations snippets already provided above: Bajirao grew up into a very tall, broad shouldered man and his father had hoped, strong as tiger. and Bajirao was a strikingly handsome man

2.) For this sentence: This victory made Marathas the greatest power in Deccan region and reduced Nizam to a tributary status under them. I already provided source above; supreme power in Deccan is mentioned on pg 20.I can't use same phrasing so used greatest power in place of supreme power.

3.) For incarnation of Hindu energy part it's in 4th para I wrote: Remember among the Marathas as an incarnation of Hindu energy, second part he is credited is in J.L. mehta have already attached the source and quotation go to the revision difference and see it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider familiarising yourself with the meaning of WP:BODY first. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with it and tell me how it affects the version which I wrote You in your first comment told you didn't find the text how you can see it now? Answer me that too or I assume you did a blind revert without even going through each line I added. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me if you have any other problem with info added else I am assuming you are fine with what I added. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The snippet part is from body only see the chapter Bajirao Emerges (on the front cover part chapter list is found) here is the book link: Baji Rao: The Warrior Peshwa - Google Books Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For supremacy part see Peshwa Bajirao I And Maratha Expansion by V.G. Dighe on Internet Archive; page 20 quoting: The Nizam's attempt to challenge Maratha supremacy in the Deccan was defeated in a decisive manner. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add for charismatic part too as I doubt you know how to navigate a link: Dighe V.G. Peshwa Bajirao I And Maratha Expansion pg (ix) quoting: Bajirao is looked upon as the greatest personality after Shivaji in Maratha history and the story of his career has an abiding interest. Plis achievements may be summed up as the establishment of Maratha supremacy in the Deccan and of political hegemony in the north. Let me provide you with an alternative source too: The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) pg 114 quoting:Balaji Vishwanath died in 1720. Against the objections of other ministers, Shahu appointed Balaji’s son, Bajirao. Here we meet, after Shivaji, the most charismatic and dynamic leader in Maratha history. He was only twenty years old and already had a reputation for rapid decisions and a passion for military adventure. Bajirao had been on the expedition to Delhi in 1719, and was convinced that the Mughal Empire was breaking up and could not resist a Maratha drive to the north into Malwa and beyond. This was the major theme of the next twenty years of his ceaseless military and administrative activity. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan Apologies for being rude that day.

1.) As per your concern of WP:BODY I have expanded the body section of the article. I have provided details of each and every part of what I previously added with sources (WP:RS) supporting them.

2.) After that I have added to the lead the previous info excluding the two-three points which you had concern with. I am waiting for further discussion here before adding those specific points. For charismatic one I have added the names of respective historians and just summarized it in a single line.

3.) I have also added new sections like "Response to Nader Shah's invasion" in body and mentioned the details there supported by multiple sources.

4.) I have worked on the info box battles/wars and added dates besides grouping them.

5.) I expanded the Legacy section along with Personal Life though specifically added more info in Military Campaigns and Wars sub-section of body.

6.) Also, taken care of WP:NPOV and avoided glorification terms.

•So, taking care of all yours concerns, I am making the edit. There might be problems in it but it's better to highlight them individually rather than reverting whole edit as I have significantly expanded the body section too (with reliable sources ofc). In case of a complete revert all info gets removed like last time so kindly take care of it. The current version has been checked by me for grammar, links and layout for which I did many minor edits.

Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jali na?the fights bw maratha an mughals were religious 103.172.73.23 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mohammad Umar Ali: This discussion is enough to justify why the article needs a POV tag because it reads like a fanpage.

You have used WP:RAJ era writers and unreliable sources for making misleading claims like Bajirao never lost a battle. You have used Hindu nationalist or pro-Marathi sources like R. C. Majumdar, Govind Sakharam Sardesai, and more for claiming that Bajirao is "credited with establishing the Marathas as the supreme power in the Indian subcontinent, displacing Mughal dominance".

Just from the lead , alone these are all puffery. Do not remove tags without consensus. The list of POV issues is of course longer. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 10:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see Koshuri was blocked from editing due to persistent violations + my last msg in which I clarified on every query he had to which he agreed last msg is by an IP. Now coming to your queries, credited with establishing the Marathas as the supreme power in the Indian subcontinent, displacing Mughal dominance, literally many citations have been provided by me

1.) Satish Chandra's Social Background to the Rise of the Maratha Movement During the 17th Century in India

2.) India and the Passing of Empire by George Dunbar etc. etc.

Also, more I am not citing everyone here just look at the sources attached at last line of first para.

Moreover Jadunath, Sardesai, etc. can be used on Wikipedia, provide me the policy or consensus where it's explicitly mentioned that these can't be used same case for the other point. Also what you are claiming to be POV is backed by sources you and I are no one to question the sources, either establish yourself a consensus about the authors until then your so-called bias can't be kept as the reason for adding that template. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assuming bad faith and see WP:AGF. Koshuri Sultan is not blocked from editing. Sardesai is a pro-Marathi source, and cannot be expected to offer a critical view about Maratha history. You are justifying your edits by citing George Dunbar which falls under WP:RAJ.

Just because you don't want the article to be tagged, it doesn't mean you should remove the tags. You should restore the POV tag because this article does read like a fanpage. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about Satish Chandra perfectly fine Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must quote Satish Chandra to show how this source supports your wording. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't look at page number and lines by yourself so see: The rise of a powerful Maratha movement during the 17th century and the emergence of Marathas as the most potent political entity in India by the end of first quarter of the 18th century, represents... [2] click on the link see the word most potent political entity by the end of first quarter of 18th century. Also all other sources used are also fine be it Dunbar, Jadunath, Mehta, etc. provide me the consensus on which your claim of them being unreliable is present Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weight is on you to verify the information from the source to justify your edits. You still haven't verified it. Your Jadunath Sarkar source is from 1935, while George Dunbar is a Raj era official, not a career historian. These sources cannot be used. See WP:RAJ (about which you have been told before as well). THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got Satish Chandra one Sardesai is also accepted and Sarkar (1991) is also used on Wikipedia your claim of it being completely inaccurate is nowhere to be found Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also cited Mehta (2005) and Majumdar (1977) for the same Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are falsifying the dating of Sarkar's works. He died in 1960 and scholarship has changed a lot since. G.S Sardesai is from the 1940s and his historiography is criticised for its nationalistic tendencies, you should refrain from citing such poor sources for this contentious subtopic. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited Satish Chandra even that is enough to add that info in article besides I'm telling Sarkar and Sardesai is also used you can't simply say they are wrong infact Sardesai is one of the most used sources on Maratha article. For that statement just look at Chandra Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Majumdar was a Hindu nationalist writer, he cannot be used here. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the statement just needs one source, I have told you multiple time about Satish Chandra he can perfectly be used here. See this too [3] pg 492 quoting; We have seen that the Marathas rather than the Persians or Afghans were the successors of the Mughuls as the holders of imperial power. I have also used Mehta(2005) etc. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of your filibustering and evasion of concerns regarding your use of several unreliable sources can be addressed just by naming Chandra. You still haven't quoted how Chandra supports your edits in turning this page into a fanpage. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh I literally quoted the Satish Chandra source and provided the link, [4] click on the link see the word most potent political entity by the end of first quarter of 18th century besides this one also, The Oxford History of India, Edited by Percival Spear,link here [5] quoting: We have seen that the Marathas rather than the Persians or Afghans were the successors of the Mughuls as the holders of imperial power, for "the credited with establishing the Marathas as the supreme power" line of the 1st para. And in the article those sources Sarkar and Majumdar havn't been used. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You quote "most potent political entity", but the source does not mention Bajirao. Vincent also does not mention Bajirao to have dominated the Mughal Empire. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

by the end of first quarter of 18th century that's 1725 so and did I mention just Bajirao I wrote "He is credited with" meaning he is also one of the contributors as he was Peshwa then (1720-1740) See Mehta for the same or Brittanica or Gordon (1600-1818) etc. besides Vincent mentions of Marathas being successors of the Mughals that is for that part supreme power Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough problems with the article that I opted to restore the last stable version. The article does look like a fancruft. Even your most recent edit is misrepresenting the sources. It makes no sense to think that all those about Marathas can be attributed to Bajirao, given how the sources themselves don't mention Bajirao. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so Bajirao had no role in it is what you wanna say didn't go through all the sources and discussion not read first quarter of 18th century who was the leader Peshwa? Gordon, Mehta all mentions it with name (look into it). Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own assumption and you are doing WP:OR. Absolutely anyone can agree that Bajirao did not rule the Maratha Confederacy entire 18th century. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 13:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing have been assumed by me, Read Mehta Pg 126 and Gordon, etc.

"He was one of the key contributors who played a significant role in helping the Marathas replace the Mughals as the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent." Sources in support of the statement: [31], [32], [33] Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have cited the page number for only Jaswant Lal Mehta and this source appears to be supporting that sentence, however I wonder if it can be trusted. The chapter reads nothing more than glorification, and the use of terms such as "great killers" for Mughals by Mehta does not seem to indicate if it is a reliable source on this subject. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]