Talk:Siege of Golconda

Neutral issues

The page mostly praises than the information it gives, and its more like a documentary full of praises to a particular thing or a person,and here we have to maintain a balanced article.The page had loads of spelling errors and errors like missing brackets,i tried to correct them and added a little bit more information and made it look more of official,if there are more mistakes or grammatical mistakes please help correct them. The article at many points does nothing but praise somebody,i removed some of the adjectives which were meant for nothing but to praise Mughals or their Qutubshahis.Yes i had to repeat a 'praising' thing again and again because its the only thing,along with some errors that ruin this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haider67 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

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

Nominator: Gowhk8 (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Image review

Source review

  • List all cited sources in section Bibliography following ABC order, and apply a citation style consequently.
  • Add the same information at each titles cited in the bibliography. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowhk8: when do you think you can address the above issues? Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the order to be alphabetical. What do you mean about the citation style? What do you mean by "add the same info at each title"? Gowhk8 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Compare references 3 and 5 in section "Citations". In section "Bibliography", the same info should be listed at each title. Compare them, and you will understand. Borsoka (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gowhk8:, any comments? Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Borsoka I believe I've corrected the image issue and citation style. Can you take a look and possibly reconsider for GA? Gowhk8 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I cannot promise to start a GA review within a month. Borsoka (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

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

Nominator: Gowhk8 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: OmegaAOL (talk · contribs) 08:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Quick fail. This article seems to be quite biased, and is structured like a narrative; although, it is pretty good in other aspects.

  • This may possibly be one of the most biased articles I have seen on Wikipedia. The siege was won only through treachery, betrayed the Sultanate etc. You cannot just use Wikivoice to call entire groups of people treacherous and evil and whatever.
  • I know for a fact that sole Islamic polity of the Indian subcontinent is wrong. All reliable sources say it is wrong. Your source says that it is right, so it is not a reliable source.
  • Needs minor copyediting, but the use of templates is excellent. You (the nominator) have put a lot of work into this article, and it shows. Good job.
  • It has good grammar, no spelling mistakes, et cetera; however, it reads like a fiction book; that is why 1A is neutral.
  • If you fix all of these issues up, this can very well be a Good Article.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Golconda