This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Taj Mahal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Taj Mahal was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Srd1212 (
article contribs).
The article has multiple 'citation needed' tags. A few citations are lacking some parameters. Further, the article does not adequately describe (Hindutva) hatred towards the monument. Historical detailing related to its construction fails to provide enough context. DTM ( talk) 11:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Taj Mahal has a mosque on its grounds, has Quranic scripture on its walls, and is a tomb for Muslim royalty. As such, especially the first point, I believe the info box should list its affiliation as Islam or Sunni Islam, and the info box should be made green. Thoughts on this?
There is a huge autopromo message from a banned user, we could get rid off. Обмен ( talk) 15:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
In the paragraph on the origin of words, what is the relationship with Persian?
What is the relationship between Persian? The two words are Arabic. Then why is there a common origin, Arabic and Persian, even though there is no such thing in the first place? 109.107.251.106 ( talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Magentic Manifestations ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: PearlyGigs ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Magentic Manifestations. I'll do this review. There is a GAN backlog drive this month. Hope to have some feedback soon. PearlyGigs ( talk) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I've looked through the list of sources and have no immediate questions, so I'll move on to the required spot-checks. I'm starting with six statements taken in no particular order:
the raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar, promised to Muhammad(my italics). Begley's meaning is different and the article does not reflect what the source says.
Of the six statements chosen for the required spot-checks, four are completely unverified and one is partially verified. The sixth requires confirmation of seven specific points and it is already apparent that the article does not include the source's opening and, presumably, most salient argument.
WP:GACR states unambiguously that an article may be failed without further review if, prior to the review it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
. The second criterion is that all sources must be
verifiable, but none of the six chosen for spot-check can be fully verified. I have to conclude that the article is "a long way from meeting
GACR #2" and I am therefore closing this review with
WP:GAFAIL.
A lot more work will be needed before this article is ready for WP:GAN and, in particular, all citations need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose. PearlyGigs ( talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Magentic Manifestations, you have raised several points and I'll answer them individually where practical.
First, you say the "review seems to have been done in a haste". Can we just be clear that the review was not actually "done". I applied WP:GAFAIL at an early stage of the process because, as I said above, the article is a long way from meeting WP:V on the basis of the spot-check findings. If you read point 1 of WP:GAN/I#R3, you will see that the reviewer must first read the article and check the sources. I did that and I commented above that I had no immediate questions about any of the sources, so I would move on to the spot-checks.
R3/1 emphasises: This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers
. As for taking a sample, I tried to be as random as possible by thinking of six numbers from 1 to 102. In a couple of cases, I had to combine two citations, as with FN 10 and 11 in the first sample statement. Note that R3/1 includes the word "verify" and that
GACR #2 insists on
WP:V. Within WP:V, you find
WP:BURDEN which states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material
. It goes on to say that the cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article
and, further, there must be an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material
. The term "directly supports" is unambiguous – it means the source directly supports a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (see the footnote on WP:V).
So, the purpose of the spot-checks is to ascertain that each citation is verified or is at least verifiable – if the source is offline, then I would need confirmation that it does directly support the material. Having selected my sample of six statements for the spot-checks, I listed them and proceeded to carry out the verification checks. Lets take each one in turn and consider your comments about them.
As regards your response to Thebiguglyalien:
For FN 102, the net result was based on that it was not verifiable. No, it was not. I requested confirmation as agreed by Thebiguglyalien. Perhaps you would like to provide copies of the relevant sentences in Dixon so that we can read what he actually wrote about Keene, Austen, Tavernier, etc.?
Shall we look at
Talk:Ken Anderson (animator)/GA1 for a moment and see how you do spot-checks when reviewing? The first thing to be said is that your sample is nearly at the bottom of the review when it is supposed to be the first thing done after the initial readthrough and you are supposed to satisfy the spot-check requirement before proceeding to the main part of the review. You say Random ref check: 21, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75 all seem good. All refs seem good
. You have not outlined the statements you are checking which would help anyone reading the review. The first one, FN 21, supports: "Anderson further contributed by creating layouts and conceptual sketches for the Someday My Prince Will Come dream sequence; however, it was ultimately cut during the storyboarding phase". The source is Canemaker 1996, pp. 172–173. This links to a 1996 book by John Canemaker listed in the bibliography. There is no online link so the book is offline and we need confirmation from the nominator that the citation directly supports the material. You have not asked for confirmation and you say that all the sample refs "seem good". Do you have a copy of John Canemaker's book yourself, perhaps? If not, why haven't you requested confirmation?
Finally, you ended your repsonse to Thebiguglyalien with It is nowhere close to quick fail criteria based on your explanation
. Are you even aware of what GAFAIL actually says? Given that verification is the most important of the six GACR requirements, failure to fully satisfy even one of the spot-check sample is a clear indication of citation issues. In the words of GAFAIL, An article may be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review, it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
. The spot-checks show that this article is a long way from meeting the requirements of
WP:V, one of the site's key policies. I therefore stand by my decision to quick-fail the article.
PearlyGigs (
talk)
13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Taj Mahal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Taj Mahal was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Srd1212 (
article contribs).
The article has multiple 'citation needed' tags. A few citations are lacking some parameters. Further, the article does not adequately describe (Hindutva) hatred towards the monument. Historical detailing related to its construction fails to provide enough context. DTM ( talk) 11:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Taj Mahal has a mosque on its grounds, has Quranic scripture on its walls, and is a tomb for Muslim royalty. As such, especially the first point, I believe the info box should list its affiliation as Islam or Sunni Islam, and the info box should be made green. Thoughts on this?
There is a huge autopromo message from a banned user, we could get rid off. Обмен ( talk) 15:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
In the paragraph on the origin of words, what is the relationship with Persian?
What is the relationship between Persian? The two words are Arabic. Then why is there a common origin, Arabic and Persian, even though there is no such thing in the first place? 109.107.251.106 ( talk) 17:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Magentic Manifestations ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: PearlyGigs ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Magentic Manifestations. I'll do this review. There is a GAN backlog drive this month. Hope to have some feedback soon. PearlyGigs ( talk) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I've looked through the list of sources and have no immediate questions, so I'll move on to the required spot-checks. I'm starting with six statements taken in no particular order:
the raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar, promised to Muhammad(my italics). Begley's meaning is different and the article does not reflect what the source says.
Of the six statements chosen for the required spot-checks, four are completely unverified and one is partially verified. The sixth requires confirmation of seven specific points and it is already apparent that the article does not include the source's opening and, presumably, most salient argument.
WP:GACR states unambiguously that an article may be failed without further review if, prior to the review it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
. The second criterion is that all sources must be
verifiable, but none of the six chosen for spot-check can be fully verified. I have to conclude that the article is "a long way from meeting
GACR #2" and I am therefore closing this review with
WP:GAFAIL.
A lot more work will be needed before this article is ready for WP:GAN and, in particular, all citations need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose. PearlyGigs ( talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Magentic Manifestations, you have raised several points and I'll answer them individually where practical.
First, you say the "review seems to have been done in a haste". Can we just be clear that the review was not actually "done". I applied WP:GAFAIL at an early stage of the process because, as I said above, the article is a long way from meeting WP:V on the basis of the spot-check findings. If you read point 1 of WP:GAN/I#R3, you will see that the reviewer must first read the article and check the sources. I did that and I commented above that I had no immediate questions about any of the sources, so I would move on to the spot-checks.
R3/1 emphasises: This must include a spot-check of a sample of the sources in the article to verify that each source supports the text in the article that it covers
. As for taking a sample, I tried to be as random as possible by thinking of six numbers from 1 to 102. In a couple of cases, I had to combine two citations, as with FN 10 and 11 in the first sample statement. Note that R3/1 includes the word "verify" and that
GACR #2 insists on
WP:V. Within WP:V, you find
WP:BURDEN which states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material
. It goes on to say that the cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article
and, further, there must be an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material
. The term "directly supports" is unambiguous – it means the source directly supports a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source (see the footnote on WP:V).
So, the purpose of the spot-checks is to ascertain that each citation is verified or is at least verifiable – if the source is offline, then I would need confirmation that it does directly support the material. Having selected my sample of six statements for the spot-checks, I listed them and proceeded to carry out the verification checks. Lets take each one in turn and consider your comments about them.
As regards your response to Thebiguglyalien:
For FN 102, the net result was based on that it was not verifiable. No, it was not. I requested confirmation as agreed by Thebiguglyalien. Perhaps you would like to provide copies of the relevant sentences in Dixon so that we can read what he actually wrote about Keene, Austen, Tavernier, etc.?
Shall we look at
Talk:Ken Anderson (animator)/GA1 for a moment and see how you do spot-checks when reviewing? The first thing to be said is that your sample is nearly at the bottom of the review when it is supposed to be the first thing done after the initial readthrough and you are supposed to satisfy the spot-check requirement before proceeding to the main part of the review. You say Random ref check: 21, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75 all seem good. All refs seem good
. You have not outlined the statements you are checking which would help anyone reading the review. The first one, FN 21, supports: "Anderson further contributed by creating layouts and conceptual sketches for the Someday My Prince Will Come dream sequence; however, it was ultimately cut during the storyboarding phase". The source is Canemaker 1996, pp. 172–173. This links to a 1996 book by John Canemaker listed in the bibliography. There is no online link so the book is offline and we need confirmation from the nominator that the citation directly supports the material. You have not asked for confirmation and you say that all the sample refs "seem good". Do you have a copy of John Canemaker's book yourself, perhaps? If not, why haven't you requested confirmation?
Finally, you ended your repsonse to Thebiguglyalien with It is nowhere close to quick fail criteria based on your explanation
. Are you even aware of what GAFAIL actually says? Given that verification is the most important of the six GACR requirements, failure to fully satisfy even one of the spot-check sample is a clear indication of citation issues. In the words of GAFAIL, An article may be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review, it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
. The spot-checks show that this article is a long way from meeting the requirements of
WP:V, one of the site's key policies. I therefore stand by my decision to quick-fail the article.
PearlyGigs (
talk)
13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)