Talk:Bajirao I/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Delist, per the concerns raised above and my comments here. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, I was quite surprised that it was granted GA status. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

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)