Talk:Castella de Aguada/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Could you get a copy-editor from somewhere?

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   You need more than two sources to add 'meat' to this article. Surely there is more information on this fort somewhere? If this isn't expanded somewhat, I will have to fail it...just a random shot of why: what happened at the fort between 1534 and 1739?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose

• Overall: watch for when you switch between past and present text.
• Right at the beginning - "Castella de Aguada or the "Fort of the Waterpoint" (also known as the Bandra Fort)"
  • Totally redundant.
  • "Fort of the Waterpoint" should be capitalized as an alternate name per WP:BOLDTITLE
• "History" section, first para, third sentence: "It also controlled the northern sea route into Mumbai Harbour, a passage that is now reclaimed from the sea."
  • ...what? Just what was reclaimed by the sea?
• "History" section, second para, first sentence: "In 1739 the island was invaded by the Maratha Empire; it was ruled by them until 1761 when the British evicted them off the island after the Treaty of Bassein."
  • "Evicted"?
• "Conservation" section, first para, third sentence: "On the agenda were the brick arch of one of the gateways that was on the verge of collapse, and the foundation masonry of the fort wall that was in danger of being eroded by the sea."
  • "On the agenda"? No, switch that.
  • "Were" => "was" maybe?

I'm putting this on hold; as long as you are making an effort to improve the article, this GAN will not be closed. Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited the text and added a wee bit more. The book I bought "The Origins of Bombay" has a scant mention of the fort; unfortunately, that's one of the best sources on the history of the city that there is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's looking much better...but IMHO, it still needs more. :/ Were there any particularly notable military units that were stationed in the fort (maybe one that has an article on it online, and a short history of the time when the unit was in the fort?) If there is nothing else, I can't in good conscience pass this because it is obviously incomplete to me. :/ Sorry... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing Sewri Fort, and I am having the same problem with regard to coverage. There is a lack of detail. I've taken a look at other Mumbai fort articles and note that Mazagon Fort is also under review and failing for the same reason: Talk:Mazagon Fort. There doesn't appear to be a parent article that discusses all these forts, and that might be a way forward. Group them all together and make a detailed single article on the Mumbai forts, using summary style break outs for those forts which have greater information which can be covered in detail. If there isn't the information out there to cover these forts individually in detail it may be the case that they are not able to achieve Good Article status - but a parent article covering the m all just might do it. SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I give up then. I would have to probably do a PhD or write a book on the forts by visiting museums before I actually get enough meat on these articles for it to be comprehensive enough. The forts were too insignificant for long periods to merit published reports. List of forts in Mumbai has some sort of summary information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nichalp...

However, for what it's worth, those have got to be the most detailed entries on those forts that anyone has ever done, so many props to you for that. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Some good news: There is one Suman Tate at the museum that is researching on the forts. Maybe I could get more information there one day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and that is good news! If you do manage to get info from him some day, add it in, re-nom it at WP:GAN, and (if you want) leave me a note on my talk page - I'll review it again. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)