Talk:Chittor Fort/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. The version I will be reviewing is this one, dated 2010-02-21, and any subsequent changes will not form part of the review. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final review

I have assessed the article against the six good article criteria, and commented in detail below:

1. Writing:

(a) Prose

• The Devanagari script at the beginning of the article reads Chittor Qila but the transliteration mentions it to be Chittorgarh Qila.
• The prose is unclear at numerous places:

• Guhilot redirects to Sisodia, the intention behind using both in the first paragraph of the lead (and the History section) is unclear.
• Phrases like an evocative history (lead, first paragraph) and all of which are narrated (History section, opening paragraph) do not convey any specific meaning in the context in which they are used.
• Two conflicting sentences in the History section about the origins of the fort (establishment by/gift to Bappa Rawal), neither is sourced.
• The introductory paragraph of the History section suggests that the fort was established in 734 AD, the subsequent paragraph goes on to mention the capture of a kingdom in 540 AD. What is the connection?
• There is a gap in the history of the fort between the eighth and the thirteenth centuries AD.
• The first mention of Rana Sanga's battle with Babur in the Rana Kumbha and clan subsection is out of place w.r.t. the chronology followed in the rest of the paragraph.

• The following sentences are ambiguous (ambiguities in brackets):

• This was subsequently seized by a new dynasty of kshatriyas (What was seized - the fort or the kingdom?)
• Bappa Rawal was the most conspicuous leader in the lineage of Prithvi Raj (Which Prithviraj? Disambiguation required.)
• she sent 700 well armed soldiers disguised in litters (Litters redirects to litter - were the soldiers disguised in garbage?)
• As a frightful revenge, Khilji killed thirty thousand Hindus. (Where? In the fort or across the kingdom?)
• Hammir Singh, usurped control of the fort from Maldeva by “treachery and intrigue” (Who was Hammir Singh? How did he usurp the fort? Provide some context.)
• He built 32 forts (84 fortresses formed the defense of Mewar) including one in his own name, called Kumbalgarh. (How is this relevant to the subject at hand?)
• small areas of the Delhi territory (What is meant by this? Delhi by itself is a very small territory.)
• Rana Jai Singh, on the advice of his council of advisors, decided to go away from Chittor to the hills of Udaipur. (Who was Rana Jai Singh? The paragraph earlier mentions Udai Singh to be the ruler of Chittor at that time.)
• The final sacking of Chittor came 33 years later, in 1558, (The rest of the paragraph mentions the siege having taken place in 1567-68. The relevance of the year 1558 is not clear.)
• The Lokota Bari is the gate at the fort’s northern tip, while a small opening that was used to hurl criminals into the abyss is seen at the southern end. (The first line of the previous paragraph indicates the presence of only seven gates, which do not include these two - the inconsistency needs to be corrected.)
• The Stamba is now illuminated during the evenings and gives a beautiful view. (View of what - the surroundings of the fort? Or is the sentence intended to mean that the tower is beautiful to view when illuminated?)

• To maintain consistency, either the metric or the imperial system should be used for primary units of measurement throughout the article, with the other system being used as a secondary unit throughout.
• Explanation of terms like Kirti Stambha, tirthankar etc. in parentheses is not required if the terms are wikilinked.
• At the entrance gate near the Vijaya Stamba, Rana Kumbha's palace (in ruins), the oldest monument, is located. This sentence is grammatically flawed and needs restructuring.

(b) Manual of style

• Lead: The lead is generally satisfactory, although a brief summary of the pre-16th century history of the fort would be appropriate. Also, the concluding paragraph of the lead is not explained or elaborated on anywhere in the main body of the article.
• Layout:

• The Geography section could be moved to just before the Precincts section, to provide continuity in the narrative. Likewise, the Legend section could be moved to just before the History section, or even merged into it.
• The subsections Fateh Prakash Palace and Gaumukh Palace should be merged into the subsection on Other sights, unless it is possible to expand each to at least a paragraph.
• The Access section is unnecessary and might be better off located in the Chittorgarh article.

• Words to avoid: Peacock terms and weasel words such as the following should be avoided.

• the best in the state of Rajasthan (According to whom?)
• spectacular palaces, gates, temples and two impressive commemoration towers (Words in bold must be deleted.)
• quintessence of tribute (What does this mean?)
• treachery and intrigue (What does this mean?)
• medieval dictates of chivalry (What were these dictates?)

2. Sourcing:

(a) References

• The references used are unsatisfactory for a GA-standard article. There are several issues with the references:

• Why is a tourist guide used as a source for a majority of the historical information in the article, when there are several better sources - including books written by historians - available? Being a tertiary source, its use should be restricted to providing a general overview of the fort, not for discussing a detailed history.
• Ishwari Prasad's book, published in 1931, might not be the best available source for up-to-date information, particularly when research has been carried out and books published subsequently. Also, full details of the book are not mentioned - the {{cite book}} template is better for this purpose than the {{cite web}} template. further, why are paragraph numbers cited when they do not seem to occur in the original book?

• How are the following websites reliable sources?

• http://www.saigan.com/
• http://www.udaipur.org.uk/
• http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/

(b)&(c) In-line citations and original research

• While citations have been used throughout the article, they seem to be clustered at the ends of paragraphs. It would be more appropriate to place them within the paragraphs, specifically after facts or figures that require references, failing which some of them could be tagged as original research.

3. Broadness:

(a) Topic coverage

• The history of the fort seems to end in 1568 (although its return by Jahangir and the renovation in 1905 are mentioned in a sentence). This could be briefly elaborated on, with a few details about why the fort was returned and the details of the subsequent renovation nearly three centuries later). ::*In the alternative, a section or subsection on the modern history and use of the fort (as a tourist destination, place of recreation etc.) could be added to the article.

(b) Focus: The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. Neutrality: The article seems to represent viewpoints fairly and without bias, although (as pointed out above) the sources for some of the claims need to be verified.

5. Stability: The article has not changed significantly from day to day or been the subject of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Images:

(a) Copyright status: All images are tagged with their copyright status.

(b) Relevance and captioning

• There seem to be too many pictures of the two towers within the fort, which make some of the images seem repetitive. These could be replaced by images from other parts of the fort.
• The gallery at the end of the article seems unnecessary as per the relevant guideline. It could be dismantled and the images redistributed throughout the article.

As a result of the above, I am unfortunately compelled to fail the article since in my opinion, it requires a lot of rewriting and thorough copyediting, and more importantly better sourcing, which could take some time to be addressed thoroughly. I would suggest you look out for better references, especially history books, and use them in the article, duly replacing the existing sources.

If you believe that I have applied the fail criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list it on the Good article reassessment page for discussion by other GA reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to address the issues raised above and then renominate the article on the Good article nominations page. Please also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to make changes as per review comments. I, therefore, request that the GA review may be kept on hold for two weeks. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing as above. 450 years of history are missing!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)