Talk:Golconda diamonds

Some other non reliable sources

[1]

Up to 100.00 people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.79.85 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• 1a : related to Shantidas Jhaveri and Khushalchand, no I deliberately kept it, as khushalchad donnot have separate WP page, and if we keep the name without WL, then we will have to add some intro about Khushalchand, which will lengthened this article. And thanks for your c/e. :)

Omer123hussain (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Legends

Legends? What legends? It looks like someone put in legends which were then deleted and title remains? Ptilinopus (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What goes on in Hyderabad . . .

@Omer123hussain: you made [this] change. There is already a bunch of WP:UNSOURCED assertions in this article. More are not needed. I do not see how it is known where the diamonds were prepared for market. Also words like "cut", "polished" and "evaluated" are common words that do not need to be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. And the link for polish goes to Brilliant (diamond cut) and evaluated goes to Diamonds_as_an_investment#Pricing_formula. These are WP:EASTEREGG links and do not improve the article. Lastly Diamantaire is WP:JARGON for a diamond cutter, the more common name and should not be used. I am sorry to seem hypercritical, but what are you trying to achieve with this edit? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth: You reverted without discussion. Anyway i linked those for more clarity to the readers about diamond market, for instance "evaluated" it is not commonly know how diamonds are evaluated. Thus readers will get basic idea thru links about what exactly was the market based in Hyderabad. Same goes with cut and polishing.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Links like that could go in the See also section. Diamonds as an investment does not address pricing in 16th century Hyderabad. Diamond mining in India has more historic information, but also belongs in the See also section. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Much OR, we need scholarly sources

I share the concerns of Richard-of-Earth. Further, we need WP:HISTRS sources here. Diamonds have attracted much scholarship, and peer reviewed scholarship should be summarized here for history, rather than questionable newspapers, blogs, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

List of travellers

• Morcopolo

• Nicole De conti

• Asthanasius Nikitin, Russia 1468-72

• Lewes Uertomannus, Italy

• Gorcia da orta, spain/Portugal 1534-65

• Fernao Nuniz, Portugal 1535-37

• Jan huyghen linschoten Holland 1588-89

• Jacques de coutre Holland 1611-18

• William Method Britain 1618-22

• Jean Baptiste Tavernier France 1665-69

• Henry Howard Britain 1677

• Bernier France

list of imp images

• [File:Collier's new encyclopedia - a loose-leaf and self-revising reference work with 515 illustrations and ninety-six maps (1921) (14777426782).jpg Collier's new encyclopedia] Omer123hussain (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nolabob (talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have volunteered to review the Golconda diamonds article and intend to complete the review in a timely manner and in accord with the GA criteria. I have a generally favorable impression of the article. As a preliminary, I have evaluated the article with the ORES tool, which yielded a satisfactory result. See the detailed review below, which is updated as the review progresses and as further revisions to the article occur. Nolabob (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is now much better and of suitable quality.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article now appears to comply with manual of style guidelines. However, see 1a above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	These are well-done.
	2b. 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).	The article has a large number of in-line citations from reliable sources, which is definitely an attribute of this article. I have completed a spot check of the citations and concluded that these are suitable (now that the nominator has made appropriate corrections). Since I did find a couple of errors in a spot check, I encourage the nominator to conduct their own spot check of the citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no evidence for original research in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicated no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Scope of coverage is now satisfactory.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The focus of the article is appropriate. However, see comment in 3a.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The viewpoint is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article history indicates that it is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images in the article are all public domain from the Wikimedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The nominator has satisfactorily addressed the concern about the images, and the infobox is sufficient as is.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article now fully meets the GA criteria.

Appreciate your keen sense of review and will do my best to make the recommended corrections by the reviewer.

• 1b Cleared multiple WL, and some of those which are very useful for readers and are permissible or allowed as per MOS are kept in both lead and body. :)

• 6b Added infobox with a map, can you help to arrange location syntax. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox with the map is a very good upgrade. Thanks for that. Nolabob (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1a Done as suggested removed the last sentence and shifted the legend to the appropriate section.

• 3a Done created a separate section to address the mining and trading details, hope the grammar is correct. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Omer123hussain Just to let you know, I much appreciate the excellent revisions you are making on this article. Nolabob (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nolabob thanks for your appreciation, hope the current article covers good detail about the topic. As I am not a native speaker of the English language so please have a thorough grammar check, especially for the latest edits. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Omer123hussain Please address items 1a and 3a above. I believe this article is much improved. Once you address these two items, I can complete the review. Nolabob (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nolabob, the article looks more comprehensive with a very well-established tone. Thanks for your c/e efforts

1a Done shifted "Idols Eye Diamond" from Legend to section Notable diamonds.

1a Done Specified the legend by Marco Polo.

1a Done legend of Koh-i-Noor looks more clear and simple.

3a Done Created a new section "Mining" and explained the depleted story.

I hope all the recommendations are fulfilled.  :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Omer123hussain Thank you for all your hard work and diligence on this high quality article. It is an interesting subject. Nolabob (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nolabob:; Thanks for your review and patience, it is one of the most civilized reviews I've participated in, best of luck with your further reviews.  :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you. Just for your interest, you might look at my own user page to see a list of some of the articles that I have originated and others for which I have made significant contribution. All the best in the future, Nolabob (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that this review has been overturned after many problems with the article were found in the DYK review and afterwards. See the "GA removed" section at the talk page. Fram (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Hope Diamond is one of Golconda diamonds.

• ... that the Golconda diamonds mined in the Deccan region, was the only known source of diamonds for 2000 years until the 17th century?

or

• ALT1: ... that the 16th and 17th centuries were the peak period of the Golconda diamond industry, with 23 mines in the region—it produced diamonds for 2000 years until the 17th Century? Source: multiple references cited in the article.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Omer123hussain (talk). Self-nominated at 10:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC).

• Comment only: This article might benefit from some more copyediting. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII thanks for your c/e, and furthermore while FA reviews a lot of c/e sessions will have. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omer123hussain (talk • contribs) 07:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not a review, but just a note that if you want this to run with an image it needs to be one that appears in the article (see Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Images) - Dumelow (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article: - Picture does not appear within the article
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nomination would pass if the picture is removed. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

... or if it was added to the article :) I have done just that, @CSJJ104. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: The picture is now in the article, but the caption used in the article contains information about the relationship between the Hope Diamond and the French Blue which is uncited within the article. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

True, I have added some sources and a word that hopefully signifies we are only 99.9% sure that they are related. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

All issues addressed. Happy to pass nomination. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Reopening after the nomination was pulled from prep by Vanamonde; see WT:DYK#Golconda diamonds for more information. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but what in the world is meant by Although the Golconda mines have been depleted since 1830, they hold value as antique gemstones? Mines are not gemstones. And how can it possibly be that Several literary legends were inspired by the Golconda diamonds and mines. These include such examples as the gem lore of the Priestly breastplate from the Old Testament -- you're saying the O.T. somehow references a mine in India? And later we have Further the author describes that it was first cited in the 4th-century treatise of St Epiphanius (of Cyprus), as Gem lore, the Breastplate of the high priest of the Temple from Old Testament, and it was finally derived from Herodotus—430 BC -- the meaning of which utterly escapes me. What the hell is going on here? EEng 19:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, seeing these sentences singled out I am wondering... @Nolabob and Omer123hussain: I think the GA review was not thorough enough on criterium 1a especially, even though the article does look good in other regards. Pinging also @CSJJ104 as the DYK nom reviewer. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Adding to EENg's point, which was what prompted me to pull yesterday rather than tweak the hook myself; there is content in the lead about some exceptional diamonds (Florentine Yellow, Akbar Shah, etc) that isn't cited, and isn't in the body. This is a fairly basic verifiability issue, and lacking citations, it should have been caught at GAR; it didn't need a spotcheck. I don't want to dump too much on the nominator before they've had a chance to respond, but we should note this isn't a problem just for DYK. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I understand there are some grammatical mistakes, as a non-native speaker we could not make deep corrections, but you may find the rest of the article is very well cited, neutral, with images applied and covered the topic. In fact, after your all support to copyedit it now look more meaningful. Hope it may reach DYK. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Omer123hussain: I appreciate the difficulties a non-native speaker of English may face. There are many places where you can find support with things that you find difficult, such as GOCE, who can help you with copy-editing, or the WP:TEAHOUSE, where new editors can ask for assistance. However, you need to be able to understand and respond when people point out issues with your work, like I did above. I listed a specific instance of content that fails WP:V, and EEng pointed to a sentence that is just incorrect. You haven't fixed any of that. How do you expect the article to be featured at DYK without fixing those issues? Vanamonde (Talk) 08:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: thanks for your advise and reply, this weekend I was traveling, so could not check WP inbox, anyway I will make all corrections recommended by you and update you here. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Dear reviewers, I had fixed and responded to all the suggestions, and made some c/e, due to WL of Diamond names that are not much discussed in articles I had escaped citing-anyway now it is fixed by citing. Hope we can proceed with DYK now. :)Omer123hussain (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Omer123hussain:, thanks, the citation issue has been addressed. However, there are still issues with the prose. I'm not demanding that you handle it yourself, given that English isn't your first language, but if you cannot, you need to ask for help from people you can. I already suggested GOCE as one venue; another might be WT:INB, where a more experienced editor may be willing to rewrite the prose. I am not personally willing to promote this as it stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also like to ping @Nolabob again. Not because I want to accuse you of negligence, but because I want to point out that these issues were present in the article you reviewed and likely escaped your attention. It almost got promoted here as well, because at a glance the article looked fine, when in detail, there were clear errors present. In the future, you might need to be more thorough with the prose itself when doing GA reviews. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• On an unrelated note, the image is a computer-generated simulation of a reconstructed earlier form of what was later cut into the Hope diamond, not a photo and not of the diamond as it appears now. We should not combine it with a caption that suggests it to be an actual image of the Hope diamond. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• @David Eppstein: Indeed, I raised this question back when the nom was still in prep. The information in the article is correct (after I researched a bit on the image), but that it was presented incorrectly in the caption here earlier is another of those several mistakes that have been found. I suggest Computer reconstruction of the French Blue, previous form of the Hope diamond or something similar. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• It's been almost a month since the last comments here. Are there any updates on the status of this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Note that, due to issues listed here and more issues I listed at the article talk page, I have removed the GA status from this article, as the GA review clearly wasn't up to standards. Accordingly, this DYK nom should be closed as the requirement of being a GA is no longer met. Fram (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Closing. Factual accuracy issues do not appear to have been resolved. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

GA removed

@Nolabob:, I have removed GA status from this article, as it was far from the required level. I'll list some issues, other ones have already been raised at the DYK nomination by others.

" In the 1940s and 1950s, the De Beers advertising campaign "Diamonds are a girl's best friend", coupled with the accessorising of diamonds by elite society and celebrities, popularised Golconda diamonds (and diamonds generally) among society (standardising their use in engagement rings) and the fashion industry, which helped to boost the economic value of the diamond industry. "

Resolved

Total nonsense. "Diamond's are a girl's best friend" was not the De Beers slogan ("A diamond is forever" was), and De Beers didn't promote the exhausted Indian Golconda diamonds, why would they? De Beers popularized diamonds, of course, but mainly their own, not a group of 100+ years old diamonds they had no financial interest in.

Resolved

It was added by some random editor, anyway restored to my previous version but do not abuse our hard work.

It's a marketing strategy, which will ultimately benefit to increase the auction price of Golconda diamonds. Anyway, I also don't like to name any company, you might notice it in my edits. In fact it was added by other users.

"During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers and treasured as gemstones—believed to be a gift from God for mankind, and owning them was a sign of supremacy." Source? That diamonds were "treasured as gemstones" is superfluous of course, but the remainder needs a good source.

Resolved

Will be added soon, to make it light and simple I was avoiding bulk sources. Nothing is superfluous because it was during ancient times when there was no Wikipedia, so people used to think this all.

"Some diamonds are considered to have supernatural powers and were worn as amulet or talisman" Well, the source indicates that Indians in the 19th century thought that all jewellery and gemstones had these characteristics, not just "some diamonds".

Resolved

rephrased the purpose of this sentence is to add the story of "Shah Jahan diamond".

Will be added soon.

"Golconda diamonds were popularized in the Middle East and the Western world by some of the 15th and 16th-century travelers and traders such as Niccolò de' Conti, Muhammad al-Idrisi, Marco Polo, and Jean-Baptiste Tavernier." Muhammad al-Idrisi is 12th century, Marco Polo is 13th century, and Tavernier is 17th century: only Conti is 15th, and none of them are 16th century...

Resolved

This is something good error you detected. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds" is sourced to a 1817 source, perhaps we need something slightly more recent to make such claims?

Resolved

"The Golconda diamonds are the world's most magnificent diamonds, and count less than two percent of the world’s natural diamonds." Nope, the source claims Golconda diamonds are often type IIa, and type IIa diamonds account for less than 2% of all diamonds. How many of the IIa actually come from Golconda is unclear. Almost all any way rephrased and

Resolved

"making the legendary name "Golconda diamond" synonymous with Golconda itself"? Not clear what is meant here.

Resolved

"In the 15th century Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India and 16th century Golconda Sultanate's new port at Machilipatnam had unfolded the region along with the Golconda diamond market for the European traders, it serves in the favor of both the trader's and the miner's economical values and ultimately affects the increase of Golconda diamond production." Long-winded, unclear sentence, things like "it serves in the favor of" and so on really don't belong in a GA.

Resolved

" In the early 1900s private companies such as Cartier, De Beers and Van Cleef & Arpels created monopolies in their expertise in the jewellery trade-(particularly diamond), post World War II and post-Indian Independence, most of the cash-strapped governments and princely rulers came to an end—making them sell their jewels (that also consist of Golconda diamonds) which were later auctioned, and due to royal lineage, its mystical tales and advertising campaigns by these companies, the Golconda diamonds become the status reference globally making it exorbitant worth treasuring" Not really, no. This again references the De Beers ads, which had nothing to do with Golconda, and the sources also reference the "De Beers" diamond in the Patiala Necklace, which is not a Golconda diamond at all.

"According to Folklore some diamonds are alleged to be cursed, impart good luck to their owners, and possess Mystical powers while some diamonds can be worn as Talisman." Capitalization!

Resolved

These are just some obvious issues, I haven't checked all text or all sources to find more issues. The article needs a thorough rewrite and doublecheck before a new GA review can be started. Fram (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume it's not a professional act of yours, without coming to a consensus you remove the GA tag, I am restoring it and coming to a consensus first on the talk page, and your concerns will be answered meanwhile. Furthermore, the article is under peer review so definitely it will expand and some errors may occur that is the purpose we need a GOCE review, but it doesn't mean it is a bad article. It takes a lot of effort for every article, you can't simply keep removing and deleting our hard work, in fact now I feel like you had taken something personally and tried to bully my work. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

A brand new GA should not need GOCE review, obviously. It also isn't the purpose that some errors may occur, where did you get that idea? I didn't say it is a bad article, but not being a "Good Article" in Wikipedia speak doesn't make it a bad article. No hard work has been removed, the article isn't any worse without the GA tag. Fram (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if you corrected and sourced things slowly, instead of making things worse by rushing. For example, you completely manged the "De Beers" sentence in the lead by removing just that part, it isn't really a sentence any longer now. And you tried sourcing "During the ancient and medieval period, the Golconda diamonds were reserved for the Emperors and rulers" to this, which says "The most beautiful stones discovered in Golconda were always reserved for kings and rulers ". This is not the same claim, and seems to match a mistake made throughout the article. While some of the Golconda diamonds are among the best, biggest, ... diamonds ever found, the article makes it sound as if all Golconda diamonds are these exceptional big whoppers, while most of them were small, typical, good but unexceptional diamonds used in jewellery by all kinds of people with some money: these diamonds were not "reserved for the Emperors and rulers" at all. Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and appreciate your concerns, this all will be filtered during GOCE, and FA process, I urge you kindly discuss this on the talk page, before making any major changes to the article structure. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have not made any "major changes to the article structure", no idea what you are talking about. This article needs GOCE and much more, you shouldn't be thinking about FA yet when it isn't at GA level. Please, you are not a neutral editor here and shouldn't restore the GA tag or remove the other tags as you aren't objective or neutral. Fram (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

An edit like this makes the article less factual, not better. Again, please slow down and make sure that what you edit is better, is sourced, is factual. You don't need to rush these things, but please try to get it right. Fram (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As informed above, it was from some random editor, you may see here the text what he/she had removed is my work- so after correcting in the main body I don't what to change it to the previous version. Even though I don't want to make this article a fairytale, on the other side these all are recorded in regional languages. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No idea what you are trying to say here ("on the other side these all are recorded in regional languages."?), but in the edit I show, you readd the claim that De Beers (well, some ad campaign they did) popularized Golconda diamonds, without any evidence for this, as if the Golconda diamonds, of which no new supply was available then for 100+ years, somehow became fashionable and typically used in engagement rings after this. In reality, De Beers, the major supplier of new diamonds, made diamonds again more popular after WW2, increasing demand for their supply. Independently, Marilyn Monroe, wearing a Golconda diamond, also made diamonds in general more popular. But somehow the article makes from this that De Beers made Golconda diamonds more popular. This is not stated or even implied in the sources given. Fram (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have removed the GA template again, and closed the DYK. Omer, you need to take the concerns we have expressed here seriously. I found factual inaccuracies and sourcing issues at DYK, and after you said you had fixed them Fram found a lot more. You need to check all the content in this article, whether or not you added it yourself, before considering GA status. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Have you checked the article content during DYK and now, it has changed and expanded enormously? so obviously there will be errors and I am working on them to improve. Tell me one simple thing do you remove GA tag from any article which does have similar issues as this article? I can point you to a list of GA/FA articles that have more senseless errors but still exist. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, actually, I've been responsible for revoking FA or GA status from a number of articles. Also, errors existing elsewhere does not excuse them here, and most fundamentally, "obviously there will be errors" is really not a good attitude to have when writing content. There is no reason why content you added recently should have any errors in; certainly not errors as egregious as we have found here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, obviously there will be errors, in today's feature article background section; BBC, not specified which division and used abbreviation in first instance. Any way my purpose is to take this article to FA, what all I want to say is rather than stripping tags and posting templates, guide and assist us to improve the article. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that you're frustrated by criticism of your work, but that comment about the TFA is really far off the mark. There is a world of difference between a formatting error, and a factual error. This is particularly true when the errors in question are instances of serious original research. I'm going to assume you do understand that difference, and don't genuinely believe that untruths are as excusable as typos. It isn't enough for you to check the errors Fram pointed out; you need to check all the content, especially the material you didn't add yourself, and make sure it complies with WP:V and WP:NOR. I'm not going to review the article further until you have done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, the article had been thru GOCE review, I believe GA template can be included now. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Very first thing I checked, in the lead no less: "After decades of disuse, the term "Golconda diamond" was repopularised in the 1950s in De Beers' advertising campaigns, for which Marilyn Monroe posed at a promotional event wearing the Moon of Baroda (which is not a Golconda diamond)." if this is representative of the care taken with this article after all the above, then we are still far from GA. Fram (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Errrrr! how did i missed it, any way it was some vandal edit, now cleared and cited with recent publication. It will be of great help if you can use your expertise to find and correct or point out Grammar part. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Your correction doesn't help one bit, it now says "After decades of disuse, the term "Golconda diamond" was repopularised in the 1950s in De Beers' advertising campaigns, for which Marilyn Monroe posed at a promotional event wearing the Moon of Baroda." Is there any serious evidence that South African company De Beers ever used the term "Golconda diamonds" in their advertising at all? In the body, you source a vaguely similar claim (De Beers used a picture of Marylin Monroe wearing a Golconda diamond) but even this is actually not supported by the source you added[2], which just says that De Beers popularized diamonds by method X, and Monroe by method Y, in a source not even mentioning Golconda anyway. So at best the claims in the lead and body are unsourced, at worst they are incorrect WP:SYNTH from combining loose, unrelated facts into one claim. Fram (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

you may take lebirty to correct it, I don't understand what is stopping you to improve the article. Omer123hussain (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I hoped that there would be some source you knew about it or some fact I missed, you seemed rather clear that this was a good article about a topic you knew a lot about, but apparently this was a misunderstanding on my part. Fram (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Its okay to remove that information, let me know what else is pending to justify the article as GA. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I could not find references in English to justify that part-there are plenty of printed Urdu news.

The reason why I wanted to keep/add it because I felt the article need a mention about a source/reason of Golconda diamonds popularity among masses particularly since late 19th century. Any way I will try to find some supporting sources in later stages during FA process. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, what are we waiting for, its clean now, GOCE had finished there work and merlin and Debeers part is also cleared now. Omer123hussain (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

One example has been corrected (well, removed by me), the article is still filled with dubious claims, non sequiturs, exaggerations, ... What is for example "and the most-common currency was Golconda Pagoda (also called Hun)— equivalent to five-and-a-half Mughal Rupee, and eight French livres,[34][35][36] though the contemporary gold coins with slight variation in weight such as the Hun, Rial, and Dinar were also used". It's the currency of the region, the Golconda kingdom, what does its value compared to other coins have to do with diamonds? I know that the Times of India states "Hyderabadi Hun was more precious than even the French currency", but that is a rather meaningless claim, as it depends on the size and purity of the coin, not on the diamonds. "Due to their royal lineage, mystical tales and advertising campaigns by these companies, Golconda diamonds became the global status reference." Err, what? I presume the "advertising campaigns" still is a reference to De Beers, but even without this it is a highly exaggerated or imprecise claim. "Most of the impoverished governments and princely rulers came to an end, forcing them sell their jewels—including Golconda diamonds—which were later auctioned." Where does the "which were later auctioned" from? Some where, some weren't, just like with every valuable item. It's a meaningless addition. All this from just a look at a few lines. So, what are we waiting for? A complete check of the article by someone knowledgeable, I suppose. Fram (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

So, I hope the article is now most eligible to be a GA.  :) Omer123hussain (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fram can you restore the GA status now. Omer123hussain (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Article needs a new full GA review, which I won't be doing. I have wasted enough time trying to get even the most simple errors acnowledged and corrected, who knows what else needs done to get this factually correct? Fram (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I had completed expanding this article and waiting for GOCE review meanwhile if i/any senior editor find an error/mistakes definitely it will be corrected, this article is currently better than many of the GA (Apology for that but it's true). Not at all frustrated (this is my passion to work on WP) but irritated because what I realize is that to become an "Administrator" some users keep hunting to find errors but are not bothered to support correcting them. Criticism- that I am facing since I am on WP, sometimes due to my mistakes, boldness, resisting my work etc... :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Geology

There isn't any coverage of the geology of the diamonds: is it a kimberlite pipe, when did the eruption happen, did it have any special features that made it easier to mine than kimberlite pipes elsewhere which would explain why it was the one place mined in antiquity, etc. I don't know enough about this to write it but it would be good if someone did. David Bofinger (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue, will update very soon. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

done, not going in to details given some basic information. hope it serves the purpose. :) Omer123hussain (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)