Talk:Jharokha Darshan

Contested deletion

This article is temporarily being used for a workshop to explain editing, please give it some time. I am currently logged out so I am adding this note as anon. --115.112.231.107 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

Interesting article. Though the grievance-solving doesn't exist anymore in modern day at the jharokhas, the jharokha darshan-like situations are still seen. Maybe decades later we will include it in this article if notable authors compare it thus. Treat for fans during ‘Bachchan darshan’. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list. BenLinus1214^talk 14:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC) @Nvvchar: Comments

• Should Jharokha Darshan be italicized in the article's opening statement? This happens throughout--why is this so?
• From the first paragraph of the lead, I'm a bit unclear on when the practice started. You say "at the forts and palaces of medieval kings in India". If it did start with the Mughals, I would hardly consider that medieval (a European term to begin with)--early modern would be better. Also, you say that the Mughals adopted the practice--if it started with them, they didn't adopt it.
  • It was a practice among the HIndu Maharajas which the Mughals adoped. Hence retianing the term medieval may be in order.

• "This also showed a Hindu influence…" Do you mean the word "Darshan" or the practice of appearing before subjects?
  • It is a Sanskrit word and has been explained in the article.

• In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead, I think you misspelled Jharokha
  • Corrected

• I'm a bit confused by one other think in the lead: Humayun was emperor before Akbar, no? If it started with Akbar, how could Humayun have adopted the practice?
  • It was started by Humayun first but Akbar called it Jharokha Darshan. I have also added a section on Humayun

• You should probably put a little something in the lead about the Do-Ashiayana Manzil and the Dehli Durbar, as they are both sections themselves in the article's body.
  • Done. I have also added on paintings of the emperors at the jharokha.

• Be careful--you spell it "jharoka" instead of "jharokha" a lot. I guess you could use either, as transliterations probably vary, but be consistent.
  • Hopefully done at all places.

• "It is said…" by whom?
  • I have deleted that part.

• First sentence--led not lead
  • Done

• I don't know why you have to say "Emperor Akbar (r. 1556-1605 CE)" when he has been mentioned numerous times in the article already. If you mean that he started the practice before he became emperor and continued it afterwards, you should probably put "After he became emperor, Akbar continued the practice; he would…"
  • Done at only one place

• "peasants, and women with sick children" you have to have the and in there
  • Done

• "He felt that it was necessary…" there's something grammatically wrong at the end of this sentence--for the symbolic purpose part, I might start a new sentence.
  • Broken the sentence

• Instead of saying, "This was a time…", which distances the reader, just put "During Akbar's reign…"
  • Done

• You mention Humayun once again at the bottom of this section. If he had the practice, you should add a section about him as well.
  • Done

• "considered a Persian system under naushrwan…" Why is this an important piece to add? What is naushrwan? I'm not doubting its importance—it's just unclear to the reader at the moment.
  • Since Mughals were of Persian decent they adopted some of the practices followeed in Iran. Also added an img

• Section on Aurangzeb possibly?
  • Done

• "religiously appeared…" because this comes right after a clause on prayers, the word religiously comes off as humorous. Maybe replace with "punctiliously"?
  • Done

• Presumably the whole first paragraph of that section is cited to one footnote?
  • Yes

• In the next para, you include an entirely different spelling. Just thought I should point that out for search and replace reasons. It's "jarokha" this time around.
  • Corrected

• The last sentence of that section should go in the new section on Aurangzeb if you want to create it.
  • Done

• Ref 4 is dead and just redirects to the museum's main page.
  • Yes, I have removed the reference and substituted with other reliable references

This is a very interesting and informative article about a period in history that I am very interested in. Thoroughly well-researched. The only major edits you need to do (or at least explain to me why you didn't) are create subsections on the practice during the reigns of Humayun and Aurangzeb. Other than that, it's minor stuff, and then I can pass! Good luck and contact me when you're done! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• @BenLinus1214: Thank you very much for the review. I will be addressing all the above issues in the next two or three days.--Nvvchar. 00:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• @BenLinus1214: I have complied with all the review observations in the article and recorded my reply above. More sections, texts and imgs have been added now. Pl let me know if any thing more is to be done. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 07:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Nvvchar: This looks a lot better to me. I found two more spelling inconsistencies but I changed them myself. It looks really good now, especially in terms of fixing the scope concerns, so Pass. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 11:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @BenLinus1214: Thank you very much for approving the nomination. As automatic bot does not leave a an intimation either of the start or approval of the GAN on my talk page, I would appreciate if you kindly leave a message of this approval on my talk page. You may like to review one more of GANs presently pending on the nomination page. Thank you again. This approval has come really fast.--Nvvchar. 11:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: