This is a page to discuss the issues related to the article Taj Mahal and the subsequent expansion and polishing works related to the article to bring it up to the featured article standards.
The article
editTaj Mahal (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Progress
edit| 90% complete | ||
To do
edit- General expansion
- To include the points from the last peer review
- May be now. But I'd say, its a
Done..
- May be now. But I'd say, its a
- Copyediting
- Paraphrasing
- almost covered, but its a Done
- almost covered, but its a
- Grammar and tone
- Done
- MoS
- Done
- Last minute decorations and clean up
- Using semiautomated bits and stuffs
- Pending....
- Creating the FAC page
- Adding the FA topicon
At work
editDiscussions
editAtsme, thanks a lot for joining me.. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
And I would prefer to leave the cite 3 in the lead as its a controversial one..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- No problem - don't hesitate to revert me. I'm trying to work in small chunks for that very reason. Atsme☯Consult 06:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Taj is a hot issue in India and there over a score of controversies around it. Plus there is a good deal of discussions on the type of architectural style in the talk page. I'm thinking of a RfC. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Need to get that all taken care of before this article is reviewed. It must show stability. Atsme☯Consult 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why I am thinking for a RfC to get at least a clearer consensus from our colleagues. Almost a similar situation is with Black Stone..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Need to get that all taken care of before this article is reviewed. It must show stability. Atsme☯Consult 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Taj is a hot issue in India and there over a score of controversies around it. Plus there is a good deal of discussions on the type of architectural style in the talk page. I'm thinking of a RfC. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I realigned images, deleted quite a bit of the construction and architectural details since it is already included at the origin-arch article. Still tweaking here an there. Atsme☯Consult 19:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- So the original article lessened our job? Anyway, the article will not be ready till its stable. I mean, the edit wars and RfC (the latter was unnecessary) are to be solved. Should I remove the RfC as we now have a clear cut idea on architectural styles? -The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think so. Yes remove the RfC. We've cited the sources. Edit wars? I didn't notice. Atsme☯Consult 17:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done I was mentioning that moonlight image (editwar).. Ready to roll out for FAC? Or wait for something...-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Give me a few more days. I like to go back and read with fresh eyes. Once I get that done and make sure all the copy and punctuations, etc. are good, we can move forward. And that is when the work really begins. 🙏 Atsme☯Consult 17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the fire begin then..-The Herald • the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Give me a few more days. I like to go back and read with fresh eyes. Once I get that done and make sure all the copy and punctuations, etc. are good, we can move forward. And that is when the work really begins. 🙏 Atsme☯Consult 17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think so. Yes remove the RfC. We've cited the sources. Edit wars? I didn't notice. Atsme☯Consult 17:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Result
editAwaiting..