Wikipedia:Peer review/Taj Mahal/archive1

Taj Mahal

I think the Taj deserves one of the best articles in the Wikipedia. I've taken a shot at developing a good basis for this, I hope, and I respectfully ask for comments, suggestions, edits and improvements. --Nemonoman 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was on my wishlist. I had hoped to get it to Featured status someday. Ok, Here goes:

The page has simply too many images. Select only the best and the most apt images
Image sizes of 455px is too large. Keep it at around 250px
The lead needs to be a bit longer. Merge the overview.
An infobox would be a good additions: Fields include: image, location, built by, descr, area. years, material etc.
The structure is lopsided. The structure should be like this:
1. History : History is currently very short. It needs a lot more matter.
2. Then comes =Site= which should be renamed as location. The exact location in Agra can be mentioned including the coordinates of the site.
3. Combine ==Asthetics= with =Origin and inspiriation= and =Construction and design= and rename it as =Construction=
4. Rename =Outlying buildings= to =Complex= and include gardens
5. The tomb --> Structure
6. merge external and internal decoration
7. =Legends and theories=
Avoid the use of sub headings.
References needs to be formatted correctly. Also do a google search and try and get some more information on topics which may have not been covered in standard texts on the Taj.
let me know once the above has been completed.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment re the images is consider using the <gallery> tag to make the image sections "denser" and more effective. jengod 22:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a minor contributor to the article, so I think it must be said that Nemonoman has done an absolutely amazing job of extending it and improving it while maintaining an NPOV approach to some of the more contentious aspects of the building's history. I don't think there are too many images. In fact the variety of images gives a genuine sense of the complexity and magic of the building - bettter perhaps that any other current website on the Taj. We shouldn't sacrifice that richness for the sake of parsimony. There are some awkwardnesses - large white spaces etc - but with a bit of effort these might be dealt with without dropping the more informative and striking images. Perhaps some of the non-Taj pics can go: Humayun's tomb etc. These can be seen on the relevant pages. Paul B 22:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for these...still digesting.

This page shows image density comparisons and subhead options.--Nemonoman 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re to images: Wikipedia:What is a featured article #4 mentions: It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Excess images in an article will be objected upon when the article is nominated for FAC. The gallery tag should not be used. Galleries are meant to be in commons: =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to the suggestion that the article use of gallery tags, which by the way, are suggested in the editing guidelines,

As to your comment, "excess" images are going to be a subjective assessment. When considering a single work of art that covers multiple media and several acres, etc. "excess" is a term I have considered. You really need a quick study of some basic theory to understand why the Taj is such an aesthetic triumph. Pictures make this easy.

Frankly I'd rather have the article explain the Taj in relative fullness than achieve feature article status by, in effect, lowering its quality to meet that (entirely reasonable) requirement.

Also, other editors have replaced pictures that I have removed as redundant. Every body who's been to the Taj wants to share their view. -- what's the response? Eternal vigilance? I ask this question sincerely. What's the response?--Nemonoman 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we do have to remember that a lot of our readers do not have the bandwith to load so many images. Excessive use of images have always been frowned upon in FAC, and this article will be no exception. I reiterate, this page should have the only best and most apt images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp, is the issue bandwidth? At present the page is about = in kilobytes to Sicilian Baroque, which seems to me a comparable article. I have just tried a test page where with minimum compression and detail loss the page is about 1/2 the size of Sicilian Baroque. So if bandwidth is the issue, that's one approach; if the issue is simply "excess" images, then I suppose someone will need to define which are essential and which are "excess".--Nemonoman 19:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwidth is secondary. Its the visual clutter that must be cut down upon. With so many images, the article has a poor chance of getting through FAC. I can't recall the exact names, but many articles have failed FAC because of excess images. This is an old one, I can't recall the names of the ones that have failed recently. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has way too many POV statements. "a masterpiece of Mughal architecture that brilliantly combines elements of Persian and Hindu architecture.", "the Taj is actually a complex of elements, each making a powerful aesthetic statement, and combining to create a unique work of art", "Every element has been thoughtfully designed and carefully executed", "To achieve its astonishing beauty", "The exterior decorations of the Taj are among the finest to be found in Mughal architecture of any period" etc. Editors should not give their personal opinions in the articles, even when they believe this personal opinion is shared by lots of people. See Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view.

I have reread the the NPOV section you cited, and do not find that it specifically supports your changes. NPOV suggests a balanced presentation of differing viewpoints. I am not familiar with anyone asserting that the Taj is NOT a complex of elements, or that it is NOT a unique work of art. Perhaps I am ill-informed?

Your edits and comments do not address POV -- but rather descriptions of quality. There is certainly a school of thought that tries to remove such writing: this approach, for example, is typical of journalism writing and technical writing. It is not by any means required or even typical of encyclopedic type articles, which often rely on authors to act as docents in their articles.

You have broken out mainly sentences dealing with beauty, and appear to suggest that the appreciation of beauty is relative. I respectfully suggest that there is a reasonable argument that certain forms and elements are practically universally pleasing, and that the human brain is wired to appreciate, much as it is wired to enjoy sweets, or certain temperatures, etc. Suggesting otherwise, while more politically correct these days, is just another POV.

That is an interesting point you make. I don't know if there is a policy or guideline for dealing with this aspect of aesthetics. I will try to research into this. JoaoRicardo^talk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know, other than by a general consensus, one gets to identify a "masterpiece". Yet the term is applied nearly universally in books and articles about the Taj. Perhaps every adjective requires an attribution to some source other than the authors of the article? That's not a problem, as individuals far more respectable and authoritative than me have heaped on the accolades, but it is going to change the readability of the article.

For my own part, I have visited and studied at length the architecture of all the mausoleums built by and for Mughal emperors and their queens in India (not the ones in Pakistan), as well as most if not all the major Mughal-built buildings in India, and in addition, most of the minor ones in Maharashtra. I hoped in my edits to illuminate the elements that distinguish the Taj from any of its predecessors or followers. The distinguishing elements are not, for example, that it has pietra-dura inlay, but the way that inlay work is more careful in workmanship, its materials more carefully chosen and matched, the design more complicated and demanding, and the overall result more breathtaking, than any that came before. How to describe this other than by saying it? During one of my visits to the Taj, a man stood near the cenotaphs gazing that the Jali, inch by inch, for more than three hours. How to put the impact of the Taj into the article except to say so?

I don't think you should write about your own experience with the subject. For instance, you should not describe the impact the Taj had on you or on those who were near you when you visited it. You should rather present the view of other, notable sources on it. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. JoaoRicardo^talk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could not explain the appeal of champagne by describing its chemical composition. It is entirely reasonable to provide some description of the quality and value of a subject. No one, I think, believes that the Wikipedia is objective; what they expect, I hope, is that the content is not colored by politics or bigotry.

Also lots of weasel terms. "The Taj (as it is often called) is among the most recoginizable and celebrated buildings in the world" Who said that? Was there a poll?

Well, let's see. It's sort of so obvious that it seems bizarre to require a source. How should this be referenced? A quick google search produces 4,400,000 taj entries with 200,000 images. Google "famous buildings" and 8 of the first 10 websites specifically mention the Taj. In a 5-year poll run by the New 7 wonders Foundation the Taj was the number 3 entry Seven wonders of the world. A brand of tea has been named for it, and a brand of beer, and a blues musician, and a porn star -- that suggests an unusual amount of noteriety.

I am sorry if I hadn't made myself clear. The problem here is that the information presented in Wikipedia should be verifiable. How does one verify the claim that the Taj Mahal is "among the most recognizable and celebrated buildings in the world"? What is the criteria for considering a specific building "one of the most recognizable and celebrated buildings in the world"? On the other hand, the poll you cited would be a verifiable information asserting the view that most people have of this subject, and therefore should be included in the article. JoaoRicardo^talk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do take some exception to your saying the "recoginizable and celebrated" are weasel words.. If the article does not state that the building is famous, the article is disingenous and does the reader a disservice.

Additionally, if the article does not describe WHY the building is famous, that also is a disservice.

It is famous because of its beauty. Is that not worth reporting? Or do you regard that clear statement as intherently POV?

A research into a survey of texts? "[Shah Jahan] is thought to have created the gardens and palaces of Shalimar in honor of Mumtaz" Who thinks that? It also has no inline citations. JoaoRicardo^talk 13:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Is thought to have" is a holdover from earlier versions, I will remove it, and cite a source.

I am grateful for the suggestions, JoaoRicardo, and for those of user:Nichalp. I hope to begin to process and incorporate them.

Joao, the article *has* to be copyedited. We are lucky to have a professional copyeditor among ourselves. For one, you'd need to act on my recommendations and also convert lists to prose. Do you have the source file to the .gif image of yours? PS, that Taj parts image needs to be touched up too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I have been a professional copyeditor, and am now a professional author (actually the book doesn't come out until August[1].

I can assure you that authors can not copyedit their own work successfully.

I don't know specifically which ".gif image" you refer to.--Nemonoman 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Yes, I agree that the article should be copyedited. Did I sound like I thought otherwise? JoaoRicardo^talk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am disturbed, however, by the large-scale edits made by JoaoRicardo without discussion or consultation, which seem to me to have been made without sufficient consideration. If peer review means not only critiquing but to invite wholesale edits made in such an offhand way, then I regret that I brought this article to the attention of this group.--Nemonoman 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reason of your being disturbed. Wikipedia policies and guidelines recomend that we do not discuss edits before making them, because it slows the wiki process. Please see Wikipedia:Be bold in updating articles, which mentions copyediting. Wikipedia:Editing policy also says: "Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress." If you believe my edits are harmful or inappropriate, let's discuss it at Talk:Taj Mahal. JoaoRicardo^talk 19:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to combine forces and get this article featured? I can get you more diagrams. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "join forces" means. My understanding of Wikipedia is that is by its nature collaborative. I don't really care whether the article is "featured" or not. I want the article to be of high quality, and am ready to put some muscle behind making it better, and am happy to work with others similarly inclined.

Collaborative yes but there are a lot of things that needs to be addressed before it gets featured. You have some knowledge of the Taj and I have experience in getting articles featured and reviewing other articles. I happen to be a perfectionist, and if we can arrive at the same point, the article can be featured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like more insight into what you mean when you say "I can get you more diagrams". I'm a big fan of diagrams.--Nemonoman 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Agra, the layout of the Taj complex. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress

I have begun changes to the article in response to comments.--Nemonoman 02:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]