Talk:Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute

Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 11, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Myanmar Low‑importance

Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages
Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles
Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians
Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs
Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election
Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Wikipedia and make sure each article on the English Wikipedia has one in Burmese also

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Dthomsen8, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. A Simple Plan (film) is next on my list, but this will be next. BenLinus 1214^talk 21:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
In addition to the one source issue, there's one OR thing in the lead.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Death section is mostly irrelevant and too long.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The British "wanting it to be unknown forever" is a bit troubling
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I think that this page is mistitled—it's not really a dispute about the location, it's just about the fact that it was lost. Maybe Grave of Bahadur Shah II" instead.
"last Mughal emperor" not "last Mughal"
"is disputed" by whom?
You don't say that this was primarily due to lack of measures or infrastructures later in the article—possible original research? Tagging it for now.
Third sentence—this is kind of confusing. It was forgotten in 1903?
"some protests" Very informal
I don't think the British were technically "forced" to do anything.
Next sentence: "when, not while"
This article must be copyedited. I understand that you're not a native English speaker, but it's not really prepared for GAN right now. Can you copyedit it yourself? If not, get it copyedited and renominate later. I'm not going to go through sentence by sentence because you seem to have a lot of experience in copyediting problems during GANs.
Much of the death section is kind of irrelevant—it would be nice for the main article to have it, but only burial information is relevant here.
You have a lot of bizarre short quotes throughout, i.e. "it was "inappropriate of the Government" to construct "anything" over the remains of Zafar as a tomb "which might be a place of pilgrimage.""
The burial of his wife and son shouldn't get their own section. Make it a coda to the death/burial section.
It worries me that much of this article relies on one source, especially the section on protests, no less. I'm tagging it as well.
"But at that time 'even the exact location'…" specify who this quote was from. Same applies to the rest of the paragraph. Also bizarre that a whole group of people is demanding in a specific quote. :)
Mohammedans is an archaic term.
The beginning of the Dargah section jumps startlingly—most readers won't know what a "Dargah" is, and we have no idea what railing you are talking about.
"The British wanted the actual place of the tomb to be unknown forever." Repetition/dubious claim ("forever"?)
"Zafar is respected as an 'Emperor-Saint'" Why is this part of the sentence necessary?

@Royroydeb: I will give you the opportunity of a few days to adequately fix these issues. However, there are so many problems with it right now that I find that this would be difficult for any editor. Or, if you rather, you can just list it for a copyedit (and possibly a peer review) and fix the sourcing issue in due time. But in that case, it will fail for now and you can renominate in the future. Thank you! :) BenLinus 1214^talk 00:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be active in the last few days and have not made any contribs to the article. Some other editors have, but the article still fails. Once again, list it for a copyedit and a peer review before renominating. Fail for now. Best of luck to you. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 18:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]