Talk:Akbar/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
You have done a great work. There may be few issues which be improved. Then it will be really good article. Reviewer: Seyyed(t-c) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Some of the external links which have been used as source should be edited on the basis WP:CIT.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- For some of the sources "Harvard citation" method have bben used, while for some others not. Please use the same method for all of the book.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- I put tag at the places which need source.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unreliable sources:
- "Timurid Dynasty". New World Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Timurid_Dynasty. Retrieved 18 July 2009.
- "Extant of Empire". Richard as the writer of the article is unknown. Apparently, this is the main source.
- Humayunnama, Akbarnama and Ain-e-Akbari are primary sources. Can you add secondary source which endorses the claims?
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- I think there should be a section at the end of the article which describes his influence over India after his life and his legacy for India and for Mughal Empire. --Seyyed(t-c 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is subsection about Relations with the Ottoman Empire. I think there should be a subsection about Relations with the Safavids Empire as well. Akbar's reign coincided with Tahmasp I who was Humayun's ally, but later captured Qandahar. His last years also coincided with Abbas I. The problem of Qandahar never solved and always caused some tensions. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Done--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There hasn't been anything noted here in a month and the reviewer hasn't edited in two weeks; do we need a new one? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article needs reliable sources in several cases. I wait for editor to solve the problems, but finally they have not been solved.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Illogical (Deliberate?)[edit]
In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#Relation_with_Hindus the article says: "Akbar in his early years was not only a practising Muslim but is also reported to have had an intolerant attitude towards Hindus.[11] It was during this period that he boasted of being a great conqueror of Islam to the ruler of Turan, Abdullah Khan, in a letter in 1579,[12] and was also looked upon by orthodox Muslim elements as a devout believer committed to defending the religion against infidels.[13] However, his attitude towards the Hindu religion and its practices no longer remained hostile after he began his marriage alliances with Rajput princesses."
One can observe the time line for obvious faults written above: Akbar's marriage to Hindu princess takes place in early 1560's.
Akbar writes the letter to ruler of Turan in late 1570's/early 1580's. How is this early part of his reign? How does marrying a Hindu princess in early 1560's has or has not any impact in writing the letter to Turanian king?
Why are facts being twisted?
- More random musing (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)