Talk:Shivaji/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have now placed this article on hold. There are a substantial issues with this, but I do not believe them to be insurmountable. I will keep this on hold for a week, after which, if no improvements have been made, I will have to fail it. I am quite willing to change this to a different, specific, deadline, but I am not willing to keep this on hold indefinitely, especially as this has already been open for three weeks. Vanamonde (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• As this has now been on hold for nine days without much progress being made, I'm afraid I have to fail this review. There is enough material here for anybody who wishes to try again, and if this is renominated after my concerns have been addressed, feel free to ping me, and I will be willing to pick it up again. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Apologies for the delay. I see no reasons to quick-fail this, so I will comment on it in detail over the next few days. Since it is a topic of contention and also an important article, I will be fairly nitpicky: please bear with me. Vanamonde (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Early life

• I'd suggest separating the birth-date discrepancy into a separate sentence. Done

Separated the two things. Qualified govt chosen date clearly as such, it is not scholar's consensus. Scholar's opinion that it is disputed should come first. --Gian (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better, but now there's grammar and accessibility issues; what is Shivaji Jayanthi? Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I can try running the article with word grammar check? I don't know how to help with accessibility, I let the earlier claim remain, only appended one more reference, so that should be okay kind of I think? I wonder why they don't print in English. Gian (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

By "accessibility" I really mean "comprehensibility to the ignorant reader"; hence my question "what is Shivaji Jayanthi"? Also, "govt" should be avoided.

Edited. Shivaji Jayanthi diretctly translates to birthday of Shivaji in Marathi. They have given holiday on that day. --Gian (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Link Ahmadnagar and Bijapur.  Done -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Is it common to refer to the Mughal empire as an Islamic Sultanate?

Yes. --Gian (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• The "Upbringing" subsection needs a little bit of work on the prose. I've copy-edited it a little, but I haven't accessed the sources (and don't want to get too involved anyhow). Phrases like "deeply religious", "lifelong defence", "Throughout his life he was deeply interested", could all benefit from being written in plainer prose.  Done

Replaced with plainer prose. --Gian (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Better, but could still use some work.

• "addicted to asking questions" again, "addicted" is incorrect in this context.  Done. That whole paragraph is gone now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Having made peace with the Mughals..." it isn't clear that he is in conflict with them.

This is in context of his father. Giving a larger context to this will bring in that history, maybe we can leave this sentence as is? --Gian (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's not what I mean. His father is previously described as having served all three Sultanates. So, he is either sworn to the Mughals, or a vassal of an independent ruler. How is he in a position to make peace?

• "His family settled at the city of Poona, an ancient center of Brahman learning and so he was surrounded by an atmosphere of rigid and uncompromising orthodoxy." There is some redundancy with the previous material here.  Done

Removed, it was redundant. --Gian (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• some inconsistencies in spelling: Poona vs Pune.  Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• "recitations of Kathas and Puranas" what are these?  Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Why is Rama linked, but not Sita or Pandavas?  Done - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• "most picturesque stories" I do not think "picturesque" is what is meant here. Furthermore, "he once stole through the Mussalman lines, into the heart of his enemy's camp at Poona" has other problems; what are "Mussalman lines", which enemy is this, and how are they in Poona, where he is supposedly growing up? This might be best removed.  Done

Removed the sentence. It was a letter by letter copy from the source. --Gian (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "most likely could neither read nor write" This sounds odd after seeing material about his "studies" of Hindu epics earlier. It isn't mutually exclusive, but some clarification would be helpful.  Done

It wasn't supported in sources either and entire statement is puffer with "keen outdoorsman", "possessed considerable erudition", I removed the entire sentence. --Gian (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "who complained to Shahaji to no avail in making him compliant" grammatically something off here.  Done

Took a shot. --Gian (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "posted there by Bijapur." Everything before this suggests Bijapur is a place, not a person.  Done

Looking at the source the year was also off by 1. The intent was ruler of Bijapur. I corrected it. Gian (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Around 1645, the teenage Shivaji first expressed his concept for Hindavi Swarajya (Hindu self-rule), in a letter" This is grammatically off, and also needs further context; what does he mean by Hindu self-rule?  Done

Added context from a journal source. --Gian (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Better, but Kautilya3 suggests Shivaji isn't actually referring to Hinduism here...

The word means so in common usage in Marathi and there are scholarly sources supporting it too. It is best left at one sentence instead of making longer analysis when it has a separate page. --Gian (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You should note that WP:NPOV is a requirement for GA. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on judging this for now, but please remember that because of attempts to portray Shivaji as a Hindu-nationalist icon in the present day, we've to be very careful about such claims; if we make them, they've to be strongly supported by solid sources. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The term "Deccan" needs explanation

Conflict with Bijapur

• "Accounts vary" accounts of what?  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "conditionally" (for release) should be removed. No conditions are mentioned by Sarkar. (Note that Sarkar's book is also pretty old.) Gordon says Shahaji's imprisonment was unrelated to Shivaji's rebellion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. --Gian (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Link or explain "Gingee"  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "During this period..." It's not clear when "this period" began, because this is the next reference to Shivaji's actions after his fort captures.  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Raja" seems in this case to be an honorific  Done --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• "which his vassal Shahaji disavowed." Shahaji was Adilshah's vassal, and was also imprisoned, so this is doubly confusing.

Earlier in the article: 1. Shivaji's father Shahaji Bhonsle was a Maratha general who served the Deccan Sultanates. 2. Shahaji often changed his loyalty between the Nizamshahi of Ahmadnagar, the Adilshah of Bijapur and the Mughals 3. In 1637, Shahaji took Bangalore from the Mughals, and was permantently posted there by the ruler of Bijapur. 4. On 25 July 1648, Shahaji was imprisoned by Baji Ghorpade under the orders of Bijapuri ruler Mohammed Adilshah, in a bid to contain Shivaji. 5. Shahaji was conditionally released in 1649 after the capture of Jinji secured Adil-Shahi position in Karnataka. Shahaji was his vassal, he was imprisoned to contain Shivaji. Still Shivaji caused damage and Shahaji disavowed. I agree the father son were playing tricks on us. But with the previous description it makes sense. --Gian (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I know Shahaji was Adil Shah's vassal, but the phrasing makes this confusing.

Can you specify the specific confusion, is it because of similar sounding names? --Gian (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Never mind; the alternative is worse.

• "The Bijapuri forces marched into the Maratha-held Konkan, despoiling the shrine of the goddess Bhavani and other Hindu holy sites" Several points here. Shivaji himself has been described as fighting with other Marathas, so "Maratha-held" is ambiguous here. "Bhavani" needs linking. "the shrine of Bhavani"; if we know which one it is, this should be specific; if we don't know, this should be a shrine. It is unclear what the "Konkan" is. Finally, this is a potentially inflammatory claim, so I'd like to see the quote from the source supporting this.

 Done Trimmed the text as per source, provided the linking. The supporting text seems to be this: "In 1657, the new sultan, Ali Adil Shah, sent Afzal Khan, one of the most capable commanders, with a 10,000 man army to subdue Shivaji. Along the route the Bijapur troops profaned the shrine of Bhawani at Tuljapur as well as several other major Hindu shrines in Maharashtra." --Gian (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, this is now worse; it contains an Easter-egg link to the temple, still doesn't mention its location, and uses "despoiling", which is a rather loaded term to use on the basis of a single source.

Added location. What could be alternative words acceptable to you, is the book's word 'profaned' better? --Gian (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I expanded the wording using Richard Eaton's information:

But the drama of that notorious encounter has overshadowed an event of perhaps far greater significance for the future of Bijapur, as well as for that of the Marathas. This was the wanton destruction and desecration of Hindu temples indulged in by the Bijapuri general while en route to meet Shivaji in the Western Ghats. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased further, I think we're okay now. Vanamonde (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Both the sources are good. I just edited one word as it was watered down too much and did not reflect the sources. --Gian (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And I'm not okay with that. Just "desecrated" would be fine, "attacked and destroyed" is okay, but "desecrated...in an act of deliberate destruction" is overdoing it, and sounds POV. Vanamonde (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Content actually has "in an apparently deliberate act of destruction" rather than "in an act of deliberate destruction" which is very watered down, and sounds like white washing. But "attacked" is unfit here, temples were "profaned" or "desecrated", and the sources also use it, I would keep it "desecrated", that could be middle ground since you also agree to it and we can do away with the wanton destruction part. Afzal Khan desecrated the Hindu places of pilgrimage, especially Pandharpur, while advancing to meet Shivaji. --Gian (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with "attacked". But "on their way" is wrong as per Eaton. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We could say "before engaging Shivaji..." Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• The image caption should make it clear that this was a painting, and clarify what context it was painted in.  Done --Gian (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• When was it painted, and by whom?

It was painted in 1920 by Some one with initials M S E in Mumbai. Should this be added to caption, it will become very big then? --Gian (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The link describes Kolhapur as a city, in which case "pressed into" is incorrect.  Done --Gian (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• First sentence of "Siege of Panhala" is run-on and confusing.
• " This perceived betrayal" why is it a perceived betrayal?
• The "battle of Pavan Khind" subsection has several issues. Some of the material is redundant with the previous subsection, it isn't clear which bits are based on popular legend and which are not, and there are spelling inconsistencies and grammar issues. I suggest that it be trimmed a bit and merged into the previous subsection.

Conflict with the Mughals

• "and son of the Mughal emperor" it would be helpful to have a name and a link.
• "recognition of his right to the Bijapuri" the "his" is ambiguous here.
• "he launched a raid into the Mughal Decccan.[58] Shivaji's confrontations with the Mughals began in March 1657..." messy chronology here.
• 'by sending Nasiri Khan, who defeated the forces of Shivaji at Ahmednagar' what, by himself?
• "Shivaji and his battle" sounds like Shivaji was fighting for the Mughal throne
• Shah Jahan should be mentioned the first time, not the second (see above).
• "Upon the request of Badi Begum of Bijapur" who is this?
• The sentence I quoted is too long; needs to be broken up.
• The term "Mirza Raja" needs linking or removal, and Jai Singh's position vis-a-vis Aurangzeb needs to be made clear.
• In the section beginning "in April 1663", the text needs to make it clear what part is supported by reliable sources and what isn't.
• The paragraph beginning "In retaliation for Shaista Khan's attacks" seems out of place; should it not be moved up?"
• "gold hun": the link says "Pagoda", so why is a different term used here?
• "and was promptly placed under house arrest under the watch of Faulad Khan, Kotwal of Agra." This seems not to have a source
• The term "Kotwal" needs linking and/or explanation
• The spelling and italicization of "mansabdar" needs standardization.
• "title of raja" again, linking or explanation
• The previous fact in the article about Sambhaji is that he was made a mughal mansabdar with 5000 horses; and then again, with nothing in between? I'd suggest omitting that sentence
• "rights of sardeshmukhi and chauthai to Shivaji" those two terms both redirect to Chauth.

Reconquest

• "Reconquest" is a strange title. Reconquest of what?
• In fact, the entire section designation is odd, because really it's a continuation of "conflict with the Mughals".
• Who is Muazzam?
• " The Mughals also took away the jagir of Berar from Shivaji to recover the money lent to him a few years earlier." What money? If unknown, it should be "money", not "the money".
• "major portion of the territories surrendered to them in a span of four months." Was the surrender over four months, or the recovery? Also, were there other territories besides Berar?
• "the Mughals resumed hostilities with the Marathas" Contradictory: they're already fighting in the previous paragraph.
• Link or explain Danda-Rajpuri and Rajapur
• "the issue of the Rajapur indemnity" What is this?
• "Umrani" and "Nesari" are mentioned in the title and nowhere else.
• "Anandrao Mohite became Hambirrao Mohite, the new sarnaubat (commander-in-chief of the Maratha forces)." The link here is to a specific individual, which makes me suspect that there's some mismatch with the source material here.
• "Raigad Fort was newly built by Hiroji Indulkar as a capital of nascent Maratha kingdom." Completely out of context; a new paragraph is required for certain, and more detail would be useful. Also, "nascent" is odd, as there's clearly been a nascent empire for a while by this point. This whole thing may even be better discussed along with his coronation.

Coronation

• "A kingly title could address this and also prevent any challenges by other Maratha leaders, to whom he was technically equal" Very heavy editorial voice here.
• There's a closing tag gone walkabout
• "great Maratha Jahagirdar " "great" is peacockery
• "Controversy erupted..." there's a missing transition here. We've heard why Shivaji may want to be a king, but not that he actually decided to become one.
• "albeit one in need of the ceremonies befitting his rank" again, heavy editorial voice. "who had not had the ceremonies" etc would be better.
• the link for "Shudra" says they were laborers, not farmers.
• "king of the Marathas" as written, this implies all the Marathas accepted him as king; is this in the source? If not, this needs clarification.
• Ceremonial details don't add much, and I'd suggest omitting them.
• "Bengali Tantrik goswami" this needs explanation.
• "under inauspicious stars" similarly.

Conquest in southern India

• "but failed to dislodge them." dislodge from where?
• The section title implies that Shivaji focused on south India during this period; is this correct?
• "a conflict between the Afghans and Bijapur" Bijapur and Afghanistan are a long, long way apart, and have the Mughal empire between them. What's going on here?
• The previous mention of Bijapur had them suing Shivaji for peace. Did he attack them again immediately after they granted him tribute?
• "agreeing to reject his alliance with Bijapur" whose alliance: Shivaji's or Golkonda's? And why does Deccani patriotism require the rejection of an alliance with Bijapur?
• "Karnataka" was this a recognized region at the time?
• "intended to reconcile with his half-brother Venkoji" when and why were they estranged?
• Link Tanjore and Ekoji (even if the latter is a redlink
• "and maintenance of Shivaji's future memorial (samadhi)" Confusing; did Shivaji promise that a memorial would be built outside his kingdom after his death?
• "who was irresponsible" a little more detail would be helpful; if not, better to say "whom Shivaji considered irresponsible" (assuming the sources support that)

Death and succession

• "some Muslims opining" is too broad

Governance and military

• "He named the Ashta Pradhan (council of ministers) according to Sanskrit nomenclature, with terms such as nyayadhish, and senapat, and commissioned the political treatise Rajyavyavahar Kosh." This is incomprehensible to the general reader. I would suggest pruning this to "He commissioned works in Sanskrit such as the political treatise Rajyavyavahar Kosh".
• "Hindus were relieved to practice their religion freely under a Hindu ruler" Editorial voice is too heavy here.
• "others have rebutted" strikes me as ungrammatical
• The "religious policy" section has several ungrammatical sentences, and could use a copy-edit.
• The term "Konkan" is still used twice without explanation.
• What is "Suvela Machi", and why does it's picture add to the article?
• The painting of the army should be described as such in the caption

Legacy

• This section has a general tendency towards puffery, intentionally or otherwise. The very first sentence, for instance, is decidedly unencyclopedic.
• Furthermore, the controversies are not described in sufficient detail. If a particular book or description of Shivaji proved controversial, we need to include not just descriptions of the controversy, but assessments of it, in reliable sources.
• Since these are more general points, I won't review this section in detail until they have been dealt with.

General

• I would suggest that the references in this article be converted to the sfn format. At the moment, unless a person has popups enabled, the page number information and the reference details are in different places in the article. Per WP:CITEVAR I cannot compel anybody on this point, so this isn't a condition for this to pass GAN, only a suggestion.

• The current format is poor, regardless, because it is not in fact consistent. I thought I had mentioned this some time ago, perhaps on my own talk page when the GAN was first mooted. There is a mix of styles, including use of {{rp}} at times. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• True: I hadn't gotten far enough to see that, or maybe I just missed it. It still isn't a GA requirement, but I would strongly suggest that the nominators fix this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 In progress -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Links should generally be placed the first time a term is used; there's several instances where this isn't the case.
• @Gbohoadgwwian: you're doing some decent work here, but with all due respect, I'm not sure you're able to comprehend or fix the grammar and prose issues I'm raising; so may I ask you to stick to fixing other issues, and leave the wording alone for the moment? Vanamonde (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• There are a lot of terms in the article from a variety of Indian languages (so far as I can tell). While I've addressed some specific instances above, I would suggest that the entire article be checked, and all non-English terms linked and/or explained (both, for preference). Vanamonde (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• The level of detail in the "Marathas after Shivaji" is too high; and generally, I would like to see most of it moved to the legacy section.