 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in India may be able to help! |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bajirao I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Bajirao I was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
.svg)
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Delisted GA; ineligible
- ... that British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery called Baji Rao's Palkhed Campaign "a masterpiece of strategic mobility"? [1]
Improved to Good Article status by Mahusha (talk). Self-nominated at 17:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- "NA"
Overall: 
AGF on hook citation (have verified elsewhere, eg The First Anglo-Maratha War, 1774-1783); promoter to GA status has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently an excessive detail tag on the article. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The GA review was completed by a sockpuppet. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- As the article is currently undergoing a GA reassessment, it makes sense to hold off closing this nomination until we see whether the reassessment closes as "delist" or "keep". If the latter, the DYK nomination can continue; if it is delisted, then the nomination should be closed at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- The article has been delisted as a GA, so it is not eligible for DYK at the present time. Should it eventually be nominated for and listed again as a GA, it will be eligible for DYK at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (1972). A Concise History of Warfare. London:Collins. p. 132,135.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
GA Reassessment
edit- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Baji Rao I/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
The article was recently accorded GA status by a somewhat prolific sockpuppet who clearly did not understand GA criteria. It is obvious from my recent edits that it fails even on basic issues, such as overlinks, inconsistent spellings, WP:MOSHEAD, WP:MOSDATE, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:RS. In addition, I think Abbasquadir was correct to tag for lack of focus etc and I note that they, too, have done some cleaning since the article was promoted. I further note the comment of Kingsif here regarding the likelihood of a quick fail if the article were nominated as of today.
Despite my efforts and those of others, there remain significant problems even among the issues I have specifically highlighted above. I note that I had to remove one quotation because it had three cites, all of which had different versions of what Baji Rao supposedly said - that suggests we may need to review every statement against the cited sources. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delist per the issues raised by Sitush. Clearly not GA standard at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delist, while I don't feel the article is overly detailed given its very specific topic, it is clear from an initial look that it could do with more work, including copyediting and a more sufficient lead (Criteria 1). Issues regarding sources raised are concerning. CMD (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delist, per the concerns raised above and my comments here. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delist, I was quite surprised that it was granted GA status. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Outcome - clear consensus that the GA assessment by what turned out to be a sock was flawed and the article remains below GA standard. Delisting. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Reassessment
editI think the article needs more citations as there are quite a few "citation needed" tags. Also, the prose style isn't the best but focusing on the citations would probably get the article to a B-class level. PrathuCoder (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)