Talk:Gour Kingdom

Gour Kingdom was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 23, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Bangladesh Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh 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.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles

Mid

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

The article falls into the work area of the History workgroup of WikiProject Bangladesh

WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list:

Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages
Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work
Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV
Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion)
Improve Bengalis and related pages
Take a look at the requested articles.
Make a MRT line 3 article.
Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton.

Asia

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia 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.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during WikiProject Asia's "Asian 10,000 Challenge", which started in October 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

good article nomination

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gour Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
See comments below

C. It contains no original research:
See comments below

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
See comments below
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

I'm afraid this is an immediate fail as it stands; the article is very far from meeting multiple GA criteria. It needs someone to rewrite it almost entirely before it can become a GA. The main issues are as follows:

Grammar and clarity of prose: there are grammatical errors sprinkled throughout; "would reunite Brahmachal to the Gour Kingdom", and "as in imitation of the great Hindu Gauda Kingdom", are examples from the first few paragraphs.
Neutrality; the language is exceedingly flowery in some cases, and exceedingly negative in others. "Noted as a disrespectful and intolerant tyrant" needs to be something that is said by very many sources before we can report that in Wikipedia's voice. "great Hindu Gauda Kingdom" on the other hand, is flowery language that does not contribute to the reader's understanding.
Verifiability; the article is currently tagged as needing more sources, and the tag is justified. Entire paragraphs are unreferenced. Furthermore, some of the sources used are questionable; a government publication from 1948 may occasionally be reliable, but is more likely to not be; and desherpotro.com certainly doesn't seem to be reliable.
I haven't evaluated the article for copyright and original research, because there isn't much purpose; a comprehensive rewrite is needed first.

At the moment, the issues are large enough that there's no point in putting this on hold. I hope the comments here will be helpful to anyone looking to work on this before renominating it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]