Talk:Junagarh Fort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJunagarh Fort has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 15, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Daulatpol gate in the Junagarh Fort (pictured) in India has 41 hand imprints of the wives of Maharajas of Bikaner, who committed sati (self immolation) on the funeral pyres of their husbands?

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition[edit]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handprints[edit]

What does "moot handprints" means? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Elekhh (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I reviewed the article, and I see that a lot of good work has been done already. However, I think it still needs significant work to meet GA criteria. The article's weak point is a lack of focus. Certainly historic and cultural context are important, and should be provided in the article, however here these overwhelm the actual subject, while too many major aspects of the fort are not adequately described. Removing less relevant information (or moving to articles in which it is more relevant) and providing more detail about the fort itself can correct this problem. Below is a (non-exhaustive) list of issues:

  • History
    • The history section starts with two long paragraphs about the early history of the city (which should also be provided in the Bikaner article) but without providing much information about the first fort.
    • It is not clearly explained why a second fort, in a new location was needed.
    • The paragraph on Lalgarh Palace is very confusing, since it forgets to mention that it is located in the north of the city [1], and not within Junagarh fort. It is again, probably unnecessary to provide so much detail about a different building which has its own article.
    • More detailed description of the present day use of the fort would be beneficial. Is it only museum?
    • Legend section - how is this relevant for the fort?
  • Structures
    • This section provides a list of structures within the fort but no information on its configuration/layout, and how these buildings relate to each other.
    • Important factual information about the fort is missing: the fort's length is given but not its width or area, nor its height, height of the defensive walls, width of the moat, etc.
    • No information about architectural characteristics of the fort, such as the shape of its plan, shape of the bastions, exterior ornaments is provided.
    • No information about the gardens within the fort is provided.
    • The statement that "The fort was built on the ruins of an old fort built by Rao Bika" is very confusing since the lead states that "However, this fort was built outside the original fort that existed in the city." The statement in the lead seems to be the correct one according to this map: http://www.indianholiday.com/maps-of-india/map-of-bikaner.html this map.
    • "The fort contains 37 palaces": Is it present tense or past tense (i.e. are all 37 still preserved)? is each of these 37 buildings a separate palace?
    • Palaces: five palaces are described (of assumed 37) without explanation of why these are more important than the others.
    • Fort museum: does this refer to a building or an institution. If it is a new building it should be clearly stated. If it refers to the institution than it rather belongs to the history (or present day) section.
    • Is there any information about the cultural heritage status of the fort or historic preservation measures undertaken?
  • Connectivity
    • This section reads like a tourist guide, and rather falls within the scope of wikitravel. A link to wikitravel could be provided or idealy replaced with a section explaining the location of the fort within the city, and how is integrated with its surroundings. For understanding this, I found this map: http://www.indianholiday.com/maps-of-india/map-of-bikaner.html this map. far more useful than the article.
  • It is not explained how did the fort work as a defensive system (i.e. weapons used, fight tactics)
  • Images
    • There are too many distracting images which are only distantly relevant for the subject (1, 2, 3), while good images about the fort itself such as this have been placed in the gallery. I suggest removing all three unrelated images, and moving the best images from the gallery into the article.
    • By the image File:Indischer Maler um 1595 001.jpg there is no reference provided to indicate that it is within the palace.

On a general note, I think some of problems in this article might come from the extensive use of various tourist guides as sources, which are not always fully reliable, nor focused. It would probably help to rely more on primary sources.

I would be more than happy to further assist with improving this article. Please let me know if you wish to do so within this current GA nomination, and I will put the review on hold. Elekhh (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The nominator Nvvchar is on a holiday from today to 7th Feb. So I request the nominator to wait a little longer than a week so that Nvvchar can come back and edit. I will try to sort as many as GA issues till then, but major edits need Nvvchar. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I put in on hold until end of next week 14 February 2010. Elekhh (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was away on work. I returned yesterday night. I have carefully read your valuable review observatons and I hope I would be in a postion to address most of the issues raised by you. Primary sources on the fort struture have eluded my search so far. I have shifted the connectivity section substantially, along with the image, to Bikaner. I have also corrected the fact of the old fort in ruins that is located outside the existing fort. One issue which may be difficult to justify is why all the 37 strcutres in the artcile are not explained with their current status. Other Users like Redtigerxyz and Hometech have also made some changes in the text and imgs, which I agree. Thanks for giving me time upto 14th. Hopefully, I should be able to address all issues.--Nvvchar (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to see progress and I am happy you're ready to make further improvements. I find that in terms of illustrations the article is already much better. I uploaded another view of the gardens/courtyards seen from above. This one is greener than the other similar image which appeared previously in the gallery, although not as good in illustrating the succesion of courtyards. It might be worth considering including one of these images, as it would provide valuable information about the internal organisation of the fort. Elekhh (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made additions and changes in the text and references to meet your observations to the extent I could get reliable references. I even searched in the near by libraries to muster additional references of books on the fort but was not successful. To the extent possible, I have attempted to comply to your observations. I am giving below my compliance replies to all your observations. I hope they meet with your acceptance.--Nvvchar (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • The history section starts with two long paragraphs about the early history of the city (which should also be provided in the Bikaner article) but without providing much information about the first fort.
    • Done
  • It is not clearly explained why a second fort, in a new location was needed.
    • Explained
  • The paragraph on Lalgarh Palace is very confusing, since it forgets to mention that it is located in the north of the city , and not within Junagarh fort. It is again, probably unnecessary to provide so much detail about a different building which has its own article.
    • Paragraph Deleted
  • More detailed description of the present day use of the fort would be beneficial. Is it only museum?
    • Given
  • Legend section - how is this relevant for the fort?
    • Legend section deleted

Structures

  • This section provides a list of structures within the fort but no information on its configuration/layout, and how these buildings relate to each other.
    • Elaborated now
  • Important factual information about the fort is missing: the fort's length is given but not its width or area, nor its height, height of the defensive walls, width of the moat, etc.
    • Given now
  • No information about architectural characteristics of the fort, such as the shape of its plan, shape of the bastions, exterior ornaments is provided.
    • Suppleneted now to the extent available in the primary references, as explained earlier
  • No information about the gardens within the fort is provided.
    • An img added. No further deatils are available
  • The statement that "The fort was built on the ruins of an old fort built by Rao Bika" is very confusing since the lead states that "However, this fort was built outside the original fort that existed in the city." The statement in the lead seems to be the correct one according to this map: (blocked refreence) this map.
    • Factual error is noted and corrected
  • "The fort contains 37 palaces": Is it present tense or past tense are all 37 still preserved)? is each of these 37 buildings a separate palace?
    • The palaces are all preserved but details of only a few are given in primary sources, (even in the web site of the Royal family trust which maintains the fort and the palaces) have been provided. I could not get more details
  • Palaces: five palaces are described (of assumed 37) without explanation of why these are more important than the others.
    • These palaces are now open to visitors in view of their historical linkage to the best known rulers or Maharanas
  • Fort museum: does this refer to a building or an institution. If it is a new building it should be clearly stated. If it refers to the institution than it rather belongs to the history (or present day) section
    • It is within the Fort and references are cited now. The fort and the palaces are maintained by the trust.
  • Is there any information about the cultural heritage status of the fort or historic preservation measures undertaken? A trust
    • Yes, the palace complex and the fort are maintained by a trust established by the royal family. This reference is now added. In fact, the web site maintained by the trust of the royal family has been used at a number of places now, as it can be considererd as a primary source.

Connectivity

  • This section reads like a tourist guide, and rather falls within the scope of wikitravel. A link to wikitravel could be provided or idealy replaced with a section explaining the location of the fort within the city, and how is integrated with its surroundings. For understanding this, I found this map:(removed this reference as there was a warning signal on its acceptability) this map far more useful than the article.
    • Except for two sentences the rest of the section has been moved to Bikaner article.

As regards the private buildings a reliable reference states that such structures are not only located within the fort walls but also in the city. Hence, I am adding that part under section on structures with Aldus Huxley’s quote on these buildings.

  • It is not explained how did the fort work as a defensive system (i.e. weapons used, fight tactics)
    • Most difficult part. These details are not available except for one stray reference on the web which has been added.
  • Images le under any published books.
    • But to the extent available the same are now added. Img of garden provided by reviewer is also added
  • There are too many distracting images which are only distantly relevant for the subject (1, 2, 3), while good images about the fort itself such as this have been placed in the gallery. I suggest removing all three unrelated images, and moving the best images from the gallery into the article.
    • Figures 1,2 and 3 have been deleted
  • By the image File:Indischer Maler um 1595 001.jpg there is no reference provided to indicate that it is within the palace.
    • Figure deleted
  • On a general note, I think some of problems in this article might come from the extensive use of various tourist guides as sources, which are not always fully reliable, nor focused. It would probably help to rely more on primary sources.
    • Agreed. Now only primary sources are retained and supplemented by additional reliable references.

Further improvements[edit]

I am very pleased and impressed by the progress made. I much appreciate your hard work! The newly found source of the Maharaja Rai Singhji Trust website is mostly valuable. I think the structural issues of focus and coverage have mostly been addressed. There are several remaining minor issues which I trust can be fixed.

  • Facts, inconsistencies, clarity
    • Former name of the place is stated to be "Jingladesh" in the Geography section, and "Jungladesh" in the History section. Which one is correct?
    • Structures/Overview: It is stated that "the earliest [temple is] dated to the 15th century". This is intriguing since this fort was built at the end of the 16th century. Was an earlier temple on the site integrated in the complex?
    • The article mentions 5 gates, however the Maharaja Rai Singhji Trust website [2] states there are six, which is the number I could count on the satellite view from google earth.
    • "Karan Pol" or "Karanpol" ?
    • "Trpolia" or "Tripolia" ?
    • I am still confused about the "37" palaces. I couldn't find this number in any of the quoted references. Could it be it was taken from one of the non-primary sources or it was a confusion between the number of bastions and palaces?
  • Images
  • Prose. I think the prose could be in some points a touch clearer. There are several instances where the international reader would struggle understanding, such as:
    • "sand prone desert area of the desert"
    • "Aravalli range of hills" - Range usually describes mountains, as well as the height of those "hills" (as called locally) would generally qualify them as mountains.
  • Towards FA. Below is a list of areas of possible improvements which can bring the article towards FA status. These do not influence GA status.
    • A plan of the fort to illustrate the article would be highly useful;
    • More detailed description of how did the fort work as a defensive system (i.e. weapons used, fight tactics, gates, etc);

Elekhh (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further changes[edit]

Thanks for accepting most of my new additions and changes. Replies to your further suggestions are given below. I hope you would find them in order.--Nvvchar (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts, inconsistencies, clarity

  • Former name of the place is stated to be "Jingladesh" in the Geography section, and "Jungladesh" in the History section. Which one is correct?
    • Jungladesh is the correct spelling as per reliable reference. Change made and refernce added
  • Structures/Overview: It is stated that "the earliest [temple is] dated to the 15th century". This is intriguing since this fort was built at the end of the 16th century. Was an earlier temple on the site integrated in the complex?
    • 16th Century is correct and changed
  • The article mentions 5 gates, however the Maharaja Rai Singhji Trust website [4] states there are six, which is the number I could count on the satellite view from google earth.
    • The Trust’s web site mentiones 7 gates while many other references talk of 5 gates. Changed to seven gates and reference introduced.
      • I checked the satellite view again and I can see now all seven. Is a pitty that there are so many errors in these sources... Elekhh (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Karan Pol" or "Karanpol" ?
    • Karan Pol is correct and changed accordingly
  • "Trpolia" or "Tripolia" ?
    • Tripolia is correct and suitable change made
  • I am still confused about the "37" palaces. I couldn't find this number in any of the quoted references. Could it be it was taken from one of the non-primary sources or it was a confusion between the number of bastions and palaces?
    • Your confusion is valid. I removed a travel web reference which mentioned 37 places and 37 bastions. While number of bastions tallies with other references, changing 37 palaces to several palaces is made now to remove any ambiguity.

Images

  • Caption of File:Bikaner family tree.jpg suggest that the man in the middle would be Rao Bika, however according to Junagarh trust website [5] that's not him. If this image is included, more information needs to be provided about what do we see, who are the three man in the centre.
    • The img is displayed in the museum and the trust’s web site also gives the same picture. This has been mentioned in the caption by Redtiger. Name of Bika has also been removed to avoid any ambiguity as to 'who is who'.
  • Caption of File:Marmol de Carrara, City Palace.jpg states that the floor is of Carrara marble, assumption probably based on flickr image name. However Carrara marble is white, and looks more like this or this. A better caption for this image is needed.
    • Carara marble word has been deleted. This has been replaced with “marble tiles”

Prose. I think the prose could be in some points a touch clearer. There are several instances where the international reader would struggle understanding, such as:

  • "sand prone desert area of the desert"
    • Corrected
  • "Aravalli range of hills" - Range usually describes mountains, as well as the height of those "hills" (as called locally) would generally qualify them as mountains.

Towards FA. Below is a list of areas of possible improvements which can bring the article towards FA status. These do not influence GA status.

  • A plan of the fort to illustrate the article would be highly useful;
  • More detailed description of how did the fort work as a defensive system (i.e. weapons used, fight tactics, gates, etc);
    • Thanks for the suggestions for improvement to take it to FA. Free img of map of fort may be difficult to find but defensive system details should be available in some history books. I will scout for it now.

Final touches[edit]

Thanks for the quick and precise response to the issues raised in the review. I think compared to the version from one week ago, the improvements can be called spectacular, and the article is now indeed very close to GA.

After these substantial changes, the lead needs to be updated, particularly the last paragraph which still contains a factual error and does not properly summarise the "Structures" section.

As previously stated, I will leave the GA review open until the end of the week. Any further suggestions for improvements from other editors, or comments on this review are welcome. Elekhh (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! What a miss. Sorry about it. I have corrected the mistake. Thanks for a superb review. I am sure there will be many more of my artciles (DYK) which are to be posted for GA upgrade for which your review would be very welcome. --Nvvchar (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA - Thanks to all contributors for the hard work. Special thanks to Nvvchar and Redtigerxyz. Hope to see more GA's from you. Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Junagarh Fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Junagarh Fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Junagarh_Fort&oldid=1203147148"