Talk:Naulakha Pavilion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Naulakha Pavilion has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 14, 2008.
May 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] My GA Review of this article

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• one lakh equals 100,000 what? U.S. dollars?
• Specify which Dept. of Arch.
• Clarify common use language (Urdu?) and add citation
• Shouldn't "pavilion" be capitalized throughout when referring to "Naulakha Pavilion" since it would be a proper noun (place)? If so, article will need to be moved as well.
• The following sentence could be broken up for easier readability: "This unique feature is symbolic of Shajahani architecture[3] and reflects a mixture of contemporary traditions (at the time of its construction) of sloping-roof from Bengal, and Baldachin from Europe, to demonstrate imperial as well as religious image."
• "of the finest quality" is POV unless a direct citation.
• Fix prose tagged-section
• I added some citation tags, the information for which might be covered in the References section, but WP:inline citations still need to be used.
• Section "Environmental concerns" is really only one concern--section is small and perhaps should be integrated into History or elaborated upon
• Why not put picture of Pakistan Embassy at Washington DC next to pertinent section?

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

• Please find citations for the text I marked accordingly

  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• For the most part.

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Good

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

• Seven images, all in good standing

[edit] Conclusion

In its current condition, I will put the GAN on hold (for one week) until the above issues are addressed. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to these issues and for moving the article. I'm happy to pass this on to GA status now...congrats! --Eustress (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)