Jump to content

Talk:Bajirao I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBajirao 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2020Good article nomineeListed
August 11, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 30, 2020Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 18, 2018, August 18, 2021, April 28, 2023, and April 28, 2024.
Current status: Former good article nominee

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)[reply]
Delisted GA; ineligible

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Mahusha (talk). Self-nominated at 17:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes

QPQ: No - "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)[reply]

The GA review was completed by a sockpuppet. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weaselly introduction

[edit]

Raising issues on this article, since recent attempts to fix or flag them have repeatedly been reverted by one editor.

The problem is straight forward. The article lead says "considered" and "widely considered", offers some opinions, and backs this up with reference to two sources. This is simply weasel wording. Do two opinions amount to "widely"? Do the sources say their opinion is "widely" held? It would seem the answer is no to both.

Also, how"widely"? Is this covering historians of the Indian subcontinent, Asia, the world? It states he is "one of the greatest". How large a body of "greatest" are we talking about here? Top three? Tenth greatest? 100th? What others is he getting compared to? See, this is the problem with weasel wording. It ultimately tells the reader nothing factual and reads like it's the opinion of the contributing editor, trying and failing to sound factual.

If the two sources used are authoritative, written by acknowledged experts, (and I have no reason to question this), then the article should attribute these opinions and stop hiding behind "considered"s. If there are sources that demonstrate or say that their opinion is one agreed by most others, then cite those. But currently the article lead reads badly and does the subject no credit.

There is also the problem that the lead describes him at aged 20, but doesn't explain the significance of this age. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag me if you want to have a discussion involving me. It was just luck that I saw the talk page and came to know about the issues you had with the edits made by me in the article.
Now, about your issues,
1.) I have reverted edits only because the editors had removed sourced information and were not so concerned about wording issue.
2.) You should at least read the whole sentence, it clearly mentions One of the Greatest Generals of his time. And I have used widely cuz almost all historians who had written about him agrees with the statement, so I have used "Widely". Moreover, I have provided two citations only as excessive citations make the article look not so good and generally excessive citations are not allowed (only to be used in extremely disputed cases).
3.) Should I change it to "Attested by many historians like Chhabra and Mehta as one of the greatest military generals of his time, he is credited with consolidating the Maratha state and transforming it into an empire."
4.) The significance of aged 20 is that it shows that he had interest in military activities from such a young age. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to have a discussion about those interested in this page. This page is the place for that discussion. If you are watching the page enough to be reverting others fixes on it, you can see edits on the talk page.
1) The problem with the information was explained to you because it was not sourced and not attributed. It was instead unattributed extrapolation of sources making weaselly claims not in the sources.
2) "almost all historians who had written about him agrees with the statement" - and that is precisely the claim you have been asked to cite a source for, and have not.
2) "excessive citations make the article look not so good" - because they tend to suggest Original Synthesis, that is; combining sources to back up something that is not in any one of the sources. You need a single source that verifies what is being said. Cherry picking a couple to back up this claim, or combining lots, is equally not good enough.
3) It would be better if it said "historians Chhabra and Mehta credit him as one of the greatest military generals of his time .. ". Do these historians have wiki pages? It would be good if the reader could determine who they are and what credentials they have to be determining such a thing. If that is too lengthy for the lead, then it should be abbreviated there and discussed in the legacy section, where I notice neither are mentioned. If their opinion is notable enough for the lead, then surely they should be there?
4) But who decided this age? What was significant about him at aged 20? What happened then? Who wrote about him then? What did he do then? The reader is clueless as to why this age was chosen. Why not 15? Why not 40?
Thank you for the changes you made, it's improved the article. But the lead still says "is considered to be the most charismatic and dynamic leader in Maratha history" without any attempt to say who considers this. It also says "already gained a reputation" without saying who the reputation was among. The lead paragraph is always better focussed on facts, not opinions. Detail the achievements that demonstrate to the reader how notable/famous he was. Don't say he was great, show he was great. Leave the expert opinion to later paragraphs. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the article now; Apart from it Chhabra and Mehta are renowned historians but I found no wiki page for them so it should be created imo but i m no expert at that so any other experienced editor could help. For widely part how should i mention the sentence; Considered by historians Chhabra, Mehta, Dighe,Panikar..... so i used widely though i m fine with the latest part of addressing it. Who decided the age? It's a fact, how do I know the fact cuz of the source how does the author knows it through primary sources and his/her research. The sentence shows his military learning and decision-making skills. Moreover as per you recommendation I have shifted some of info in 4th para from 1st to look more sequential and better presentable to the reader besides adding "by Gordon" for the charismatic and dynamic one. Hope the article is fine now. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bajirao_I&oldid=1280098869"