Talk:Battle of Haldighati/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HerodotusTheFraud (talk · contribs) 17:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to this as soon as I can. Best, Herodotus (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait; I have been a little busy over the last few weeks.

Firstly, and before I get too deep into your article, I want to ask about the edit conflicts that clearly have occurred on this page. Why is this happening, and have they ended? You will be as aware as I that edit wars constitute an auto-fail for GA. Herodotus (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@HerodotusTheFraud: Please take your time. There is no hurry. For an explanation of the regular reverts that you see on this page, you will need to familiarise yourself with articles such as this one. Since this was a battle between the Rajputs and the Mughals, it is often characterised as a Hindu vs. Muslim conflict (even though there were Hindus and Muslims on both sides). As the Mughals won the battle, it is seen as a blight on Hindu or Rajput honour and attempts have been repeatedly made to rewrite the history to portray the Rajputs in a better light. The article is now protected until March 2018 due to the persistent vandalism and disruptive editing. See also the protection log of 29 July 2017 by Utcursch which should confirm the source of much of the disruptive editing. The article itself has been stable since a GOCE copy-edit was completed in early August. My rewrite ended in mid-July. If you would like confirmation of this from editors besides the nominator, please let me know and I'll ping some of those who actively monitor this article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: One final question: can you explain the editing issues that occurred in early October? Other than that, I think I can get started with the review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HerodotusTheFraud (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@HerodotusTheFraud: They are related to the same issue. The edits are either unsourced or unreliable. The same user who edited in early October edited the article a couple of hours ago and as you can see by the links he's added, the basis for the edit is the revisionism in the 10-grade textbooks of the state of Rajasthan. He's been pushing the same edits since mid-September and has ignored requests to discuss the issue on the talk page. If it wasn't for the page protection, we'd be seeing such edits from anonymous users every second day.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, let's get started. Not bad work so far, but there are some revisions to make.

• The introduction should include more context as to the conflict being fought here; this should be in the infobox as well.
• "Akbar was intent on securing a stable route to Gujarat through Mewar" What is the strategic importance of Gujarat? Why was the route through Mewar important?
• "The Mughals were led by Raja Man Singh of Amber, who commanded an army numbering around 5,000–10,000 men." This is repetition from the first paragraph, rephrase.
• "After a fierce battle lasting more than three hours, Pratap found himself wounded and the day lost." Not fond of the wording; rephrase to a more encyclopedic feel.
• "The Battle of Haldighati was a futile victory for the Mughals, as they were unable to oust Maharana Pratap. While they were able to capture Gogunda and nearby areas, they were unable to hold onto them for long. As soon as the empire's focus shifted elsewhere, Pratap and his army came out of hiding and recaptured the western regions of his dominion." This should be rephrased to add more context as to Gogunda, the "empire's focus", etc. Also, "futile victory" is not a good phrase to use in this case.
• "After his accession to the throne, Akbar had steadily settled his relationship with most of the Rajput states" More context needed on the Mughal-Rajput relationship.
• "a fellow Rajput of the Kachhwa clan, whose fortunes had soared under the Mughals" Context needed here too.
• "With diplomacy having failed, war was inevitable" Would expand on this, otherwise it is a redundant statement.
• The Prelude needs to have some sort of location descriptions.
• Prelude, Army Strength, and Army Formation should be combined into one section. You can turn some of them into subheads if you want, but each alone does not merit its own section.
• The end of Prelude should be at the end of the "Army Formation" section, directly before the "Battle."
• "Due to the disparity between the two armies, the Rana chose to mount a full frontal assault on the Mughals, committing all of his men." This needs tactical explanation. A "full frontal assault" against superior forces is generally strategic suicide, so a description of the motives and a more complex plan would be useful.
• "After spooking the Mughal left wing" Spooking?
• Much of the battle section is written too much in an epic literary style. It needs revision into a more informative, encyclopedic fashion.
• The transition between Pratap's politic isolation and Akbar's shift of focus is jarring.
• Who is Satish Chandra? I'm assuming very few readers will be aware of Indian chroniclers, so he will need a little biographical information.

Not a bad start; I'll check back in after you conclude these edits. Herodotus (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC) @Cpt.a.haddock: Forgot to ping you; your review has begun.