This is a page to discuss the issues related to the article Taj Mahal and the subsequent expansion and polishing works related to the article to bring it up to the featured article standards.

The article

edit

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

Progress

edit

To do

edit
General expansion
May be now. But I'd say, its a   Done..
Copyediting
  • Paraphrasing
almost covered, but its a   Done
  • Grammar and tone
  Done
  • MoS
  Done
Last minute decorations and clean up
  • Using semiautomated bits and stuffs
Pending....
Creating the FAC page
Adding the FA topicon

At work

edit

Discussions

edit

Atsme, thanks a lot for joining me.. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And I would prefer to leave the cite 3 in the lead as its a controversial one..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem - don't hesitate to revert me. I'm trying to work in small chunks for that very reason. AtsmeConsult 06:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Taj is a hot issue in India and there over a score of controversies around it. Plus there is a good deal of discussions on the type of architectural style in the talk page. I'm thinking of a RfC. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Need to get that all taken care of before this article is reviewed. It must show stability. AtsmeConsult 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I am thinking for a RfC to get at least a clearer consensus from our colleagues. Almost a similar situation is with Black Stone..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I realigned images, deleted quite a bit of the construction and architectural details since it is already included at the origin-arch article. Still tweaking here an there. AtsmeConsult 19:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So the original article lessened our job? Anyway, the article will not be ready till its stable. I mean, the edit wars and RfC (the latter was unnecessary) are to be solved. Should I remove the RfC as we now have a clear cut idea on architectural styles? -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think so. Yes remove the RfC. We've cited the sources. Edit wars? I didn't notice. AtsmeConsult 17:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  Done I was mentioning that moonlight image (editwar).. Ready to roll out for FAC? Or wait for something...-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Give me a few more days. I like to go back and read with fresh eyes. Once I get that done and make sure all the copy and punctuations, etc. are good, we can move forward. And that is when the work really begins. 🙏 AtsmeConsult 17:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the fire begin then..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 17:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let the games begin! AtsmeConsult 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result

edit

Awaiting..