The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quite a few issues already. I think the topic is interesting, and the research seems sufficient, just needs to be written in a way that meets the GA criteria, particularly 1a. I'll leave it here, and a copyedit should be performed further in the article, ensuring concision, metaphors and clarity are prioritised. I'll complete the review once this is finished, please ping me when done. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you only edited the stuff I pointed out, can you please make sure the issues with concision, metaphors and clarity do not persist through the article before we continue? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollinginhisgrave I will appreciate if you can list the issues; eyes have grown too accustomed to the current version which was drafted by me in entirety; TrangaBellam (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have continued reviewing for a bit. I understand that it's difficult for you to copyedit, but when I have a concern every sentence, the article is not close to the standards of GA. Continuing to review at this point is a full rewrite, one that I am unwilling to do as it goes beyond what is expected of GA reviewers. When I didn't want to immediately fail this; I hoped by identifying issues and giving examples you would be able to apply them, but at this time you're too close to the text. Hopefully you can get some distance and then read with some fresh eyes. My biggest concern at this point: Reading the article, I cannot tell if historians generally believe it existed. Even if this review didn't earn a little badge, I hope this stuff helped, and I'm glad you brought it here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede doesn't summarise the information in the body.
Will do.
First sentence should specify that it is a claimed polity, not that it existed for sure if scholarship does not reflect this.
Gloss the Chach Nama
Sorry?
I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so when I read it "comes from the Chachnama" I don't know what it is. A short explanation (i.e. a 10th century book) should be provided. This is called a gloss.
I know that; was wondering about the need to gloss over Chachnama in the lead itself! But, I can see how it will be more helpful to an average reader. Will do.
such attempts remain speculative and unconvincing. this needs to be in the body and sourced.
Deleted from the lead. Fring-ey stuff by otherwise-respected numismatists; UNDUE for body and lead, I say.
as colonial bureaucrats mined the Chachnama to justify their invasion of Khairpur by drawing from historical precedents
"mined": metaphor
I saw you didn't do this, do you disagree that this should be changed?
Nah, I will rewrite the lines.
"Chachnama" spell it the same way for consistency
Done
by drawing from historical precedents unclear what this means
Will do.
Not sure why the first footnote is there rather than elsewhere.
Neither am I; let me recall what I must have thought. Removed, per WP:HISTRS - fringe, old, and barely influenced scholarship. So, UNDUE.
The last Sassanian mints discovered from the region—of Peroz I (r. 459–484)—a new Brahmi legend "Ranaditya Satya" appears on the reverse, which was probably the name of an eponymous local ruler/governor. wordy, more concise
Done.
Sometime soon, Sindh appears ungrammatical, vague
Done.
fallen off the orbit of idiom
Done.
The Rai dynasty's origin might have laid in this power vacuum. attribute
Why?
Because it's speculation, and we don't want people thinking Wikipedia is speculating. We want people to know who is thinking this.
And, what policy says that? Do you think the readers to be so stupid to not figure out that the ones who engaged in the speculation must be scholars?
our knowledge of the Rai dynasty remains rudimentary This is implying that it existed and we just don't know much about it, which is at odds with the rest of the article.
What is the oddity? We have a curious text, which some scholars believe to be an accurate recording of late-ancient history while some do not. Hence, scholars like Habib have described the Rais, as it is described in the Chachnama, but scholars like Asif are not. I assure you that our readers will be able to make sense of it.
pertaining to the dynasty, can be located strange wording with located, different verb needed
Done.
accordingly, doubts persist about the accuracy of the historical narratives contained within the text redundant
Nope; not at all. But rephrased.
rejects Asif's doubts Asif had doubts? only Ahmed's had been noted.
After I sent this for review, some editor (rightfully) moved the page Manan Ahmed to Manan Ahmed Asif. Fixed.
However, scholars have disputed the claim and some view it as an original revisionist work drafted for political purposes; accordingly, doubts persist about the accuracy of the historical narratives contained within the text. This is a misrepresentation of the literature if note 4's summary is accurate.
Really? Explain.
Nonetheless, its narrative implies in spite of the concerns of historians, which weren't around in the subsequent examples
This, I grant, was poor choice of words. Fixed.
British Gazettes what are these? Why is it capitalised? Is it an actual gazette named "British Gazettes" or just general gazettes?
Do a Google Search? If you are absolutely unaware about South Asian history (and historiography), you cannot expect to read this article and understand every single bit of information. Our articles are not targeted at laymen pace popular belief - see WP:ONEDOWN.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.