Parkala massacre was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 23, 2018 Good article nominee Listed October 15, 2019 Good article reassessment Delisted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 24, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that former Indian Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao called the Parkala Massacre the "Jallianwala Bagh of the south", referring to the 1919 British slaughter of hundreds of people at a peaceful protest?
Current status: Delisted good article

This article was created as part of Project Tiger 2018.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History / Hyderabad Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Hyderabad.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parkala Massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment individually under each of my comments and mark with  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was a major turning point for the Indian freedom struggle when a British General, Reginald Dyer, marched into Jallianwala Bagh and ordered his troops to fire on peaceful protesters, killing 379 and injuring 1,200. There is probably a more neutral way to phrase this. "Independence movement" is probably better than "freedom struggle," for instance. Also, "general" should not be capitalized here.

Changed "Independence movement" is probably better than "freedom struggle," and removed capitalization in "General".

• the farmers decided to mark and celebrate the occasion by hoisting the national flag—this is unnecessary in context, "the farmers hoisted the national flag" is sufficient

I think that would be inaccurate because the farmers 'intended' to hoist the flag but they were prevented from doing so.

Right now it's unclear whether they managed to raise the flag or not. Perhaps something like, "They tried to raise the Indian flag, but were prevented by the police"

• the people of Hyderabad State—was it really all people in Hyderabad or just some people? Were there social groups that opposed union with India?

The sources say people in general against the oppressive regime of the then ruler Nizam and his army of Razakars.

• abused women—can you be more specific here?

Some sources mention "molest" some use "rape".

I think "sexually assault" would be better than what you have there.

Updated it. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 09:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional but highly recommended—adding an infobox. Template:Infobox civilian attack or Template:Infobox event would both be suitable.

I haven't worked with infobox before, but thanks for the suggestion, let me give it a try. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added one infobox. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there any pictures of the protests? If not, are there any contemporary pictures of Parkala?

There are no pictures of the protest, it was long time back... there are contemporary pictures of the monument but I can't spot a free one, all seem to be licensed by copies of different news agency. I will keep looking. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 09:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You should mention somewhere that Hyderabad State was eventually absorbed by India in 1948.
• What, if any, was the connection between protests and unrest such as this incident with India's decision to annex Hyderabad State?

One view is that the ongoing persecution (religious and otherwise) convinced the then Indian PM Nehru to pursue a discussion to merge Hyderabad into the Indian state for reasons of regional peace and stability. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Gbohoadgwwian: we're almost done here. If you can confirm that you're OK with my last prose edit and fix the citations, either by removing the least reliable one in both cases or bundling them, then I'll pass the article. Catrìona (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Catrìona, I have removed one citation, moved some closer to the source they backup. I am okay with the prose edit that you made. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 11:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

return practically nothing except a single conference proceedings:- RAO, G. MEENESHWAR (1991). "LAST PHASE OF FREEDOM STRUGGLE IN THE HYDERABAD STATE: A CASE STUDY OF THE TELANGANA REGION". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 52: 620–625. ISSN 2249-1937. that discusses the topic in a single paragraphThI see that Deccan Chronicle, 5th September, 1947 has been used as source, which I will try to access. is, very likely, won't ever be a GA. Still, will search for reother levant sources. ∯WBG^converse 16:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look over here. ∯WBG^converse 18:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many local incidents that were never taken up as research topics. Such topics lack scholarly peer-reviewed articles. This is not the qualifying criteria for GA. And I see no valid reason to delete sources that are not contradicted to be deleted and a cn tag substituted. Or to delete a source because it doesn't have a website. If the article seems incomplete or unworthy of GA by GAN procedure it should be delisted, we can do that. But to come up with a new criteria or to slash sources does not look reasonable to me. You started doing this immediately after a content dispute with me on another article. You reverted me there, deleted references here, put a point directly on an admin talk page instead of taking it up with me. Not a very nice first meet. --Jaydayal (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I say that the article was reviewed by at least three other editors. The GA reviewer, DYK reviwer and Project Tiger reviewer. If I am not wrong these (unextraordinary) sources where there from then (I can be wrong, in which I would be willing to redact this claim). Each review had sanity check of references as a qualifying criteria. --Jaydayal (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged, instead of reverting blindly, you can respond here. --Jaydayal (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydayal, I was one of the three judges of Project Tiger and let me emphasize that a pass by us does not entitle you to extra brownie points over t/p discussions.

The GA review was shit; V93 and SN54129 are among our best content-writers.

Where does two of your used sources:- this and this mention damn anything about Parkala? How's that not equivalent of mis-use of sources and synthesis? What in those two sources leads you to conclude that Parkala was one of the massacres that led Nehru to annex the state?

Have you read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS? How do you identify Itihas Samachar as a reliable journal? Who publishes that? Who serves in their editorial board? Is it peer-reviewed, at all? How can a reader know, that it's not your tacitly-named blog-post? Vanamonde93 asked you the same over the DYK vide Also, what is "Itihasa Samachar", and why is it a reliable source? and he seems to have accepted your reply; I don't. We need to know a lot more of it's bibliographic details. I searched across WorldCat and multiple prominent Indian-university-library catalogs for holdings of the claimed journal but in vain. And, same for mentions of it in bibliographic records of other reliable books/articles.

Morae's biography is one of the most lopsided efforts in the domain. As, this review over a prominent journal notes, Moraes has turned Nehru into a god-like figure, whose autocratic attitudes were justified to some or the other incident and ultimately, to people's welfare. Same statement in the ICHR review of the work. Another review over Journal of Asian Studies also criticizes it for it's biases and concludes that it's not a book for a serious student of India. Another review rates it as an average work with it's share of mistakes as well as valid and good takes. Yet another deems it as too pro-Nehru and to be not objective enough. Another review notes it to be an over-dramatized and hagiographic biography that did not find any fault in his policies for Kashmir, Hyderabad et al and proclaimed him to be a world class leader/diplomat. Thus, it's quite obvious that Moraes will try to up-play the massacre and use it to justify India's/Nehru's annexation and it is thus an unreliable source for the particular claim, that you had cited to him. Now, to arrive at the most important part, I have read Moraes and I don't see any mention of the Parkala incident. Can you give a page number, please?

Swarajya is a right-wing mouthpiece; who has of-late purchased Op-India (that has been deemed as wholesale unreliable per RSN consensus) and has published fake news. If you need sources for this assertion, I can provide them at dime a dozen. Given RSS's appropriation of the massacre; their reliability of documenting the massacre is of significant doubt. At any case, they fail WP:HISTRS and it's political overtones are amply clear. And, as someone who has edited a whole lot of right-wing topics, I guess that you are quite aware of these. [User:Winged Blades of Godric|∯WBG]]^converse 13:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good record. Not one wrong reference used ever. Three reviewers apart from me accepted those references. I know relevant wiki policy. I am not here to please you. You have called me highly incompetent, reverted me continuously on multiple articles, followed my edits. That is, I know for sure, not the best way to followup. Take it up on relevant forum. I am not buying your suave but highlt arrogant, distasteful and confrontational argument. --Jaydayal (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydayal, please provide evidence for your blatant aspersion that I am reverting you on multiple articles. It started with your's revert of my edits over Tashkent Files and then, over this GA. I am not seeing a single other article, where we have editorially interacted.

If you decline to participate or stonewall, my preferred version goes in, that's it. The relevant forum to debate this article is this t/p and nowhere else. ∯WBG^converse 04:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. Anyone can see you are the one "stonewalling". Stop rehashing. --Jaydayal (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of arrogant mindset is "my preferred version goes in, that's it"? Is that how you discuss? Let me rehash: Go take it up with GA and DYK reviewer that all these references should be deleted. I see nothing extra-ordinary or contradicted by any other source, for these references. These references are not prohibited by any wiki policy, they are used elsewhere on wiki too. There, I have rehashed my response. More than one is "multiple". On other article, I made 'edit', you did first revert, then I reverted you. You discussed this article on your talk page, on admins talk page, before I persuaded you to stick to this talk page. You detached my response at your will under new pointy subtitle like "jaydayal revert". Not allowed on talk page. --Jaydayal (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you inserted 3 of the 5 challenged references after Vanamonde's DYK review (only the Swarajya piece and Itihas Samachar were present over the DYK version), I fail to see why he shall take responsibility for those 3. ∯WBG^converse 06:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely request you to stop editing/moving my comments and your own comments to which I have already responded. This is basic talk page recommendation. I am not expected to view talk page history, check the changes in your earlier comments and update my response in-place. That would be a mess. Can we please do this? --Jaydayal (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Winged, response to your surgically inserted extension to your comment for which I had already responded: page number was always provided in the reference. It is still there. -Jaydayal (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that, apologies and struck. Checking the part. page in a moment. ∯WBG^converse 06:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited page does not contain damn anything about Parkala massacre. Explain that.∯WBG^converse 06:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Appreciated. Are you trying to validate this content from the article: "The Parkala massacre and other atrocities led Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to annex the Hyderabad State in 1948." with three references for this statement there? If you can tell then I can respond better, thank you. --Jaydayal (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because, as things stand, none of the three references mention anything about Parkala. ∯WBG^converse 06:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every reference for every sentence in the article titled "Parkala" needs to have that word. I am not quoting either. I can't help you if you keep moving my edits around and updating your own comments in-place. Sorry. --Jaydayal (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:INTEGRITY, you can't understand? ∯WBG^converse 06:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the entire idea of Hyderabad being annexed as a result of such atrocities is too biased and simplistic to the extent of being blatantly untrue by a few miles or so. ∯WBG^converse 06:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please put back my response that you have removed twice. I am not wasting more time here. --Jaydayal (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydayal, what response? Nothing written by you has been removed and it was you who failed to resolve an edit-conflict properly and reintroduced comments by me, that I had already deleted in the meanwhile. ∯WBG^converse 08:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you both dial it back a little, please? I'm not going to get into the weeds with the sources, because it doesn't matter to the GA status. Fundamentally, there isn't enough material here, even if every one of the sources currently being used is actually fine. That's not anyone's fault as such, it's in the nature of the topic. If we want to verify that the sources are being used appropriately, that's fine, but it doesn't make much of a difference to the result, so that's even more reason to not be unpleasant about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93, not sure as to how I can dial back given that his first response to my listing of problems with the sourcing was that I have a good record. Not one wrong reference used ever. Three reviewers apart from me accepted those references. I know relevant wiki policy. I am not here to please you.....Take it up on relevant forum. I am not buying your suave but highly arrogant, distasteful and confrontational argument. and further added that he won't engage me since you have passed it in the DYK-review whilst Buidhe passed it in the GA. Hence, everything shall stay same, unless the two of you see any problems. ∯WBG^converse 14:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, to be blunt, you are being a bit confrontational, just as Jaydayal is being unnecessarily defensive. The page obviously needs a GA reassessment. I would like to hear from Buidhe before I do anything about it, because common courtesy would suggest as much. Buidhe has not been active for some days, so I'd like to give them a reasonable amount of time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93, cool. The two (or three) of you do whatever you wish to. I won't give a flying fuck, either-way. ∯WBG^converse 16:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That was unnecessary, and I think you know it was. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think it is unnecessary that all the reviewers of DYK, GA (and probably, whoever the heck has edited the article in some form or manner) be informed and consulted, to remove sources that don't support the text and I think that you know it is. FWIW, the thread was not at all about the GAR; not sure why you went into that part. straw-man -- courtesies of a time-span and all that.

  At any case, this has consumed enough of my time. So, time to bid it a bye. ∯WBG^converse 17:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As you wish. Consulting the reviewer isn't necessary, but it is a courteous thing to do, and there's no urgency about the GA icon. If there's references that are misused, then that should be addressed ASAP; I'm not getting in the way at all, I just think it can be a more pleasant discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This entire discussion is about references being misused i.e. using references that don't even mention Parkala in any slightest manner. I will note that this discussion had never been about the GA issues and none had spoken any about the GAR. Jaydayal has been stating that this article remains at a standstill with all such misused references unless the two of you give consent for a change and that he won't engage me. I re-emphasize that I had not talked a bit about the issues with GA in this entire thread. ∯WBG^converse 19:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Contrary to Jaydayal's assertions, a DYK review does not absolve him of all responsibility. Yes, I did a DYK review, and accepted offline sources in good faith, because that is standard practice. If you've checked the offline sources and found that they don't support the content in question, that is obviously a serious problem (which I'm not ignoring; I don't know why you think I am). Also; source quality isn't a binary of acceptable vs unacceptable sources. I'm okay with using a non-opinion piece from Swarajya for a quote, in a short article about an obviously notable topic that isn't covered in detail elsewhere. I wouldn't accept it as a GA reviewer. The same goes for Itihas samachar, especially without further details of its publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parkala Massacre

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Clear consensus to delist AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBG's comments

• Fails Criterion 2 (c)

  Two of the used sources:- 1 and 2 don't mention anything about the subject. Nothing in those two sources leads one to conclude that Parkala was one of the massacres that led Nehru to annex the state.

  I have read Moraes' biography of Nehru and I have not come across any mention of the Parkala incident. The cited page is [available over GBooks and mention nothing about the subject.

• Fails Criterion 2 (b)

  Itihas Samachar is not a reliable journal. There is complete lack of relevant bibliographic data (publisher, peer reviewed or not .....). I searched across WorldCat and catalogs of multiple Indian-university-libraries but in vain. I don't locate mentions of it in bibliographic records of other reliable books/articles.

  Swarajya is a right-wing mouthpiece; who has of-late purchased Op-India (that has been deemed as wholesale unreliable per RSN consensus). Given RSS's appropriation of the massacre; their reliability of documenting the subject is of significant doubt. They fail WP:HISTRS and it's political overtones are amply clear.

• Fails Criterion 3 (a)

  The entire incident is covered in two paragraphs and hardly achieves the level of detail required for a GA.

• This is a very poorly documented massacre and my searches across multiple online and offline repositories has nor provided me with any reliable source to salvage this GA. The nominator disagrees with my stance (and we have intensively conflicted). Hence, am bringing this before the broader community. Regards, ∯WBG^converse 06:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde's comments

• Delist, per my comments at the talk page about the depth of coverage, and concerns above about verifiability. The article as a whole is under 400 words long; minus the lead, background, and aftermath, the rest (about the incident itself) is approximately 150 words. This doesn't make it a terrible article, but some topics are simply not covered in enough detail to become GAs. As an aside, given that this is a community reassessment, I would suggest not using so many sections, or alternatively making subsections within a "Editor X's comments" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93, my second GAR :-( Feel free to resection/re-title, as you deem fit. ∯WBG^converse 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, refactored. Easier to parse, now, I think; also easier for others to comment, by adding their own section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

• Delist, per Vanamonde. It is also marginal for 1a. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]