Castella de Aguada was a Warfare 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 6, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

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

Military history: Fortifications / Asian / Indian / South Asia C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force India: Maharashtra / Mumbai / History C‑class 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 C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mumbai (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in August 2013.

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Could you get a copy-editor from somewhere?

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   You need more than two sources to add 'meat' to this article. Surely there is more information on this fort somewhere? If this isn't expanded somewhat, I will have to fail it...just a random shot of why: what happened at the fort between 1534 and 1739?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Overall: watch for when you switch between past and present text.
• Right at the beginning - "Castella de Aguada or the "Fort of the Waterpoint" (also known as the Bandra Fort)"
  • Totally redundant.
  • "Fort of the Waterpoint" should be capitalized as an alternate name per WP:BOLDTITLE
• "History" section, first para, third sentence: "It also controlled the northern sea route into Mumbai Harbour, a passage that is now reclaimed from the sea."
  • ...what? Just what was reclaimed by the sea?
• "History" section, second para, first sentence: "In 1739 the island was invaded by the Maratha Empire; it was ruled by them until 1761 when the British evicted them off the island after the Treaty of Bassein."
  • "Evicted"?
• "Conservation" section, first para, third sentence: "On the agenda were the brick arch of one of the gateways that was on the verge of collapse, and the foundation masonry of the fort wall that was in danger of being eroded by the sea."
  • "On the agenda"? No, switch that.
  • "Were" => "was" maybe?

I'm putting this on hold; as long as you are making an effort to improve the article, this GAN will not be closed. Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the text and added a wee bit more. The book I bought "The Origins of Bombay" has a scant mention of the fort; unfortunately, that's one of the best sources on the history of the city that there is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's looking much better...but IMHO, it still needs more. :/ Were there any particularly notable military units that were stationed in the fort (maybe one that has an article on it online, and a short history of the time when the unit was in the fort?) If there is nothing else, I can't in good conscience pass this because it is obviously incomplete to me. :/ Sorry... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reviewing Sewri Fort, and I am having the same problem with regard to coverage. There is a lack of detail. I've taken a look at other Mumbai fort articles and note that Mazagon Fort is also under review and failing for the same reason: Talk:Mazagon Fort. There doesn't appear to be a parent article that discusses all these forts, and that might be a way forward. Group them all together and make a detailed single article on the Mumbai forts, using summary style break outs for those forts which have greater information which can be covered in detail. If there isn't the information out there to cover these forts individually in detail it may be the case that they are not able to achieve Good Article status - but a parent article covering the m all just might do it. SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I give up then. I would have to probably do a PhD or write a book on the forts by visiting museums before I actually get enough meat on these articles for it to be comprehensive enough. The forts were too insignificant for long periods to merit published reports. List of forts in Mumbai has some sort of summary information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nichalp...

However, for what it's worth, those have got to be the most detailed entries on those forts that anyone has ever done, so many props to you for that. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some good news: There is one Suman Tate at the museum that is researching on the forts. Maybe I could get more information there one day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, and that is good news! If you do manage to get info from him some day, add it in, re-nom it at WP:GAN, and (if you want) leave me a note on my talk page - I'll review it again. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two books may have some more information about the fort. Unfortunately only snippet view is available on Google books:

• Faces of Goa: A Journey Through the History and Cultural Revolution of Goa and Other Communities Influenced by the Portuguese by Karin Larsen
• Bandra: Its religious and secular history by Braz A. Fernandes

Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese word for castle is castelo (old spelling: castello), not castella. Best regards from pt-wiki, Manuel de Sousa (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]