Mazgaon Fort 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 11, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 26, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Mazagon Fort in Mumbai was destroyed by Yakut Khan in 1690?

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

India: Maharashtra / Mumbai / History 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 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). 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

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I am not prepared to pass the article for GA at this time, although I will give you an opportunity to improve it. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Below are just some of the more serious problems, if they are dealt with, I will address the rest of the problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

It is not well written. I have listed some problems below, although the entire wrticle requires a thorough copyedit.

"The harbour proved eminently apposite" - what? This is not clear and is written in over-complicated langauage.

"and the Mughals were constantly waging war on" - be clearer, which wars are we talking about.

"Mughal Aurangzeb to reign in Sakat for a price" - for a price is a cliche.

"Enraged at barter" - do you mean the negotiations?

"A popular recreation ground" - what is?

The lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article.

Why is it demolished and destroyed in 1690? Just use destroyed.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

More references needed. One reference is not enough for an article at GA. Its actually not enough for B class. I recommend between 5-6 sources, preferably including some academic book sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

No. Although it does seem that most issues are covered in some way, they are not covered in anything like the required level of detail. More is needed on the siege of the fort in 1689, the nature of the wars between Britain and Siddis and the modern uses of the fort to name just a few areas that require expansion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Hard to tell during sourcing problems. It is also worth noting that the articel needs to think carefully about nomenclature - what was the city known as when the events being described happened? When talking about the present fort, use Mumbai, but when referring to the city before 1996, you need to use the term that was then in use by the city authorities, probably Bombay.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Just saw on the primary user's page that they've been caught up in the attacks in Mumbai. Don't worry about this, I'll keep the review open as long as needed. Here's hoping you are OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, its been a month and there is no action happening. How likely are you to get to this in the the near future?--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:55, 31 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 Castella de Aguada is also under review and failing for the same reason: Talk:Castella de Aguada/GA1. 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! 12:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been months without any action, I'm afraid this article cannot pass as it is. When you have time, sort out the problems listed above and renominate. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mazagon Fort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030412025617/http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=47106 to http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=47106

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]