# Talk:Bhatura

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Even though it originated in delhi and surrounding areas"
lol delhi has just recently become independent land, delhi has been part 
of of historical punjab, and second "and surrounding area"
if u want to talk about modern delhi then lol it is surrounded by P-U-N-J-A-B
lol what a funny guy dosent even noe about his own historyMandeep 619 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Lol Heyitsgalaxycreeper (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bhatoora. 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/20070113215039/http://www.bawarchi.com:80/contribution/contrib3568.html to http://www.bawarchi.com/contribution/contrib3568.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 12:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bhatura/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
The article is well-sourced and clear but does not yet meet the Good Article criteria due to lack of historical and regional context, a short lead, and limited depth in coverage. These are fixable issues, so I am placing the nomination on hold for up to seven days for improvement. Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 05:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Crystalite13 (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Crystalite13: Hi, thanks for reviewing. I'll address each of your points:
Regarding "historical and regional context", I can't find any reliable sources about this. I mention in the article that the bread has existed since ancient times; there are no sources that say anything more.
I do not think the lead is too short. The body is only five paragraphs, so it wouldn't make sense for the lead to be longer than it is.
While the article appears to have limited coverage, I believe it encompasses the statements of all reliable sources. I searched all the major English-language Indian newspapers as well as some food publications. I do not know Hindi or Punjabi, so I did not cite any sources in these languages, but I searched Google Scholar and Google News using machine translation, and it appears that everything covered in these languages is also covered in English sources. Also, I'll note that other GAs about food items are similarly short.
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and for checking those sources. I understand that information in English may be limited, but even a brief note acknowledging the lack of historical documentation would help satisfy completeness. Expanding the lead slightly to summarize what’s already in the body should also address the balance concern. Once those are done, the article should be close to GA standards. I wish you best of luck :) Crystalite13 (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Crystalite13: I cannot add a "note acknowledging the lack of historical documentation" as there are no reliable sources mentioning this statement. As for the lead, are there any specific concerns you have? I personally think the lead mentions all the key points, and I don't want the lead to be too long, so I'll only add your suggestions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair, I agree it’s best not to include unsourced claims. You could instead clarify that historical details are not well documented or poorly recorded in available sources; that would accurately reflect the gap without asserting new information.
For the lead, a single additional sentence summarizing its cultural or regional relevance should be enough to balance it out. Once those are added, I think the article will meet GA criteria. Crystalite13 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I have added a sentence to the lead about cultural significance. I still think I cannot add a statement about the lack of documentation; as I said, this is a statement that would require a source. Also, just to make sure: did you remember to do a spotcheck of sources? I would suggest listing the sources you've checked, just to make it obvious that you did so. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The added sentence works well with the lead. I agree there’s no need to add an unsourced statement about documentation. Good idea on the spotcheck; I'll note it here shortly. Crystalite13 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Spotcheck:
Plagirism
Using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, I checked the page and there was very little percent of similarity, so that's good.
Ref checking
Ref 10 — CABI Invasive Species Compendium correctly supports the statement on fermentation and lactic acid bacteria.
Ref 19 — The Hindu article by Vasundhara Chauhan verifies the description of bhatura’s texture and oil absorption.
Ref 23 — The cited food culture source confirms wheat-based foods becoming popular in South India in the 20th century.
Ref 24 — The reference accurately supports mention of Sikh American cuisine.

Looks good! All issues are addressed. Thanks for your thoughtful replies and congratulations Crystalite13 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)