# Talk:Jama Masjid, Delhi

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gvsoltero.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding: ""Masjid-i-Jahan Numa means "the mosque commanding a view of the world", and the name Jama Masjid is a reference to the weekly congregation observed on Friday (the yaum al-jum`a) at the mosque.""  What language is this? It is need of further explanation.  Yadin twelve 19:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ive reverted the article as the supposed copyvio sourced the info from wikipedia in the first place.  --Cyr 14:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I can't find it on the 'net anywhere, but did you notice that the last paragraph cuts off in mid-sentence...this is almost certainly a cut-and-paste job from somewhere, imho. func(talk) 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This was marked as copyvio, but the site referenced as the copyvio said (in small letters) at the bottom that the page was from wikipedia.  It may be copyvio, and does look like a copy and paste job, but until this is proved it should remain in place.  --Cyr 10:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

have done some cleanup, but needs more of the same and expansion on history, place in religion & culture. Doldrums 11:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

finished cleanup, will list it for expansion. Incidentally, can someone who knows what a "lakh" is put some clarification in this sentence in the construction section: The total expenditure incurred ...was ten lakh rupees. It's currently unclear just how many rupees that actually is. Kerowyn 02:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Should we romve the following image, as there are realativley large number of images as compared to text and also the noreath gate has been pictured already.
"Image:JamaMasjidSouthEntrance.jpg|thumb|right|275px|Jama Masjid, northeast entrance"
Bless sins 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your remove suggestion gets my vote. Delete! --Nemonoman 02:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 04:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Who owns JM? 
I ask because I remember a case from a few years back when the Saudi government wanted to pay for restoration work, but (as far as I remember) the Indian government refused to allow the Saudi money. Does the government or the ASI control the masjid? 192.184.34.186 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)RED

The urdu translation of 'Masjid- i- jahan numa' is mising the 'm' at the start, it reads asjid- i- jahan numa instead, I would like to replace the word سجد with مسجد. Thanks
Ainalhafila (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor Sing 05:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The link to the "official site" of jama masjid does not point to the official site of Jama Masjid in Delhi.
Atwin80clicks wiki (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Okay, what do you think the official website is, if not www.jamamasjid.in? Please provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jama Masjid, Delhi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Nominator: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 10:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, I will do this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job with this, I can see just two major issues here but should be easy enough given the size of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
All comments addressed, article passes. 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Main
(Criteria 3) I feel both 2006 Jama Masjid explosions and 2010 Jama Masjid attack, as subarticles, need to be summarised more and have the "{{main|" section headers like how it was before here. I'm not sure about the notability of those two subarticles but this article needs to stand on its own, content-wise. At minimum, I would say that the 2006 attack would need one para while the 2010 needs two. "Terrorist" is a word to watch, so keep that in mind while doing the section titles.
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The "terrorist" word is still there. Both the attacks can have their own subsections according to their article title.
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel the controversy section is warranted; any title is better the just "controversy". It seems that just the part about the succession and the high court intervention needs to be covered. Writing about the minor controversy (WP:NOTNEWS) regarding Sharif's invitation as well as that quotation seems UNDUE.
If we remove these informations, then the article would be deprived of real facts. The quotation is very much pertinent as it justifies the imam's action, otherwise there will be a question in the mind of the readers. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying just the succession dispute cannot be mentioned alone, even the ceremony and Sharif invitation is essential? In that case, give me some time to think about it.
Okay, I don't think this content dispute should affect the GA review.  Done
Both the attacks, the mention about succession, and the report that the mosque was in need of repair can be clubbed together under one main section (could be called "Modern" since it could be under "History", whatever works well).
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Can a mention of the exact location (beyond just "next to Red Fort, New Delhi, India") of the mosque be mentioned? Can there be a more detailed address?
Its located in Chandni Chowk, near Red Fort. But I find no published claim of it, so I am unable to add it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Then it's fine.  Done
(6) The gallery section has to be removed per WP:IG. Then probably the article could have just 4–5 images, select the images which go best next the prose (like putting a the relevant images to what's being described in "Architecture"). See WP:PERTINENCE and WP:IMGLOC.
There is no place left in architecture section to put the image. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant that you could remove all the images and put only the relevant ones. The gallery section anyway isn't permissible.
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay good, just trim the image cluttering a bit. WP:IMGLOC says don't sandwich text with images on both sides. Images should typically be arranged alternatively between left and right. So you probably have to remove one extra image. Example, see Belton House.
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(1B) There seems to be an overuse of quotation marks. Like see: he had "received the offer directly from the Saudi authorities" but requested "them" for "approaching"...There was "also talk of destroying the mosque" for punishing the people of the city. But due to opposition faced, the mosque "survived". This feels like SCAREQUOTES and the common words which are marked just confuse the reader. Like, in my example, why is there need for the marks here? The only time the marks are needed is when you're directly quoting some source, then of course, you'll also need a backing inline citation. However, there are many instances of this in the article and none look like direct quotations. If the statements are copied verbatim from the references and are not meant to be quotations, then simply paraphrase it.
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There are still more of those unneeded quotation marks left in the rest of the article. Do you need help or should I point them out (there's around ten)? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
(1B) Lead: This statement in "History" would better fit in the lead "was completed in 1656 AD with three great gates, four towers and two 40 m high minarets constructed of strips of red sandstone and white marble." This will cover the architecture part in the lead.
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(Minor) Consider adding non-breaking spaces (NBSP) and {{Convert}} to all the units, measurements etc. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ugog Nizdast: done all the rest. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the new content about the blasts which you've added, it says "This attack created disrupt about the 2010 Commonwealth Games which scheduled to take place in the Indian capital". Did it? and was it that the attack took place with the intent to disrupt the Games? Is it factually accurate that blasts affected the Games. What do the majority of the sources say?  Done
Except that source, I dont find mention of that fact. So I have removed it. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox, History and lead, you've mentioned 1656 but again in the lead as well as History, "between 1644 and 1658" is written as the date? So when actually did the construction finish? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Done
Again!! These type of inconsistencies a prevalent in when Islamic dates are converted to English dates. Still I prefer Dalrymple's one so I have made in 1656. @Ugog Nizdast: RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations, I pass this article. See you in the next review. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems that I've made a mistake on the Image galleries thing, have explained it at Talk:Badshahi Mosque/GA1#GA Review. You can add it back. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They also wanted to destroy the mosque for punishing the people of the city.
They also wanted to destroy the mosque in order to punish the people of the city.
Before the Revolt of 1857, there was a madrasa near the southern end of the mosque, which was during the revolt destroyed.[15]
Before the Revolt of 1857, there was a madrasa near the southern end of the mosque, which was destroyed during the revolt.[15]
comma placement needs a lot of work
Greif267 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of this article under 2010 Jama Masjid Attack it says "Sources said that the "'main man' Imran" allegedly planted the planted the bomb in a car outside the mosque."
As you can see "planted the" is repeated twice. Please correct this to only one "planted the".
Ajwedk (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In the below line add word "Prophet" before Muhammad. 
"The cabinet located in the north gate has a collection of relics of Muhammad Italic text– the Quran written on deerskin, a red beard-hair of the prophet, his sandals and his footprints implanted in a marble block."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.41.71 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 

 Not done, see WP:SAWW. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir,
Kindly update the official site of Jama Masjid Delhi www.jamamasjid.in to www.jamamasjid.org. www.jamamasjid.org is live now whereas www.jamamasjid.in has been closed.
Thank you
Mustafalive (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done but not sure whether either of the two were the official site. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Pandeyntn (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

historical painting --Omer123hussain (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)