# Talk:Sher Shah Suri

The correct dates should be 1538- 1545,  the error on Wikipedia has proliferated unfortunately and appears in other sources. Coins are known from his accession dated  AH 945 (1538) & listed in coins of the Indian Sultanates, Goron & Goenka.  The correct date can also be observed in old publications dating back to Victorian times--Vicn70 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jatin1234567890 has been removing referenced material and adding opposing information without references. To avoid edit warring, I will step back but I encourage editors more attached to this topic to look at these removals closely. Ifnord (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Noorullah21, I re-added the infobox depiction for the following reasons:
The prior one was painted by Abdul Ghafoor Breshna, a 20th century painter. This one I am adding was painted in the same century this personality died in. It is far more contemporary as a result. I moved the prior one to the article body as a result and re-instated the more historical one. ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It being in the same century is still not an improvement, it is not a contemporary portrait/drawing and thus is not an improvement. You can still add it to a gallery section or inside the main article itself. Noorullah (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21 I'm going to ask for a third opinion as I disagree that it is not an improvement over the imagined painting currently in the infobox. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
For anyone coming from the third opinion request forum:
I am advocating that a near-contemporary painting from a manuscript of the Tarikh-i-Khandan-i-Timuriya, prepared by the court painters of Mughal emperor Akbar (painted between circa 1570–1590), depicting Sher Shah Suri, become the new infobox. Meanwhile, user Noorullah21 advocates for the infobox image to remain an imagined depiction of Sher Shah Suri by a 20th century artist.
I advocate for my new infobox image suggestion for the following reasons:
1. It is far more contemporary, as it was painted between 1570–1590 whilst Sher Shah Suri died in 1545, leaving the gap between the two events well-within a single human life-span and memory.
2. It was painted and produced under the patronage of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, whom was born in 1542 and whose father and grandfather had direct dealings with Sher Shah Suri.
3. The current image is clearly an imagined depiction by a 20th century Afghan artist, therefore may be anachronistic and lack historical accuracy.
Link to the image I advocate as the new infobox image: link (it is a colour-scan of a selection of the painting, a full view of the entire work can be seen in a black-and-white scan here)
Link to the image user Noorullah21 wants to keep as the infobox image: link
ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@ThethPunjabi The painting you are pushing to add is not contemporary and itself is not an improvement of what is already present in the infobox. Akbar was born in 1542 but never met Sher Shah Suri, who died in 1545. This specific work also not having a date alone (that provides little information), ie by it being in range from 1570-1590 itself is dubious. If the source itself has little information on when it was even made, then it should not be included on Wikipedia at all. Secondary sources are preferred over as well. [1] See [2] as well. Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on Secondary sources/accounts. Noorullah (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21 The current infobox image is a copyright violation, since Abdul Ghafoor Breshna died in 1974, 49 years ago. Afghan copyright law stipulates that copyright lasts for 50 years after the death of an artist, and this is not even taking into consideration that the image must be in the public domain according to U.S. copyright law as well for it to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. So it likely is a copyright violation and should not have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.
Furthermore: The painting was published by A. S. Beveridge in her English translation of the Humayun-nama.
1. You say: "not contemporary and itself is not an improvement of what is already present in the infobox"... do you think the current work is contemporary? Actually the painting I am proposing is contemporary to roughly the same period, falling within the same century the person it depicts. So that is false.
2. Abdul Ghafoor Breshna was a 20th century painter who had no way of knowing what Sher Shah Suri actually looked like so this painting of his is an imagined depiction. The one I propose is contemporary to the same century, within a single human life-span/memory and therefore far more accurate at depicting the personality in-question. Not to mention, it is an officially patronized work of the successor state to the Suri Empire, seeing as it was commissioned by Akbar. Akbar's father and grandfather had direct dealings with Sher Shah Suri, leaving credence to the depiction being more realistic and accurate at depicting the person.
UNESCO source: "This richly illustrated manuscript was written and created twenty two years into the reign of the great Mughal emperor and a descendant of Timur, Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar, in 1577-78 A.D. The Mughals influenced the social, cultural and economic life both of the Indian people and of the world. Their contributions to the development of astrology, astronomy, medicine, fine arts, architecture, paintings and literature are unparalleled. The paintings of the Tarikh-e Khandan-e Timuriyah are unique examples of the height that was attained by the Mughals in the history of the art of painting." source
Academic article: "In around 1584, while based in his capital at Fatehpur-Sikri, Akbar commissioned a history of Timur and his successors, including his own reign up to that date. The result, the Tarikh-i Khandan-i Timuriyya, an impressively large and heavily illustrated manuscript, now preserved in Patna, with 132 full-page paintings on 332 folios, has not received the same level of attention as Akbar's other historical commissions from around the same period, notably the Tarikh-i Alfi and the Baburnama." source ThethPunjabi (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
"The current infobox image is a copyright violation, since Abdul Ghafoor Breshna died in 1974, 49 years ago. Afghan copyright law stipulates that copyright lasts for 50 years after the death of an artist, and this is not even taking into consideration that the image must be in the public domain according to U.S. copyright law as well for it to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. So it likely is a copyright violation and should not have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."
I'm not sure where you get that it was a copyright violation from? 
"This work is in the public domain in Afghanistan according to The law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers
It is a photograph, painting, or other audiovisual work originally published more than 50 years ago,"

As its said, it was made before 1943. So please pay attention to detail here and not skim over parts.
"1. You say: "not contemporary and itself is not an improvement of what is already present in the infobox"... do you think the current work is contemporary? Actually the painting I am proposing is contemporary to roughly the same period, falling within the same century the person it depicts. So that is false." Again, its not an improvement to what is already currently in the infobox, it falling into the same century the person it depicts despite being over 3-5 decades off is not an improvement. And as stated, the secondary source here is better.
"2. Abdul Ghafoor Breshna was a 20th century painter who had no way of knowing what Sher Shah Suri actually looked like so this painting of his is an imagined depiction. The one I propose is contemporary to the same century, within a single human life-span/memory and therefore far more accurate at depicting the personality in-question. Not to mention, it is an officially patronized work of the successor state to the Suri Empire, seeing as it was commissioned by Akbar. Akbar's father and grandfather had direct dealings with Sher Shah Suri, leaving credence to the depiction being more realistic and accurate at depicting the person."
That is interpreting a primary source in your way, and is a violation per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
UNESCO source: "This richly illustrated manuscript was written and created twenty two years into the reign of the great Mughal emperor and a descendant of Timur, Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar, in 1577-78 A.D. The Mughals influenced the social, cultural and economic life both of the Indian people and of the world. Their contributions to the development of astrology, astronomy, medicine, fine arts, architecture, paintings and literature are unparalleled. The paintings of the Tarikh-e Khandan-e Timuriyah are unique examples of the height that was attained by the Mughals in the history of the art of painting." source
Academic article: "In around 1584, while based in his capital at Fatehpur-Sikri, Akbar commissioned a history of Timur and his successors, including his own reign up to that date. The result, the Tarikh-i Khandan-i Timuriyya, an impressively large and heavily illustrated manuscript, now preserved in Patna, with 132 full-page paintings on 332 folios, has not received the same level of attention as Akbar's other historical commissions from around the same period, notably the Tarikh-i Alfi and the Baburnama."
This further is pointing out the date inconsistency here and as I linked, if it does not have enough information on it, it alone does not have a place on Wikipedia.
In conclusion, this painting is not contemporary, nor an improvement from what is already in the infobox. Noorullah (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@ThethPunjabi Noorullah (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21
Quote the full text, not portions of it: "This work is in the public domain in Afghanistan according to The law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers (Copy Right Law). (unofficial English translation) because:
It is a photograph, painting, or other audiovisual work originally published more than 50 years ago, or
It is any other form of protected work and more than 50 years have passed since the death of the last surviving author and the date of original publication.
All works published using a pseudonym enter the public domain 50 years after publication, unless the author's identity subsequently becomes known. Afghan copyright law only protects “photographic works that have been created using an original mode” (Art. 6)."
So we know who painted this work, it is not an anonymous work. Therefore, it will be under copyright until 2024 under Afghan law and until 2044 under U.S. copyright law (author's lifespan +70 years after death of author). I will be submitting a request for its deletion from commons since it is a clear copyright violation.
And your other arguments are fallacious and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy/rules/guidelines. Let us actually look at the correct policy for dealing with this kind of thing, over at MOS:IMAGES and specifically MOS:LEADIMAGE. I gave my case as to why the image is unreliable, we are not arguing over text content here. Me making my case in a talk page is not grounds for you to cite that policy. What primary source am I "interpreting"? We are talking about images and their author here, not books for sourcing content.
"This further is pointing out the date inconsistency here and as I linked, if it does not have enough information on it, it alone does not have a place on Wikipedia."
Historical works are often given a date range by academics, especially if the exact year of their completing is unknown. That does not make it unreliable and the academics/scholars in the above links dated in the second half of the 16th century (over 300 years earlier than when the painting you support was completed). It was made a few decades after Suri's death whilst the one you are arguing for was made over 300 years later. The improvement based upon historicity/reliability/realism/etc is obvious. ThethPunjabi (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Quote the full text, not portions of it: "This work is in the public domain in Afghanistan according to The law on the support the right of authors, composers, artists and researchers (Copy Right Law). (unofficial English translation) because: It is a photograph, painting, or other audiovisual work originally published more than 50 years ago, or It is any other form of protected work and more than 50 years have passed since the death of the last surviving author and the date of original publication. All works published using a pseudonym enter the public domain 50 years after publication, unless the author's identity subsequently becomes known. Afghan copyright law only protects “photographic works that have been created using an original mode” (Art. 6)." So we know who painted this work, it is not an anonymous work. Therefore, it will be under copyright until 2024 under Afghan law and until 2044 under U.S. copyright law (author's lifespan +70 years after death of author). I will be submitting a request for its deletion from commons since it is a clear copyright violation.
It is not a copyright violation, we can clearly see that the work was made "before 1943" and repeating this:
It is a photograph, painting, or other audiovisual work originally published more than 50 years ago, or
It is any other form of protected work and more than 50 years have passed since the death of the last surviving author and the date of original publication.
It applies under the first category, where the work has been published more then 50 years ago, so it is not a copyright violation under Afghan copyright law. In the case of US copyright, it mentions an important note: "Works of foreign (non-U.S.) origin must be out of copyright or freely licensed in both their home country and the United States in order to be accepted on Commons. Works of Afghan origin that were under copyright in Afghanistan on July 29, 2016 may be copyrighted in the U.S. under the URAA. For more information, see U.S. Copyright Office Circular 38A. Works of Afghan origin that were no longer under copyright in Afghanistan on July 29, 2016 are not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a previous lack of copyright relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan."
I'm not too sure exactly on what it is meant to mention here, so if you wish to open an evaluation to possibly see a copyright evaluation, that is up to you.
"And your other arguments are fallacious and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy/rules/guidelines. Let us actually look at the correct policy for dealing with this kind of thing, over at MOS:IMAGES and specifically MOS:LEADIMAGE. I gave my case as to why the image is unreliable, we are not arguing over text content here. Me making my case in a talk page is not grounds for you to cite that policy."
I did check MOS:IMAGES and MOS:LEADIMAGE, but it did not mention specifically much of what our situation would concern. And so I went toward other Wikipedia guidelines. 
Historical works are often given a date range by academics, especially if the exact year of their completing is unknown. That does not make it unreliable and the academics/scholars in the above links dated in the second half of the 16th century (over 300 years earlier than when the painting you support was completed). It was made a few decades after Suri's death whilst the one you are arguing for was made over 300 years later. The improvement based upon historicity/reliability/realism/etc is obvious.
This has boiled down to mostly an argument of if it is an improvement based off of its historicity on whether since the lead image you support adding being more towards a contemporary vs a secondary painting. I think the best solution is indeed a third opinion or dispute resolution. I think it is best for you to also open up an investigation if it is truly a copyright violation of the current lead image. If the conclusion comes toward including the more contemporary one, I believe it would be appropriate to include this one with a better crop  rather then the colour scan one, since it seems a bit IN ordinarily cropped and rather oddly figured. @ThethPunjabi Noorullah (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21 Alright, sounds good. Hopefully others can give their thoughts because I think we both already made our case to each-other and we remain at a stand still. Thanks for the conversation and that would be a totally okay compromise to me, to use the posted image of the larger work instead. Cheers, ThethPunjabi (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21 BTW, I looked into Afghan copyright law and I was mistaken on it being a copyright violation and take that back but my other arguments still stand. Cheers, ThethPunjabi (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21 Hello Noorullah21, please see the third opinion provided below by user Sennecaster. Do we come to an agreement where the black-and-white scan will used as the infobox image? ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good. @ThethPunjabi Noorullah (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sennecaster Thanks a lot for your response! ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


### Third Opinion
I am closing the Third Opinion request because a Third Opinion has been provided.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

So recently I did a revamp of the page, and I am trying to aim for it achieving good article status, pinging editors who have been involved or are in similar topics to share what they think the page can be improved on. 
@MaplesyrupSushi @HistoryofIran @Evansknight @Re Packer&Tracker Noorullah (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Haven't done a full check but: Everything needs to be WP:RS. Right off the bat I saw "The Economic Times", which is not reliable for historical stuff. Moreover, the formatting of the citations are inconsistent, one is formatted another way than the other. I wouldn't include "Tiger King/Lion King" at the start of the lede and in bold a that (cf. Ardashir II), unless WP:RS actually refers to him by that, which I doubt. Moreover, is the information at the lede repeated in the body of the article? If not, then I would highly recommend that (WP:LEAD). And if the same info is in the body, then I would suggest removing all the citations in the lede, as it's already sourced in the body of the article and thus unnecessary. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Seconding this, I've never seen him referred to with either epithet in English language literature. Also, the link for the Abbas Khan Sarwani source is dead, so make sure those are all either working or just don't include them. I'll do a more thorough read-through, but that's just what struck me on a cursory glance. Keep up the good work! Evansknight (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Evansknight @HistoryofIran I'll remove the epithet.
I'll begin fixing citations and repairing the lead by removing citations from there. I'll also try to fix the Abbas Sarwani link. Noorullah (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Did some improvements, merged citations to a proper format. Also removed the economic times source, do you guys see anything else that could be of concern?
@Evansknight @HistoryofIran Noorullah (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there are some little nitpicky things scattered throughout, word choice and certain grammatical issue, but I will need more time to go over them. Evansknight (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The citation formatting is still not consistent. For example, one is "Chandra 2007, p. 216-217." while the other is "Asher, Catherine B. (1977). "The Mausoleum of Sher Shāh Sūrī". Artibus Asiae. 39 (3/4): 273–298. doi:10.2307/3250169. JSTOR 3250169." Also, it was good that you removed those epithets, but now you've added a new one in the introduction of the lede and in bold (the Just), does WP:RS actually refer to him by that? There is probably more, I would advise nominating this for a peer review (WP:PR), but that's just my opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran I didn't add another epithet, that was from @SKAG123 in this revision: [3]. I'll work on fixing those other citations. Noorullah (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
From what I have seen in other sources, he is sometimes referred to as Sultan Adil. Noorullah (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, does Sultan translate to "Emperor" in this place and era? If so, it isn't shown clearly. If not, then there are some inconsistencies (eg "Reign as Emperor (1540-1545)" section). Why not "Reign as Sultan" and why is it not starting from 1538? According to the infobox, thats when he became the Sultan of the Sur Empire. The lede should also be (probably completely) rewritten. For example, it starts of with "He standardized the silver coin to the weight of 178 grams and named the currency as rupee based on the ancient Sanskrit term for silver." That should be moved down below in the lede. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran Sources seem to refer to him as Emperor, rather then Sultan from many of the sources I have seen.
From other sources, I have also seen that the date that he's considered the ruler of the Sur Empire is starting from 1540, after the battle of Kannuaj. Which is why the section starts there. [4] [5] Noorullah (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha, but all this needs to be made properly clear if this is to be GA. It should stick to one main title for consistency, and neither of those titles are even mentioned in the lede. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll work on that, thanks for identifying these issues. Noorullah (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran I am not sure whether WP:RS refers to Him as the Just. It was in the infobox. I just added that to the lead to match the format of other articles about monarchs.  SKAG123 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah I see, gotcha. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran I think later I am going to create another article in the future. One of Sher Shah's regency Kingdom that was centered in Bihar from 1529-1540, and then this one would just be his Sur Empire from 1540-1545. Because some of the sources are a bit confusing until I pieced it together.
He seems to have had two different coronations, one in Gaur in April 1538 after it fell to Afghan forces, and one after the Battle of Kannuaj on 17 May 1540.
I'm not too sure exactly which one would be appropriate to keep in the infobox, some sources say differ on whether Sher Shah thus reigned 5 or 7 years because of these two coronations. So would calling the Sur Empire starting at 1538 be appropriate, or 1540? Noorullah (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I think a solution would be still using the 1538 date, and then using < br > for both of his coronations. Noorullah (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
If sources are uncertain whether he created the Sur Empire in 1538 or 1540, then both dates should be used, so something like "1538/40". If it is certain that he established the Sur Empire in 1538, but also got another coronation later, then perhaps you could use the infobox of Suleiman I of Persia as inspiration. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@HistoryofIran Sounds good, I’ll work on that when I get home. Noorullah (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a source for File:Map of the Sur Empire at its Height.png? And which background was used? (an SVG version would be better btw) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 I created the map off of its many sources such as the ones used in the article, and other online references such as [6].
The background used was a google maps overlay. Maybe @पाटलिपुत्रd can make a better replacement map? Noorullah (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I can do a map, but I would follow Schwartzberg's Map i and it would be PNG. Everybody OK with that? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21: I think it's not permissible to use Google Maps' background: Everyone please note that Google Maps themselves are under copyright protection, either by the company itself or their data providers. You should probably delete the image from Commons.
This website doesn't look like a reliable source, but I don't know enough.
@पाटलिपुत्र: Schwartzberg's maps look reliable and a good source. PNG is OK, someone else can always convert to SVG later I think. Thanks a lot for your help! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र The map is good, but it doesn't account for the Sur conquest of Sindh and Malwa. (which can be seen in this article). I found this map off of this website to be pretty accurate. It accurately states the Malwa borders stretching to Mount Abu for example. [7] If it's possible, can it be changed to so? Noorullah (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind, I can try to make it myself. Noorullah (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Made it.  Noorullah (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21: Good work, but you are lacking an academic reference for the outline of this map, and it is contradicted by Schwartzberg's Map i... I am also worried that in the Sur Empire article there seems to be no proper sourcing for the conquest of Sindh at this point (the "references" are dead links). It would be necessary to reinforce that part, and make sure it is not an inflated claim... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21: It would seem only Upper Sindh was conquered per Chandra pp.77-79 पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र Fixed it, checked some other sources that mention Afghan rule extended to roughly Sehwan. Noorullah (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Noorullah21 Please add the exact sources you used on Commons in the description ("Source"). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@A455bcd9 Did that. Noorullah (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest you go by scholarly maps. Whatupis (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Whatupis. Attempted reconstructions by users are always questionable. Better to follow scholarly maps  exactly without attempts at aggrandizement. Schwartzberg (above, sourced from Map i) at least is unsailable. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@Whatupis @पाटलिपुत्र We have sources for the conquest of Marwar and it's specifics, I think it is appropriate to include it with the information we have. Noorullah (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sher Shah Suri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sangsangaplaz (talk · contribs) 14:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


### Lack of NPOV on the rise to power section
Please remove words to watch to enhance the NPOV. This is a minor fix so no immediate failure. User:Sangsangaplaz (talk)


#### Fixed
Yep, I fixed these issues and re-wrote the section. Noorullah (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


##### Issues
The issues are not fully fixed. The first paragraph of the section in discussion is a bit lacking in NPOV and relies on only 2 sources, I recommend adding other sources to support the semi-promotional claims in the first paragraph. I recommend adding the incline citations after relevant sentences instead of the end of the paragraph. Also please don't use the reply feature in this talk page, it breaks the GA review. In source mode, add one more '=' sign than the comment after the comment you are replying to, nominator. Also sign it manually (with four ~). Sangsangaplaz (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


#### Fixed Issues
Rewrote the section and dealt with NPOV issues, also added another source. Noorullah (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean no offense at all to Sangsangaplaz but this article is no way a "good article". It's rife with POV and Peacock wording designed to glorify the subject of the article rather than give an encyclopedic overview.
The heading alone is a complete cesspool of peacock wording and glorification. "The influence of his innovations and reforms extended far beyond his brief reign, being recognized as one of the greatest administrative rulers in India", "he remained undefeated in battle and is renowned as one of the most skillful Afghan generals in history", "gaining a reputation for his reforms that brought prosperity to the region", "A brilliant strategist, Sher Shah was both a gifted administrator and a capable general", "His reorganization of the empire and strategic innovations laid the foundations for future Mughal emperors". These aren't even all the numerous examples of puffery in the article. 
The article is a long line of articles edited by user Noorullah21 who goes out of his way to elevate and glorify anything related to Pashtun/Afghan people and culture instead of editing Wikipedia in an encyclopedic Neutral Point of View. ArslanKhan98 (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Editor.
Please note that most of the examples you've cited above are not from me, but rather, two - three other users. (You can see this with the gadget "Who wrote this?"), so please refrain from WP:NPA.
Regarding this.. going over Peacock:
"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it."
-
The WP:RS secondary sources regarding Sher Shah Suri perfectly support what is stated in the lead [and the article]. If one were to dive into the books and their referencing on Sher Shah Suri, they widely acclaim his administrative [and military] skills as well as reforms. (Including the longer standing legacy of his reforms). Here are some sources that go over them:
[9] (220-225)
Mehta [10] (page 171-184)
I'm unable to access Chaurasia right now, but he widely attests to it as well, see previews for now. [11]

SRIVASTAVA: [12]
Mahajan also goes over it (pages 34-41), although wikipedia won't let me link the internet archived downloaded pdf, so I'd just search "2015.99051.Mughal-Rule-In-India.pdf internet archive" and it'll be the first result.
Overall, many of these aren't controversial claims, and are all widely cited by the leading scholars/authorities of history on the region. Noorullah (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)