Sources are generally RS. However, the extensive quotations in the reception section border on plagiarism. See
WP:RECEPTION - paraphrasing should be preferred, and the section should be arranged thematically, rather than "Critic A said this, Critic B said this, etc."
In addition, the chosen Sfnrefs are odd, to say the least. Why not simply author + year, instead of "Kumar 2014, A tale of", "Beegum 2017, Meet Bollywood's no-gossiping", and "Ali 2014, The man behind"
However, the standard of prose is generally high, and all other criteria are fulfilled. I will thus put the article on hold, and wait for the above sourcing issues to be fixed, before doing a final run-through. ~~
AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I do still believe that the reception section is borderline
WP:QUOTEFARM, but that is not part of the GA criteria, so I'll let it go.
I have done some editing for grammar.
Source spotcheck:
2 - good
7 - good
13 - can't access; please add url-status=dead to the reference
16 - omission of relevant text. In Wikipedia article: " Asif Noorani said it is the photographs that add to the book's value". In source: "Photographs, some of them rare and never seen before, add to the value of the book, though not all of them are well reproduced." Since this is the only source that refers to the photographs, take care that it is well-represented.
18 - fine (doesn't really contribute to the article, but good otherwise)
Sources are generally RS. However, the extensive quotations in the reception section border on plagiarism. See
WP:RECEPTION - paraphrasing should be preferred, and the section should be arranged thematically, rather than "Critic A said this, Critic B said this, etc."
In addition, the chosen Sfnrefs are odd, to say the least. Why not simply author + year, instead of "Kumar 2014, A tale of", "Beegum 2017, Meet Bollywood's no-gossiping", and "Ali 2014, The man behind"
However, the standard of prose is generally high, and all other criteria are fulfilled. I will thus put the article on hold, and wait for the above sourcing issues to be fixed, before doing a final run-through. ~~
AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I do still believe that the reception section is borderline
WP:QUOTEFARM, but that is not part of the GA criteria, so I'll let it go.
I have done some editing for grammar.
Source spotcheck:
2 - good
7 - good
13 - can't access; please add url-status=dead to the reference
16 - omission of relevant text. In Wikipedia article: " Asif Noorani said it is the photographs that add to the book's value". In source: "Photographs, some of them rare and never seen before, add to the value of the book, though not all of them are well reproduced." Since this is the only source that refers to the photographs, take care that it is well-represented.
18 - fine (doesn't really contribute to the article, but good otherwise)