![]() | Fawad Khan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fawad Khan should be called Unjabi Pathan given his father's origin is in pre-Partition Punjab and his mother-tongue is Punjabi. So he is not a Pathan by culture, language, and domicile. He is also half Mahajir as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:46D2:1A00:968:DA76:53AD:5AF6 ( talk) 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Kindly Remove the external link in which someone quote a link that fawad khan next movie is Kolachi.. he is another actor from karachi not Fawad Afzal Khan.. kindly edit it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhsanKhan0 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been recently visiting this page daily to make changes here and there, but every time I come here the previous changes have been undone and a very old version of the page is visible, but history is unchanged. I've heavily edited the page's Filmography table, before there were fewer entries in it and was much smaller and every time I visit the page that table somehow comes back. I don't know if its just me or others see it aswell. Anyhow if this could be sorted or explained by Wikipedia i'd be thankful. Yeeshil ( talk) 12:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you eloborate his filmy career a bit more. As I have seen Sonam Kapoor's profile has been updated and being added some nice comments by critics. I believe FAwad Afzal Khan has also done a phinominal job and should have highlighted in same way. Further we need to know his upcoming projects. Please put some more info about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.134.68 ( talk) 06:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
can you add that he and mahira khan as a couple became very famous...theycame in an aquafina add and they also came together in umar sayyed collection........and you can check there is a rumor that there new drama is also coming.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.4.76 ( talk) 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
heloooo..can you make the changes?????its true....the above section.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 ( talk) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.koolmuzone.pk/2011/12/fawad-khan-mahira-khan-at-pfdc-loreal-paris-bridal-week-pictures/ http://thefriendsfm.com/2011/12/fawad-khan-mahira-khan-at-pfdc-l%E2%80%99oreal-paris-bridal-week-pictures/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCB4e2EE6Zk http://pakmuzone.info/2012/03/09/fawad-khan-mahira-aquafina-advertisement-tvc/ and you check there facebook...there couple is really famous........there is also a facebook page abot them called demand for fawad and mahira in a new show..and there are loads of pages about them on facebook.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 ( talk) 07:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
can any1 add some more info of khan regarding his family and siblings etc
Hey, I was wondering other opinions on how to format and categorize the page - I was looking at the pages of bollywood actors that have been featured articles and they have this kind of similar trend. breaking down career into music and acting and then acting down to the sub categories makes too many sub groups (i.e. 2 -> 2.1 -> 2.1.1 -> 2.1.1.1) thats why i think music could have its own category or have it under some other category (i.e. other works) and then have some of his modelling career info in there too. any thoughts? Thanks!! Kazmia92 ( talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys! my aim is to make this wiki page a featured article this is why I am using the template of other featured articles for Fawad's page. I also take notice of what has been mentioned in those articles in relation to the actor's career, role, projects, life, etc. and therefore I try to find info about that stuff for Khan's page from reliable sources. If you disagree with something I put or the source can you please just let me know and we can discuss it? I feel bad when all my hard work is deleted for no other reason than that person's logic of what should/shouldnt be included. If we talk about it it will give us more opinions and let us make a better judgment call. P.S. If I make grammatical fixes on the wording its nothing against that person, my first language is English so it comes a little more easy for me Kazmia92 ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11]. I will more edit per the wiki-rules. If you have concerns, you can take the dispute to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 12:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Is he working with Dwpaul this year? 182.191.178.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fawad Khan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Diogatari ( talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be doing the review of this article.
Other than that, the article looks really good. Regards, Diogatari ( talk) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This article's not quite ready for a couple of things:
Amirk94391 ( talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Amirk94391 ( talk) 22:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Diogatari, I just noticed that the Fawad Khan article has been added to the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page, and further investigation shows that this has come after the article was nominated for Featured Article status six days after you approved it here, and it was failed by the following day when no fewer than three reviewers pointed out it had significant prose problems and recommended a "thorough copyedit". Any article that needs a thorough copyedit is not one that meets the Good Article "well-written" criteria, including "clear and concise" prose.
This was your first GA review, and unfortunately it does not seem that you have the necessary experience of articles at the GA level, nor yet the ability to determine when prose needs (or does not need) a major copyedit. I would suggest that you hold off doing any further GA reviews until you gain much more experience with the process, perhaps by nominating an article you've written and believe meets the criteria, and then going through the process from the other side—I see that you have nominated Beren Saat.
In the meantime, I would like to suggest that you formally withdraw your listing of this article. Amirk94391 has opened a peer review of the article, and once that has been completed and the Guild of Copy Editors has performed the needed copyedit, it can be renominated to be a Good Article. This will, as far as I can see, be the best course. While a Good Article Reassessment is typically used when articles no longer meet the criteria, and sometimes this happens right after an article is listed, there have been occasions when new reviewers who did not have the necessary skills have had their results reversed out of hand, with no GAR used. At the moment, the article is in an awkward position, with the history showing a listing, but with the visible trappings of the GA removed. It would be very helpful, though I can understand that you wouldn't relish doing so, if you would do that withdrawal. I can help with the process details if you agree. I don't think it would be useful to reopen the review, given the prose issues identified at FAC and the peer review. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Since a GAR had been opened on this article last week but not closed, I have closed it as delisted, and am closing this review as well. See the article talk page for further details. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fawad Khan. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Diogatari, Amirk94391, and Slightlymad: This BLP contained plenty of non-RS but despite it it went on to become a GA. While this BLP has good potential to become a GA but in my opinion, it not ready yet and satisfies the criteria. It seems the reviewer Diogatari ( talk · contribs) is not well informed about the GA criteria - xe himself stated on the talk page that it was his first GA review. For now I have removed the clearly non-RS [2] and suggest to delist this asap. While removing the sources, I found there are few grammatical issues, typos and WP:WTA as well which needs to be fixed before nominating this page for GA status. -- Saqib ( talk) 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Saqib and Diogatari:, firstly thanks to Saqib for his review. Secondly, Saqib recently removed many N-R sources, I appreciated that, If you now look into article, Only the Awards and nominations section requires additional verification as I've added many relaible citations yesterday. I'm quite sure that in a few hours, I'll add relaible sources to that section is well and thus article will be alright. Saqib also mentioned that there are some grammatical errors, if so please discuss them bellow in their section.
Amirk94391 ( talk) 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the issues listed above, the fact that the original reviewer has stated that they do not understand the GA criteria, the prose issues raised during the article's FAC that make it clear that a "thorough copyedit" is needed and the article does not meet the "well-written" GA criteria, and that the person who opened the individual reassessment has declared that they are unable to continue, I am closing this as delisted. The nominator, Amirk94391, has already requested a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors and has opened a peer review; when both of these are completed and any issues or recommendations raised during these processes have been addressed, a new GAN can be opened, but should not be done before then. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This has been a very tangled and out-of-process GA review and reassessment, with a GA reviewer who was not familiar with the GA criteria, and an individual reassessment opened by someone who is unwilling to do a full reassessment. Amirk94391, I'm very sorry that the process failed you, and I hope future GANs go better.
In between the GA listing and the reassessment, an FAC was opened and very quickly closed as unsuccessful when several reviewers pointed out that the prose needed a thorough copyedit; this fact should have been enough to sink the initial GA nomination, if the reviewer had been able to judge the criteria properly.
The article is currently undergoing a peer review, and a request has been made of the Guild of Copy Editors for the article to be copy edited.
Since the article has already had its GA status removed by Saqib, I'm going to formalize this by closing the still-opened reassessment, which was never properly added to this talk page per instructions—a GAR template needs to be added up top first, after which the reassessment should be transcluded. The reassessment result will be delisted, because the article does not meet the GA criteria, and has yet to do so.
The peer review should continue (it can't while either a GAN or FAC are in progress), and the article should not be nominated for either process until the formal copy edit has been completed, which probably won't be until sometime in November. (Note that the OR template currently on the article will have to be addressed as well.)
There could be an argument made for reversing the original review out of hand, but I think this is the best, neatest solution. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Saqib, can you please explain why you added the Original Research tag to this article? The Guild of Copy Editors is reluctant to spend time copy-editing an article with this tag on it, since we don't want to polish prose that should really be deleted. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
He developed diabetes mellitus type 1 at the age of 17 after he met with an accident that damaged his pancreas.
Hi! I have been trying to raise this point for past many months. Please, either re-order correctly, or keep the 'illness part' separated. Telling about his teenage, after telling about his children and what his wife works, is not fair. Don't make it a dis-ordered time-flow. A timeline continuity should be maintained.
I have seen other articles too, where "Health issues" and "Marriage life" are written separately, both maybe under "Personal life". Please comment, thanks! M. Billoo 20:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert this edit as it changed the year of birth in the short description so that it does not match what is cited in the text and infobox.
The editor who made the edit has already been warned on their talk page. – 108.56.139.120 ( talk) 12:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Fawad Khan made his Bollywood debut on Khoobsurat in 2014. -- Alex Lombardini ( talk) 00:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
J U C 171.103.21.99 ( talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Fawad Khan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fawad Khan should be called Unjabi Pathan given his father's origin is in pre-Partition Punjab and his mother-tongue is Punjabi. So he is not a Pathan by culture, language, and domicile. He is also half Mahajir as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:46D2:1A00:968:DA76:53AD:5AF6 ( talk) 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Kindly Remove the external link in which someone quote a link that fawad khan next movie is Kolachi.. he is another actor from karachi not Fawad Afzal Khan.. kindly edit it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhsanKhan0 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been recently visiting this page daily to make changes here and there, but every time I come here the previous changes have been undone and a very old version of the page is visible, but history is unchanged. I've heavily edited the page's Filmography table, before there were fewer entries in it and was much smaller and every time I visit the page that table somehow comes back. I don't know if its just me or others see it aswell. Anyhow if this could be sorted or explained by Wikipedia i'd be thankful. Yeeshil ( talk) 12:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you eloborate his filmy career a bit more. As I have seen Sonam Kapoor's profile has been updated and being added some nice comments by critics. I believe FAwad Afzal Khan has also done a phinominal job and should have highlighted in same way. Further we need to know his upcoming projects. Please put some more info about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.134.68 ( talk) 06:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
can you add that he and mahira khan as a couple became very famous...theycame in an aquafina add and they also came together in umar sayyed collection........and you can check there is a rumor that there new drama is also coming.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.4.76 ( talk) 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
heloooo..can you make the changes?????its true....the above section.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 ( talk) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
http://www.koolmuzone.pk/2011/12/fawad-khan-mahira-khan-at-pfdc-loreal-paris-bridal-week-pictures/ http://thefriendsfm.com/2011/12/fawad-khan-mahira-khan-at-pfdc-l%E2%80%99oreal-paris-bridal-week-pictures/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCB4e2EE6Zk http://pakmuzone.info/2012/03/09/fawad-khan-mahira-aquafina-advertisement-tvc/ and you check there facebook...there couple is really famous........there is also a facebook page abot them called demand for fawad and mahira in a new show..and there are loads of pages about them on facebook.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 ( talk) 07:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
can any1 add some more info of khan regarding his family and siblings etc
Hey, I was wondering other opinions on how to format and categorize the page - I was looking at the pages of bollywood actors that have been featured articles and they have this kind of similar trend. breaking down career into music and acting and then acting down to the sub categories makes too many sub groups (i.e. 2 -> 2.1 -> 2.1.1 -> 2.1.1.1) thats why i think music could have its own category or have it under some other category (i.e. other works) and then have some of his modelling career info in there too. any thoughts? Thanks!! Kazmia92 ( talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys! my aim is to make this wiki page a featured article this is why I am using the template of other featured articles for Fawad's page. I also take notice of what has been mentioned in those articles in relation to the actor's career, role, projects, life, etc. and therefore I try to find info about that stuff for Khan's page from reliable sources. If you disagree with something I put or the source can you please just let me know and we can discuss it? I feel bad when all my hard work is deleted for no other reason than that person's logic of what should/shouldnt be included. If we talk about it it will give us more opinions and let us make a better judgment call. P.S. If I make grammatical fixes on the wording its nothing against that person, my first language is English so it comes a little more easy for me Kazmia92 ( talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11]. I will more edit per the wiki-rules. If you have concerns, you can take the dispute to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 12:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Is he working with Dwpaul this year? 182.191.178.25 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fawad Khan. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Diogatari ( talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be doing the review of this article.
Other than that, the article looks really good. Regards, Diogatari ( talk) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This article's not quite ready for a couple of things:
Amirk94391 ( talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Amirk94391 ( talk) 22:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Diogatari, I just noticed that the Fawad Khan article has been added to the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page, and further investigation shows that this has come after the article was nominated for Featured Article status six days after you approved it here, and it was failed by the following day when no fewer than three reviewers pointed out it had significant prose problems and recommended a "thorough copyedit". Any article that needs a thorough copyedit is not one that meets the Good Article "well-written" criteria, including "clear and concise" prose.
This was your first GA review, and unfortunately it does not seem that you have the necessary experience of articles at the GA level, nor yet the ability to determine when prose needs (or does not need) a major copyedit. I would suggest that you hold off doing any further GA reviews until you gain much more experience with the process, perhaps by nominating an article you've written and believe meets the criteria, and then going through the process from the other side—I see that you have nominated Beren Saat.
In the meantime, I would like to suggest that you formally withdraw your listing of this article. Amirk94391 has opened a peer review of the article, and once that has been completed and the Guild of Copy Editors has performed the needed copyedit, it can be renominated to be a Good Article. This will, as far as I can see, be the best course. While a Good Article Reassessment is typically used when articles no longer meet the criteria, and sometimes this happens right after an article is listed, there have been occasions when new reviewers who did not have the necessary skills have had their results reversed out of hand, with no GAR used. At the moment, the article is in an awkward position, with the history showing a listing, but with the visible trappings of the GA removed. It would be very helpful, though I can understand that you wouldn't relish doing so, if you would do that withdrawal. I can help with the process details if you agree. I don't think it would be useful to reopen the review, given the prose issues identified at FAC and the peer review. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Since a GAR had been opened on this article last week but not closed, I have closed it as delisted, and am closing this review as well. See the article talk page for further details. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fawad Khan. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Diogatari, Amirk94391, and Slightlymad: This BLP contained plenty of non-RS but despite it it went on to become a GA. While this BLP has good potential to become a GA but in my opinion, it not ready yet and satisfies the criteria. It seems the reviewer Diogatari ( talk · contribs) is not well informed about the GA criteria - xe himself stated on the talk page that it was his first GA review. For now I have removed the clearly non-RS [2] and suggest to delist this asap. While removing the sources, I found there are few grammatical issues, typos and WP:WTA as well which needs to be fixed before nominating this page for GA status. -- Saqib ( talk) 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Saqib and Diogatari:, firstly thanks to Saqib for his review. Secondly, Saqib recently removed many N-R sources, I appreciated that, If you now look into article, Only the Awards and nominations section requires additional verification as I've added many relaible citations yesterday. I'm quite sure that in a few hours, I'll add relaible sources to that section is well and thus article will be alright. Saqib also mentioned that there are some grammatical errors, if so please discuss them bellow in their section.
Amirk94391 ( talk) 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the issues listed above, the fact that the original reviewer has stated that they do not understand the GA criteria, the prose issues raised during the article's FAC that make it clear that a "thorough copyedit" is needed and the article does not meet the "well-written" GA criteria, and that the person who opened the individual reassessment has declared that they are unable to continue, I am closing this as delisted. The nominator, Amirk94391, has already requested a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors and has opened a peer review; when both of these are completed and any issues or recommendations raised during these processes have been addressed, a new GAN can be opened, but should not be done before then. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This has been a very tangled and out-of-process GA review and reassessment, with a GA reviewer who was not familiar with the GA criteria, and an individual reassessment opened by someone who is unwilling to do a full reassessment. Amirk94391, I'm very sorry that the process failed you, and I hope future GANs go better.
In between the GA listing and the reassessment, an FAC was opened and very quickly closed as unsuccessful when several reviewers pointed out that the prose needed a thorough copyedit; this fact should have been enough to sink the initial GA nomination, if the reviewer had been able to judge the criteria properly.
The article is currently undergoing a peer review, and a request has been made of the Guild of Copy Editors for the article to be copy edited.
Since the article has already had its GA status removed by Saqib, I'm going to formalize this by closing the still-opened reassessment, which was never properly added to this talk page per instructions—a GAR template needs to be added up top first, after which the reassessment should be transcluded. The reassessment result will be delisted, because the article does not meet the GA criteria, and has yet to do so.
The peer review should continue (it can't while either a GAN or FAC are in progress), and the article should not be nominated for either process until the formal copy edit has been completed, which probably won't be until sometime in November. (Note that the OR template currently on the article will have to be addressed as well.)
There could be an argument made for reversing the original review out of hand, but I think this is the best, neatest solution. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Saqib, can you please explain why you added the Original Research tag to this article? The Guild of Copy Editors is reluctant to spend time copy-editing an article with this tag on it, since we don't want to polish prose that should really be deleted. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
He developed diabetes mellitus type 1 at the age of 17 after he met with an accident that damaged his pancreas.
Hi! I have been trying to raise this point for past many months. Please, either re-order correctly, or keep the 'illness part' separated. Telling about his teenage, after telling about his children and what his wife works, is not fair. Don't make it a dis-ordered time-flow. A timeline continuity should be maintained.
I have seen other articles too, where "Health issues" and "Marriage life" are written separately, both maybe under "Personal life". Please comment, thanks! M. Billoo 20:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert this edit as it changed the year of birth in the short description so that it does not match what is cited in the text and infobox.
The editor who made the edit has already been warned on their talk page. – 108.56.139.120 ( talk) 12:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Fawad Khan made his Bollywood debut on Khoobsurat in 2014. -- Alex Lombardini ( talk) 00:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
J U C 171.103.21.99 ( talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)