GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Titodutta ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I have started readin the article and have read first three section (lead an next two). Here are few questions and comments -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- As an actress?
- When? Add {{ As of}}
- Who has two daughters? Reena or Parineeti?
- Rewrite it mentioning giving some context about the quote.
- The article does not mention when she went abroad. If the information is available, add it.
- Not sure, what does "filming" mean here- directing, acting? And when?
- What is PR team?
- Give some details about the quote!
- It seems YRF. But, you can mention it here since it is the beginning of a new section!
- The article does not mention if she joined any acting school! Any information available?
- Add descriptor like Bollywood director Manish Chopra.
- Which officer?
- Tense conflict, the next few sentences are in past tense.
- Similar conflict!
- Add a short descriptor "reviewer" etc!
- When? Add {{ As of}}
I have read the last part too. These are some questions and comments!
- What does "media image" mean? and IMO, it should be "off screen works". An alternative title might be "Other activities"!
- What is Greenathon?
- When? {{ As of}} needed!
- It is a short article and has too many quotes.
- There is only 1 h3 subsection! Do you need it? Or, you can just put it under "Acting career"!
Prashant talk 02:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Though length is not directly a criteria of GA, still, I am very much worried about it here. The article looks like a start class article, not a good article! Since, subject has acted in only few films, a large potion of the article is forced (i.e. it looks information has been added just to expand the article)! I'll think on it or may ask second opinion! -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, it is mentioned in the body. The Indian Express labelled her the "most brightest and talented" newcomer of this generation. It is enough to prove that, even other sources says the same. Prashant talk 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Copyvio and close paraphrasing checking are being done!! Checking done! Alright! |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There were some issues which have been fixed! |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | There were some issues with inline citation which have been fixed and now it is okay! |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I have not found OR |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | There is not lots of thing to write on the actor, but, the article covers main aspects! |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Alright! |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The current version has o POV issue and has been written from a neutral point of view |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Licenses, copyright status etc are alright! Fair use rationales not applicable! |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions! |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | The current version looks good and meets the major criteria of WP:WIAGA |
This is a short article but a good one, hopefully more content will be added soon! -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Titodutta ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I have started readin the article and have read first three section (lead an next two). Here are few questions and comments -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- As an actress?
- When? Add {{ As of}}
- Who has two daughters? Reena or Parineeti?
- Rewrite it mentioning giving some context about the quote.
- The article does not mention when she went abroad. If the information is available, add it.
- Not sure, what does "filming" mean here- directing, acting? And when?
- What is PR team?
- Give some details about the quote!
- It seems YRF. But, you can mention it here since it is the beginning of a new section!
- The article does not mention if she joined any acting school! Any information available?
- Add descriptor like Bollywood director Manish Chopra.
- Which officer?
- Tense conflict, the next few sentences are in past tense.
- Similar conflict!
- Add a short descriptor "reviewer" etc!
- When? Add {{ As of}}
I have read the last part too. These are some questions and comments!
- What does "media image" mean? and IMO, it should be "off screen works". An alternative title might be "Other activities"!
- What is Greenathon?
- When? {{ As of}} needed!
- It is a short article and has too many quotes.
- There is only 1 h3 subsection! Do you need it? Or, you can just put it under "Acting career"!
Prashant talk 02:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Though length is not directly a criteria of GA, still, I am very much worried about it here. The article looks like a start class article, not a good article! Since, subject has acted in only few films, a large potion of the article is forced (i.e. it looks information has been added just to expand the article)! I'll think on it or may ask second opinion! -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, it is mentioned in the body. The Indian Express labelled her the "most brightest and talented" newcomer of this generation. It is enough to prove that, even other sources says the same. Prashant talk 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Copyvio and close paraphrasing checking are being done!! Checking done! Alright! |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There were some issues which have been fixed! |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | There were some issues with inline citation which have been fixed and now it is okay! |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I have not found OR |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | There is not lots of thing to write on the actor, but, the article covers main aspects! |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Alright! |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The current version has o POV issue and has been written from a neutral point of view |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Licenses, copyright status etc are alright! Fair use rationales not applicable! |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions! |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | The current version looks good and meets the major criteria of WP:WIAGA |
This is a short article but a good one, hopefully more content will be added soon! -- Tito Dutta ( contact) 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)