TALK:CONVERSATIONS WITH WAHEEDA REHMAN

Conversations with Waheeda Rehman has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 1, 2021. ( Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conversations with Waheeda Rehman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PinkElixir ( talk · contribs) 11:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'll be taking on this review in the next day or two. Kind regards, PinkElixir ( talk) 11:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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.	The prose is generally clear and concise. I copy-edited for grammar and readability.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section summarizes the contents of the remainder of the article. I removed some critic-specific information that was too granular for a lead section.
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.	Information is properly sourced. The references follow MOS:REFERENCES.
	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).	All content is appropriately sourced using appropriate WP:RS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no signs of WP:PLAG or WP:CV.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article focuses on relevant main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There were some superfluous details in the Critical reception section, which I cut down on. I removed some quotations in the review process to allow for more paraphrased summary and less direct citation.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no history of edit warring or content dispute on the article.
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.	The image used complies with WP non-free content policy and copyright fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image of the book cover is relevant to the article topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	Y - this article passes GAN review! Done

GA Review

GA Review

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook