This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone!
This article, about an Indian actress, is already a GA. It has had a long history on WP. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, I believe the article would benefit with a broader perspective and more comments from editors before taking it to FAC again. In order to make it a better qualified FAC, I would like to know what your opinion of the article is, and if there are any suggestions to improve it and take it a few steps further.
I'll be watching this page, and waiting for any suggestions, ideas and comments.
Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the article is very good. Good job! Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why one of the images isn't used in the lead? Please be sure to have Elcobbola ( talk · contribs) check the images before you come to FAC, and ask Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) to do a final MoS check; there are quite a few MoS issues. Getting those issues out of the way pre-FAC will smooth the way. There are errors in logical punctuation: Epbr will pick those up if you don't get them all. There are also WP:MOS#Ellipses problems. The sourcing looks good; remember though that The New York Times is italicized, like all journals, magazines and newspapers. And I hit dead links on indiantelevision.com, so you'd best review those. The prose could be tighter, so you might to find a word nerd to go through, samples only:
- The column turned out to be a success, and became one of the site's top 10 most widely read stories on the day.
- The column was a success, become one of the site's top 10 in readership.
- ... identifies herself as not being of a particularly religious nature.
- ... self identifies as not being particularly religious.
It's close, but needs a few more eyes to tighten up the prose and correct the MoS issues. Good luck; hope to see you soon at FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy, thanks for commenting! I will try and address all your concerns. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The images are FU, so we cannot use them in the lead. Shahid • Talk2me 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) has done a great cleanup. In fact, all your above mentioned concerns have been addressed. Tomorrow I'll take care of prose issues. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello everyone!
This article, about an Indian actress, is already a GA. It has had a long history on WP. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, I believe the article would benefit with a broader perspective and more comments from editors before taking it to FAC again. In order to make it a better qualified FAC, I would like to know what your opinion of the article is, and if there are any suggestions to improve it and take it a few steps further.
I'll be watching this page, and waiting for any suggestions, ideas and comments.
Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the article is very good. Good job! Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 09:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why one of the images isn't used in the lead? Please be sure to have Elcobbola ( talk · contribs) check the images before you come to FAC, and ask Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) to do a final MoS check; there are quite a few MoS issues. Getting those issues out of the way pre-FAC will smooth the way. There are errors in logical punctuation: Epbr will pick those up if you don't get them all. There are also WP:MOS#Ellipses problems. The sourcing looks good; remember though that The New York Times is italicized, like all journals, magazines and newspapers. And I hit dead links on indiantelevision.com, so you'd best review those. The prose could be tighter, so you might to find a word nerd to go through, samples only:
- The column turned out to be a success, and became one of the site's top 10 most widely read stories on the day.
- The column was a success, become one of the site's top 10 in readership.
- ... identifies herself as not being of a particularly religious nature.
- ... self identifies as not being particularly religious.
It's close, but needs a few more eyes to tighten up the prose and correct the MoS issues. Good luck; hope to see you soon at FAC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy, thanks for commenting! I will try and address all your concerns. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- The images are FU, so we cannot use them in the lead. Shahid • Talk2me 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) has done a great cleanup. In fact, all your above mentioned concerns have been addressed. Tomorrow I'll take care of prose issues. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)