Talk:A. R. Rahman/GA1

GA Review

Reviewer: Lemurbaby^Talk2Me

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (No original research):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article would have passed if the citations problems had been corrected and if the article were reviewed for overpraise issues. I corrected all the dead links myself today, but there are still numerous links to unverifiable sources such as blogs and personal websites, and many of the online sources have no access date. This is essential for providing some credibility to the source once the link goes dead. I encourage those interested in ensuring this article obtains "good article" status to review the sources from personal sites and find a more credible alternative source for these to substantiate the points made in the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I provided stylistic edits throughout. Please compare my edits with the prior version to ensure no meaning was lost in my attempt to strengthen conciseness and clarity.

1. Well-written: a) Clear and concise: Yes - but it could be improved for even better flow and encyclopedic style. b) Manual of Style: Yes 2. Factual/Verifiable: a) reference format: Yes b) in-line citations: PLEASE REVISE. Please clarify sources for the first several awards listed in the Awards section. Also, please check the *quality* of the sources - do not use blogs or other online sources that fail to cite their own source. c) no original research: Yes 3. Broad in its coverage a) main aspects covered: Yes b) Stays focused: Yes 4. Neutrality: Yes, but lacks critical voice. Please incorporate a critical perspective and avoid unsubstantiated praise (i.e. 'commercial success' of Bollywood Dreams, without providing citation.) 5. Stable: Yes 6: Illustrated: a) Tagged: PLEASE REVISE Missing photo and related information. b) Relevant: Yes

Once these changes are made, I believe the article will merit "Good Article" status.

What's the status of the review? Been three weeks, looks like some work has been done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)