Talk:Akshay Kumar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

Unfortunately the article is not GA at this time. Please see below for a detailed explanation of my review, according to the Good Article criteria. — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2015 (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.	The prose is not clear and concise. It has several run-on sentences, and sentences with poor grammar structure, and overusage of commas. I could give many examples, here is but one example of a sentence that is way too long: Kumar made his first appearance as the lead actor opposite Raakhee and Shantipriya in Saugandh (1991), though he had appeared in the uncredited role of a martial arts instructor in the 1987 Mahesh Bhatt-directed and Kumar Gaurav starrer, Aaj. In the same year, he acted in Kishore Vyas-directed Dancer, which received poor reviews. There's some usage of large amounts of quotations when they could be paraphrased, instead. I would strongly recommend nominating this for WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and getting not one but several copy edits (one from WP:GOCE, one from a 2nd Peer Review, and more), before going again for another Good Article Nomination.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede intro sect right now fails WP:LEAD. Per WP:LEAD, there should be no more than four (4) paragraphs in the intro sect. Right now there are seven (7) total paragraphs. They are not uniform paragraphs but of wildly different sizes. We don't generally need citations in the intro sect, per WP:LEADCITE. However, we most certainly do not need to have five (5) citations like that, at the end of the last sentence of the lede intro sect. The style and presentation could do with significant improvements. Other than 1991–1999, all other sects in the Career sect are so overly long and cumbersome as to significantly decrease readability for the reader per WP:TL;DR. As WP:TL;DR increases, readability for the average reader and visitor to Wikipedia decreases. Please, I beg of you, think of the WP:READERS of Wikipedia. They want both writing style that is clear and concise, and an entire article presentation that is clear and concise.
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.	Layout of referencing and citations could be better. For some, they have archive links and good us of citation templates with fields filled in, so that's good. For others, it appears the "author" or "first" "last" fields are missing. If the language is not in English for the original source, please add "language' field and note what particular language it is. Bibliography - not sure why this section is so small, when there's only two entries here. If you're going to use Wayback Machine to archive cites with Internet Archive, that's actually excellent, but if you have already decided to do so, then please go ahead and increase uniformity and standardization for the citations, and do that for all of the citations.
	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).	Concerns here but not as significant as elsewhere. But for example, cite 181 -- I'm not sure that cite is WP:RS enough (not that that material belongs in the article, at all, on a biography of this person, anyway, and should be removed, but I address that elsewhere in this review). In addition, claims of that nature should only be in the article if a HUGE amount of secondary sources mention the issue. Best to remove that info outright from the article anyways, but just a pointer that for that type of thing, one secondary cite is not enough.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'm seeing a significant amount of sources to primary sources, at least twenty (20) sources, for example, to "Box Office India". This again appears that one is digging up primary sourced information to put it in the article. Per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, if the material in question is not covered by a preponderance of secondary sources, then relying upon primary sources seems to beg the question, why have that material in the article at all? It should be removed. It should be removed because Wikipedia articles, at least for the most part and I'm talking only a handful of cites, Wikipedia articles should reflect the vast preponderance of information from WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources, so best to avoid usage of primary sources. If you find yourself using a significant number of primary sources, that is a red flag that the article is straying into WP:NOR.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article seems to go WP:Out of scope with its breadth of the topic, going into too much detail and covering minutiae like comparing the individual's Forbes list ranking to other actors. Things like this, and multiple other factors, give off a POV presentation that feels promotional, making the article read more like a hagiography.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is not focused on the topic. It goes into unnecessary detail about its subject matter. Each subsection could be significantly trimmed to be about the same size as 1991–1999. By trimming in this way, you will learn how to write more concisely and give the article more punch by actually giving weight to the key most important issues and not going into overly detailed representation of every single little detail. " In 2009, while performing at a show for Levis at Lakme Fashion Week, Kumar asked Twinkle ..." This bit seems quite unnecessary and sensational. Ask yourself, please, what will be remembered about this person in one-hundred (100) years time, from now? Then write your article as if you are writing it for a reader 100 years in the future. 100 years from now, such minor sensationalistic tabloid fodder will not be crucial to the subject's biography.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is not neutral. It comes across as POV. The tone appears to be promotional, akin to a hagiography of the subject. Strongly recommend another Peer Review. Why, if the article already had a Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Akshay Kumar/archive1 ? Though it is helpful to get comments at Peer Review, the best way to use it is to treat it similarly to an active WP:GAN or even an active WP:FAC process. Engage with the reviewers. Try to address all their concerns during the actual Peer Review itself. If the time elapsed, go back to the Peer Review subpage, at the bottom, and place a numbered-bulleted list of how you attempted to address their points. At the next Peer Review, I'd strongly recommend posting neutrally worded notices to all relevant WikiProjects at their talk pages, and trying to get outside help from experiences copy-editors previously uninvolved with the subject matter.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	It appears there are ongoing issues of disruption, though this one might be easily fixed. I'd suggest a longer term degree of semi-protection, based on a look at the article's recent edit history. Upon inspection of article talk page history, however, I'm not seeing any major ongoing issues there, so that's good.
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.	File:Padma Shri India IIIe Klasse.jpg - the factual accuracy of this diagram is disputed, per a tag at the image's page on Wikimedia Commons. Also, the huge display of this image in the article comes across as POV and hagiography style presentation. Unless it could be shown such usage of huge award type images without the actual subject himself in the picture, is already done as a model at multiple WP:FAs, but somehow, I think not. However - these four (4) are good: File:Akshaykumar.jpg, File:Akshay & Katrina on the sets of Welcome.jpg, File:Promotional rickshaw race for 'Rowdy Rathore' (5).jpg, File:Akshay Kumar with family.jpg. All those last four (4) have OTRS confirmation, and they check out okay at their image pages.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Akshay Kumar in Sydney for Heyy Babyy.jpg - not the best quality image, can't really see his face, not really relevant, doesn't really help the article at all.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately, the article is not GA at this time. It would take significantly longer than seven days to address above issues, so I'm not going to be placing it as GA on Hold. Instead, I highly encourage editors to read over above, and then the next steps would be to: (1) try to address as much as you can first, on your own, from recommendations, above. (2) Nominate the article at WP:GOCE requests for a copy-edit, and wait for them to copy-edit it thoroughly before nominating again for WP:GAN. (3) Take the article to peer review a 2nd time, notify those from the first peer review, notify WikiProject talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, and treat that ongoing 2nd peer review as if it were an WP:FAC discussion -- use the comments from the editors and try to address those issues, live and point-by-point, immediately as they come up in the peer review. Next time, the 2nd peer review page should be long and extensive and show the editors that started the peer review politely but responsively replying to all points raised and noting back at the peer review subpage every single time they've attempted to address a specific point. I hope above recommendations are helpful to further improve the quality of this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)