Talk:Dilip Kumar: The Substance and the Shadow

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dilip Kumar: The Substance and the Shadow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources qualify for WP:RS (see below)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

General notes

• Sources are generally RS. However, the extensive quotations in the reception section border on plagiarism. See WP:RECEPTION - paraphrasing should be preferred, and the section should be arranged thematically, rather than "Critic A said this, Critic B said this, etc."
  • In addition, the chosen Sfnrefs are odd, to say the least. Why not simply author + year, instead of "Kumar 2014, A tale of", "Beegum 2017, Meet Bollywood's no-gossiping", and "Ali 2014, The man behind"
• However, the standard of prose is generally high, and all other criteria are fulfilled. I will thus put the article on hold, and wait for the above sourcing issues to be fixed, before doing a final run-through. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Run-through

• I do still believe that the reception section is borderline WP:QUOTEFARM, but that is not part of the GA criteria, so I'll let it go.
• I have done some editing for grammar.
• Source spotcheck:
  • 2 - good
  • 7 - good
  • 13 - can't access; please add url-status=dead to the reference
  • 16 - omission of relevant text. In Wikipedia article: " Asif Noorani said it is the photographs that add to the book's value". In source: "Photographs, some of them rare and never seen before, add to the value of the book, though not all of them are well reproduced." Since this is the only source that refers to the photographs, take care that it is well-represented.
  • 18 - fine (doesn't really contribute to the article, but good otherwise)
  • 19 - good
  • 24 - good

@AirshipJungleman29: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well done. Promoting now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)