Talk:Pakeezah/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 11:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2022 (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.	As is my usual practice, I will go through and make any nitpicks/tweaks needed myself to save us time. If you object to any of my changes, just let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC) There were a few grammatical issues scattered throughout and some clarifications needed, but I think my changes have addressed them. In general the prose was good. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Sources are generally high quality. Relies quite a bit on Filmfare, but it's a well-established magazine so no issues there. Rediff is similarly ok with those bylines. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found - pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No other major aspects found checking sources and elsewhere. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In-depth and with plenty of detail, but not excessively so. Any minor issues can be trimmed out during prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I modified a couple of phrases in the prose review to improve neutrality and I believe it is now at the GA standard. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Generally stable, but there's an unresolved question about the runtime on the talk page. Can you explain why there's a discrepancy? Issue addressed, pass.
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.	Only image is a well-used fair use poster. Pass. New image checked - looks good, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Article could be better illustrated. Perhaps an image of each of the three lead actors in the Production section? We seem to have images available for all of them. Kumari's image could also go under Legacy/Influence so they are spread out through the article more. Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ganesha811: Regarding the run time, I would choose to follow what the book source says, as it is an encyclopedia and to me, more preferable than websites. The "Production" section is a summary of the larger Production of Pakeezah article, so I think a picture is not needed; I have added Kumari's image in the "Legacy", please take a look. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Michael Halim: do you know why the discrepancy exists? Are there different editions/cuts of the film? The newly added image looks good. 13:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: No idea but probably because the film's print was transferred to video. I will follow what the encyclopaedia says because books are generally more reliable than websites. Or, maybe adding a note is better? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I would add a note saying that while the given time is most likely, some sources disagree and give the alternate length. That's a good solution. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This article now passes GA! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.