Talk:Qubool Hai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Derevation (talk · contribs) 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

According to GA criteria, this article includes much sources and written in detailed manner, but still more reviews are left to pass it as a Good Article Derevation^{Give Me Five} 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Derevation: Few days back you nominated a film article for GA which did not even have the plot section. See Talk:Singh_Is_Bliing#GA_nom_reverted. I do not consider you competent enough to review another article for GA. Here you write this reason to not pass the GA and then you go and pass it as GA. Sounds very fishy to me. Also reminds me of some people who did such things on another TV show article last year. Does it also remind you of that? For now, please revert your all edits of passing this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Derevation: So are you going to revert it or not? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The grammar is terrible in many places (quick glance finds non-sentences, missing articles, confusion between subject and object of a verb, etc.). These are all easy mistakes to make when writing, especially for non-native speakers. They are here after a GA check that has this sort of thing as an explicit detail of one of the criteria? Since then, other editors have raised many concerns (via tagging) that seem like valid problems (and ones that someone with good knowledge of this article-genre and its associated guidelines would likely have recognized). No way this article should have passed GA. Looks like part of a pattern of this reviewer failing to do an acceptable job. DMacks (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh Hey all. This article is is not ad, hoax or neither has filthy abusive content. Ah, plus i have even, even saw G.A articles of the show South Park of the episode Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut. Really. Well, i had to face you all to know even such articles are passed. Oh sorry being too emotional. Well, it's ok to re-revise it ( notfor the filthy title, but the grammar!) Derevation^{Give Me Five} 08:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

One, note that Wikipedia is not censored. Two, note that the phrasing and grammar in that article are far beyond what this article has. And finally, look at the GA review for that article and compare it to the rather lame review you gave. Have you read through the GA criteria? Your review did not state how this article met those criteria, it was just a "Hey, looks fine" with any apparent attempt at a real review. Ravensfire (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• We have two editors here (DMacks and Ravensfire who do not believe this article is at GA status, and one editor (Dharmadhyaksha) who suspects that the GA review itself was not on the level, but was rather than as a quid pro quo. (Ravensfire also started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#2nd_opinion_request. I have looked at the article, and to these two criticisms I add that the review is completely unsatisfactory. There's one single sentence, littered with grammatical errors, there's a couple of edit summaries with various irrelevant and misspelled remarks and a couple of cusswords, and that's it. Since the proper procedure for a GA review wasn't followed at all I have no problem with simply removing the GA star: this was never a GA to begin with since there was never a proper GA review and so we don't have to reassess. Derevation, you should not be doing any more GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Drmies: for your reply. I would in fact also suggest Derevation to not nominate any articles as well for GA as of now. Today also they nominated a Hollywood film article which they hadn't even edited before nomination. And this isnt the first time such poor choice has been shown. They also have one quick fail nomination on credit. This is simply wasting reviewer's time and giving bad history to the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Many problems with this; Too many references for a short commentry. wp:overlinking, mostly by references. The lede needs more words, and must be clear. There are too many primary source in Awards section. — Recently one user re-added material that was removed by User:Digvijay411. So i suggest a quick fail as needs more hard work on this. Jimmy Aneja (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. The lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, it is not an adequate summary of the article.
2. The grammar is terrible, as noted already by multiple different editors, above.
3. Copyvio Detector shows copyvio problems with at least one source, at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Qubool+Hai&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1

2. Verifiable?:

1. Not sure if some of the sources fail WP:RS, upon spotcheck, such as Oneindia.in, Dailybhaskar.
2. Curious as to why the name of the movie itself is italicized in some citations as if it were the work in the citation.
3. At least fifty (50) links in citations have problems, as shown at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Qubool_Hai

3. Broad in coverage?: Concerns about promotional nature, especially with this sort of language Due to Karan Singh Grover's presence, the show made a grand entry into Indian television. -- it's likely not all critical viewpoints are covered here.

4. Neutral point of view?: Significant concerns about POV in the Controversies sect. The lede intro sect fails to fairly represent all perspectives of Critical response type info, failing WP:MOSFILM.

5. Stable?: Both the article edit history and the article talk page history show evidence of instability at this time.

6. Images?:

1. File:Surbhi Jyoti at Television Style Awards.jpg - tagged with problem issue on image page.
2. File:Imran Khan and Surbhi Jyoti.jpg - tagged with problem issue on image page.
3. File:Qubool Hai 17th Break Bumper Poster.png - at least two fields are missing on image page.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— — Cirt (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)