Talk:Taare Zameen Par/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk)

I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. The version I will be reviewing is this one, and subsequent changes will not form a part of the initial review. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm technically on "wikibreak" at the moment, but I will check back later for your review and feedback - and work to improve the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm on it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose throughout the article is clear and readable.

B. MoS compliance:
A few issues here. Starting with the lead, the descriptions of Gupte and Bhatia in prantheses could be done away with, while the names of the main actors could be mentioned in a sentence in the first paragraph. The plot overview in the second paragraph could be described in a more abstract manner, without mentioning the names of the characters or actors. Several of the names of cast and crew are overlinked. The quotes in the pre-production and production subsections should be paraphrased as far as possible. Finally, why is Urdu mentioned in the lead section when the infobox mentions the language of the film to be Hindi/English?

Done -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Mostly fine, but why is Box Office India used as a benchmark for the film's success? The film's release details and box office collections should be mentioned first.

Done -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Use a consistent form of citation - either the work parameter or the publisher parameter should be used for newspapers.

Done -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The section on High Profile Screenings, especially Audrey Hepburn's birthday, seems to border on trivia - is there a compelling reason for mentioning it? Also, if possible, information regarding the Indian collections could be incorporated if a reliable source is available.

I deleted the Hepburn section but kept the Dyslexia Association's response and turned it into a new section since this is directly related to content. Otherwise,

Done -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Since the poster is being used as per a non-free use rationale, is it necessary to use it twice in the article.

Done -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, this is a well-written article, and if the aforementioned issues are addressed it should be an easy pass.

As a result of the above, I am placing the article on hold for a period of one week, at the end of which the article will be reviewed again and passed or failed accordingly. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page for any clarifications. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor tweaks[edit]

I have tweaked or deleted according to your comments. Please let me know if my edits were in compliance with the suggestions below. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Just a couple more issues that I hadn't pointed out earlier - the currency figures should be converted (use {{INRConvert}} for this), and the third external link seems to be unnecessary. I have performed a minor copyedit, and no other significant issues remain. If you can address these, the article looks set for a pass. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I appreciate the further copyedits. I read through the instructions for the conversion app but I am not sure I understand exactly how to use it. Could I ask for your help with this? Also I'm not sure what the "third external link" is - could you just delete it if it is not necessary? Let me know if there are other fixes I can do before the final pass to GA. Thanks for your help, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed them - have a look at the article to see how the template is used. I'll post the final review shortly. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha! That's how you do it. I suspected it would be something easy like that except I could not visualize how the template was used. Now I know for the future-cool...-Classicfilms (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

All the concerns raised earlier have been addressed and the article satisfies the GA criteria. As a result, I have now passed it as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Arts. For the record, User:Classicfilms contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits during the review). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! -Classicfilms (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]