Talk:Ash Panesar

Ash Panesar was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 7, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

EastEnders

This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles

Tasks for WikiProject EastEnders:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective
Other :
- Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20
- Improve to GA standard: EastEnders
- Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders
- Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

Soap Operas

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Sikhism

This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.

Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism articles

GA Review

Latest comment: 7 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Unsuccessful. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ash Panesar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Dr. Swag Lord: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) Hello. I will begin reviewing this article soon. 11:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As explained in Nish Panesar I'll have to withdraw this nomination. Major apoloies for any inconveniences. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for your work on the articles. Since I had already had my review written up for this article, I might as well insert it to help the future nominator correct the issues in the article:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

Main concern: Once again, as with Talk:Gray Atkins/GA1 and Talk:Nish Panesar/GA1, my main concern relates to the sheer amount of tabloid sources in article:

Metro (cited 30+ times): Please see Wikipedia:METRO
Daily Mirror (cited 10+ times): Please see Wikipedia:DAILYMIRROR
MyLondon (cited 2 times): MyLondon is the same tabloid owned by the Daily Mirror, Daily Star, etc., so it likely inherits the same level of reliability.

Given that the vast majority of this article is cited to tabloids, I must quick fail this article as it is a long way from meeting the GA criteria. To make the same clarification as my prior reviews: if a clear consensus emerges that these tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas, then I’ll happily reverse my decision and someone else may nominate this article to GA again. Thank you once more for your work! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Daily Mirror as a source is a big deal since its a situational source unlike Metro. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not as bad as Metro but 10+ citations to such a low-quality source is excessive, imo. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic