Talk:Hema Malini: Beyond the Dream Girl
Latest comment: 3 years ago by PinkElixir in topic GA Review
 | Hema Malini: Beyond the Dream Girl has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 14, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hema Malini: Beyond the Dream Girl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be taking on this review and will complete it in the next 3-4 days. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is well on its way to a GAN pass. Please work on paraphrasing the content, especially in the "Release and reception" section, into an encyclopedic format.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The prose, spelling, and grammar is of an acceptable quality. While conducting the review, I made some grammar edits myself. As a note for the future, I would avoid too many semicolons when writing on WP, as they interrupt the smooth flow for the reader. The article generally follows MoS for word choice, lead, layout, etc. However, there is an indiscriminate amount of information in the "Release and reception" section. Please work on rephrasing this section and adhering to a neutral, encyclopedic format.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The article has a References and Sources section that contains WP:RS.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- As I mentioned in the above section, the "Release and reception" section has an indiscriminate amount of material. This section is significantly longer than the "Summary" and "Background and writing" sections and reads more like a summary of various reviews/critiques. Please consider WP:PROPORTION in determining what information about release and reception makes sense given the length of the article and amount of information presented within the other sections.
- The review section has been trimmed down to an appropriate length and breadth.
- As I mentioned in the above section, the "Release and reception" section has an indiscriminate amount of material. This section is significantly longer than the "Summary" and "Background and writing" sections and reads more like a summary of various reviews/critiques. Please consider WP:PROPORTION in determining what information about release and reception makes sense given the length of the article and amount of information presented within the other sections.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article follows WP:NPOV and is free from editorial bias.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- There is no indication of edit wars in the edit history or on the article talk page.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- The image of the book cover falls within fair use guidelines and is of course relevant to the article topic.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article is well on its way to a GAN pass. Please work on paraphrasing the content, especially in the "Release and reception" section, into an encyclopedic format. Please see the section-specific comments above for further clarification, and please reach out if you have any questions. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- @PinkElixir: This is now I think the best I could do. Sorry if the article seems overloaded by reviews; the book only has several reviews on the Internet. It's weird since that she is a big star of the 1970s, and if compared with Dilip Kumar: The Substance and the Shadow (btw, do you want review it too in the future? I will submit it to the Guild of Copy Editors first, since the article looks very long), the press gave Beyond the Dream Girl really little attention. Please check it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Nicholas Michael Halim: Yes, it can be a challenge to write about a topic with limited reliable sources. I'm happy to review the Dilip Kumar article once it has been revised by the copyeditor's guild. Thank you for revising the Release and reception section. I am happy to pass the article now. Congratulations! Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @PinkElixir: This is now I think the best I could do. Sorry if the article seems overloaded by reviews; the book only has several reviews on the Internet. It's weird since that she is a big star of the 1970s, and if compared with Dilip Kumar: The Substance and the Shadow (btw, do you want review it too in the future? I will submit it to the Guild of Copy Editors first, since the article looks very long), the press gave Beyond the Dream Girl really little attention. Please check it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)