 | Sarvam was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Pretty Good Article
editThis article is clean, good and nice. Why not the contributer of the article just nominate it for Wikipedia: Good Article & Wikipedia:Peer Review? If possible, try for WP:FA. Regards, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarvam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- Very poorly written throughout, this article requires a thorough copy edit for grammar, tense, style, clarity and readability. Nowhere near GA standard.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- One dead link has been tagged.
- What makes Behindwoods a reliable source? I can find no statement of editorial policy or evidence that the site is regarded as a reliable source by other quality sources.
- Ayngaran, as a film distributor is not a reliable source, rather a primary source. Use with care
- Kollywood today looks like a wiki to me, not a reliable source.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, the main point is that this is very poorly written. There is also some doubtful sourcing. I cannot complete the review until the article is written in good clear English. After advising the nominator to get submissions copy-edited, they asked me to carry on reviewing, so I have done so, but if it cannot be brought up to standard in seven days, I shall fail the nomination. On hold until 11 April. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- As the nominator has removed the nomination from the list at WP:GAN, i shall close this review as not listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
GA nomination
editnow the article seems well developed. nominate it for GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)