Talk:Katrina Kaif/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance :-) AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 23:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 6, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please do not comment interspersed between my comments, but if you wish to comment do so at the end of the entire GA Review, below. Thanks!
I echo the concerns from the last unsuccessful GA Review at Talk:Katrina Kaif/GA1.
The article has numerous instances of run-on sentences.
It has overusage of commas throughout, which create similar problems to above.
The article uses too many semicolons in places where they are either not necessary or create similar problems to above, namely, sentences that are too long.
I made a minor copy edit here, and the prior sentence structure was very confusing to me.
Way too much use of quotations throughout the entire article for things that could be paraphrased. Or better yet, simply omit and remove lots of the overusage of quotations throughout.
I think the article could stand to benefit from a copy edit from a few previously uninvolved editors. Ideally those that have never even encountered anything related to this particular subject matter before.
Consider in addition to getting some previously uninvolved editors for multiple copy edits, also requesting a copy edit through WP:GOCE, and waiting until they are done before renominating.

2. Factually accurate?: Appears to be duly cited to appropriate sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article does indeed cover multiple major aspects of its subject matter.

4. Neutral point of view?:

Concerns about NPOV here.
There are quotations from media sources interspersed throughout the article which come across a bit hagiographic and unnecessary.
In addition, the "In the media" section seems a bit too much as well.
Suggestion: Merge the quotations throughout the article that haven't been deleted by that point into a new section, Reception, and have that instead of the "In the media" section.

5. Article stability?: The article is semi-protected at this time. Is that permanent? If so, why? I see lots of reverts in the edit history going back only a few weeks. There also appears to be a dispute on the talk page about the Filmography table.

6. Images?:

Please fix ALT text for images. They shouldn't refer to proper nouns, but just be descriptive about the picture itself so one can visualize the image without ever seeing the picture.
No issues with image licensing. All images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with WP:OTRS confirmation.

NOTE: Please do not comment interspersed between my comments, but if you wish to comment do so at the end of the entire GA Review, below. Thanks!

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) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks for the review again, though I'm not totally clear on a few of your comments, so I was wondering if you could help me here:

Could you give me one or two examples of run-on sentences? Not too sure about where the article has these
Also could you give me one or two examples of hagiographic statements
Not too sure about what's wrong with the "in the media" section, as I've followed the layout of FA articles like Deepika Padukone and Brad Pitt
I was under the impression that semi-protected articles were allowed to be passed as GA. I've checked and I've seen that other articles like Deepika Padukone, Kangana Ranaut, Emma Watson and the recent GA article Tree passed their nominations whilst they were semi-protected :/ Also, just FYI, there wasn't any dispute about the Filmography table. Somebody made an edit where he created a separate article for the table, and I posted my reasons on the talk page for the revert
Could you give me an example of how to write the ALT text. Like what would you change this to- "Katrina smiling and looking away from the camera" ?

Thanks in advance! AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:AB01 about problems with article

"While shooting for the picture in India, Kaif began receiving other assignments and soon established a successful career as a model, though filmmakers were hesitant to cast her due to her poor grasp of Hindi." not necessarily classic definition of "run-on sentence", but overly long sentences with overusage of commas, as already noted, above.
"After appearing in a successful Telugu film Malliswari (2004), she earned commercial success in Bollywood with the romantic comedies Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya? (2005) and Namastey London (2007), of which the latter garnered her praise for her performance."
In the media section, like multiple other sections of the article, comes off as too hagiographic which therefore fails WP:NPOV.
Your explanation of using the word "revert" is the definition of a dispute. Without a "revert" there wouldn't have been a dispute.
Please see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.

— Cirt (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: I do not understand your advice here regarding the alt text. Both the sample pictures in the above link do refer to the subjects by name, proper nouns. One example say to name Queen Elizabeth, not "a lady in a hat". Why did you say not to use proper nouns? The term "proper noun" does not even appear in that link. BollyJeff | talk 17:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of ALT Text must have changed recently. It used to not want proper nouns. — Cirt (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: I don't understand how statements like this [After appearing in a successful Telugu film Malliswari (2004), she earned commercial success in Bollywood with the romantic comedies Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya? (2005) and Namastey London (2007), of which the latter garnered her praise for her performance] can be termed as hagiographic. It's a fact that all three films were successful, and they are adequately referenced. And I don't think the intro (or the article, for that matter) is biased either, as it also talks about how she's not received critical praise. Would you be able to tell me how you'd rephrase that sentence? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 06:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AB01, I never said that particular sentence was hagiographic. I said the overall tone was hagiographic. — Cirt (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, that particular sentence does go on too long and use too much commas and could be broken to be smaller. — Cirt (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AB01, as the primary contributor to this article, you are an involved party and therefore it's quite understandable how you would be unable to perceive the hagiographic tone of the article towards its subject matter. Yet another reason why WP:GOCE in addition to getting copy editing from multiple previously uninvolved editors, and also perhaps a peer review, would all be good things for this article that I strongly suggest all those things occur at some point in the future. — Cirt (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yep. I've listed it down for a copy edit. I'll nominate it for a peer review too :-) AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 12:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wanted to say this: I'd very much like for this article to be WP:GA quality, I want it to be WP:GA quality, and when I first saw the article without doing an in-depth read-through of the article text, I wished I could simply pass it as WP:GA quality. But unfortunately its tone was not NPOV and was more hagiographic in nature, and it suffered from major problems with writing quality, in particular over usage of commas. I think when this article gets to WP:GA quality at some point in the future, it will help with WP:BIAS by increasing the in-depth coverage of women on Wikipedia in quality articles. I wish the contributors the best of luck with further improving the quality of this article in the future. — Cirt (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]