Talk:Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Till (talk · contribs) 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

• produced and directed by Maninderpal Sahota --> typically directed comes before produced

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• The lead is too long. Try fitting everything in one paragraph or two small paragraphs.

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• but they also found --> a bit repetitive

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some POVs in synopsis, eg. "at least"

• Not sure what you mean exactly. Zac  04:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Bharti Ali, Director of the NGO Centre for Child Rights --> comma at the end

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Two months later --> same as above

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kate Redman from Save the Children UK --> same as above

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Basic facts such as the length of the documentary are omitted from the article.

•  Done, I've included it in the lead. Zac  04:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sahota said he thought Lohan chose to participate as a result of "working in an adult world since she was ten, she feels childhood is precious, and when you lose one you can never replace those years". --> Could use a c/e, also quotes must be directly sourced

•  Done Zac  04:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• While in India Lohan posted on message on her Twitter account stating --> also needs c/e

•  Done Zac  04:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• but they also found --> same as earlier

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Any pics you could add to the article?

• I was thinking of including an image from one of the locations in which she visited, but it would be hard to choose which one. Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Then there should, because one of the requirements at WP:GACR is "illustrated, if possible, by images". Till 04:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• The only possible picture I could use would be either of human trafficking, and I'm not sure if such a picture exists on Wikipedia. Zac  04:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• How about one of Lindsay..? Till 04:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider that "relevant to the topic". Zac  04:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't know that a picture of Lindsay Lohan wouldn't be relevant to a documentary featuring Lindsay Lohan. My bad. Till 05:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Amelia Gentleman commented in The Guardian --> it would be better to explicitly say that she's from The Guardian

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• About the documentary she said that --> awkward

•  Done Zac  04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Another review in The Guardian by Sam Wollaston consisted of a satirical letter ostensibly written by Lohan --> what does this mean?

• I am unsure how to write this. He basically wrote an entry on the The Guardian as "Lindsay Lohan", mocking her. Any suggestions? Zac  04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, quotes need to be directly sourced

•  Done, I think I got them all. Zac  04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• He said that rather than highlight the crime of trafficking --> comma at end

•  Done Zac  04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• References are in bad condition:
  • Ref. #2 --> don't need the " | Media | guardian.co.uk " bit, and it's The Guardian, not Guardian. Also needs publisher (Guardian Media Group)
  • Ref. #3 --> Capital T for time?
  • Ref. #5 --> Publisher?
  • Ref. #7 --> same as #2
  • Remove the locations such as London. They aren't needed.
  • Ref. #9 --> UsMagazine.com is Us Magazine. And publisher?
  • Ref. #10 --> same as #2 and #7
  • Ref. #11 --> no need for '.com' and publisher is Salon Media Group
  • Ref. #12 --> same as #2, #7 and #10
  • Ref. #13 --> same as above
  • Ref. #14 --> Publisher?
  • Ref. #15 --> same as above
  • Ref. #16 --> Indepdenent News & Media for publisher.

•  Done, I think I got them all. Zac  04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• You should archive the URLs.
• Perhaps the article's main contributor should have some input here?

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

On hold for seven days. Till 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As most of the issues have been fixed, I'm passing this article. Good job~ Till 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)