Jump to content

Talk:The Dirty Picture/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll review this article, as I'm happy to see that the links have been fixed.


I have removed the dead link. Thanks. :) Smarojit (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
review

(This article has some very strange wording in it. Is it a translation or something? I have copy edited some of it but I'm unsure if I am interpreting the meaning correctly.)

lede
  • "the hero of the film" - needs citation
  • "The film's music, composed by Vishal Shekhar with lyrics by Rajat Aroraa, was popular." - needs better word than "popular" - popular by what standards?
plot
  • "where her mother disconnects with Silk forever" - what does "disconnects" mean? - disowned
  • "degrade" - I don't think this is the word you want - I have changed it in several places
  • " on the same lines" - what lines?
Cast
  • "libelous"? - what is meant here?
  • "enjoys the flesh of women" encyclopedic wording?

(I will continue - the article needs a copy edit.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made
lead
  • Provided a citation for "the hero of the film"
  • Removed the use of "popular"
plot
  • Copy edited the plot
Cast
  • Used scandalous instead of libelous.
Smarojit (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
review continued
  • "enjoys the flesh of women" - doesn't seem like encyclopedic wording
  • "Additionally, all actors, including Balan and Shah attended workshops for almost two months before filming could begin." why? what were the workshops about?
  • "met-at-a-party stories, quick tea-break chats," - doesn't seem like encyclopedic language

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the above changes. Smarojit (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the changes. The wording is still a little odd in places but I attribute that to cultural differences. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! Good job on an interesting film! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]