Talk:Karthi/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will review it in coming days. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have an image in infobox, which sounds like a skyscraper without basement. Please give your level best to obtain for the same. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary that an article nominated for GA must have an infobox image. I tried hard for a free image but with no luck till now. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to reviewer:The article was recently copy-edited after I made a request at the guild. So I think there must not be any major issues. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the lead issue will be solve, i will be happy to pass the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 05:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now does it look good. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not a issue, however it will be much appreciated if on can get it. Since it has been copy-edited by GOCE, i am striking that comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started a second copy-edit as requested; please tell me if there's anything specific I should be doing. It will take 2-4 days depending on RL, quote-checking etc. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As per MOS:DASH, hyphens (-) have to be replaced by en dash (–) and em dash (—). ~~Needs a small copyedit, you may request it here.~~ The article has been copy-edited for the second time. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 15:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section should act like an introduction to the article, however much content of the lead should be moved to respective sections. I think this section from MOS:LEAD will help understand that better. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Done I guess now it looks like summarising the whole article. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Template:IndicText needs to be added. Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 15:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Section 5 is not completely referred. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] "Section 5"? Can you be more particular in pointing out which section. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 06:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] "Filmography". ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 08:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Any reason why File:Karthi in Paruthiveeran.jpg is not in the infobox. Also provide a WP:ALT for it. The image is a screenshot from one of his films. Generally we prefer free images for "infobox". But for this actor there doesn't exist any free image. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Article passed. Congrats! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good article.[edit]

This article is well written and had lots of references to me this is the best of Wikipedia and is an article to be emulated by other editors. Congratulations.

User:kipsizoo Nairobi Kenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipsizoo (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]