Talk:Shreya Ghoshal/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 09:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this to you soon JAGUAR 09:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does have a good context, but still needs to be shaped in more accurate format. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 05:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derevation: Are you the reviewer here? Few days back you nominated a film article for GA which did not even have the plot section. See Talk:Singh_Is_Bliing#GA_nom_reverted. I do not consider you competent enough to review another article for GA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: at least i am reviewing not vandalising. Plus i m working on such articles to match G.A. Its not any stub article. Foremost its sort of a defamation. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 11:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Jaguar is reviewing it, you are not needed here unless you think they are not doing a good job. So just stay out. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But stay away from Qubool Hai at least though i reviewed that! Derevation^{Give Me Five} 11:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring discussions of other pages elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

" She is the recipient of four National Film Awards, five" - this needs a semi-colon

Done

I feel that the lead could be expanded slightly in order to summarise the article better - a requirement for the GA criteria. Some mentions of her early career might be useful

Done Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is that there is some serious WP:OVERLINK in the Music career section. I'd strongly advise cutting down on a few links, so that the article concentrates more on prose and less on list-y subjects

Unlike west, India doesn't really have album culture. Singer's sing song's in movies. I can't find any other way to write about her career without mentioning her movie names. Article's that are overlinked are the film's in which she has given her voice. Should I delink them? Any suggestion on what should be done? Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I should have taken in mind that the album culture was slightly different from what I've seen on Wikipedia. I think de-linking or cutting at least a few wouldn't hurt, see what you would like to keep? JAGUAR 19:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some non-notable films. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"she participated in the 75th Children's Special episode" - does Children and Special have to be capitalised?

Done

"According to him, Ghoshal's voice" - I got lost here, according to who?

Mentioned

"with established singers like" - such as

Done

"She was only 16 when she recorded the first song" - I'd remove "only", as it sounds a tad informal

Removed

"Ghoshal was a playback singer many times in 2003" - might sound better as Ghoshal was performed as a playback singer numerous times in 2003 or something similar?

Done

"The year 2007 started for Ghoshal with "Barso Re"" - this opening sounds a bit informal

Rephrased

"After singing for films like" - such as

Done

I would consider losing or doing something else with the second paragraph in the 2008–present section. It is unsourced and presents itself as just a list of people she worked with! Although it's not a serious problem for GA, I would recommend cutting at least half of the names (the least known ones, as you see fit) and putting some more prose in there, if possible

Removed

"In 2012, she broke into Forbes Celebrity 100" - broke into?

Rephrased Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar:, I think i have resolved all comment of yours. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

Sorry for the late review, I admit I've had to rush this as I'm meant to be going out within a few minutes as I type this, but once all of the above are addressed then this should be good to go. It is comprehensive and well written, but I did notice that there one section has a long list of people which should really be altered. Other than that, nice work with this! JAGUAR 15:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing them, and again I apologise for my short delay in reviewing this (it won't happen again). This article now meets the GA criteria, well done!

JAGUAR 18:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for a comprehensive review, :) and you don't need to apologise for the delay. Yashthepunisher (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]