Talk:Fawad Khan/GA2
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
@Diogatari, Amirk94391, and Slightlymad: This BLP contained plenty of non-RS but despite it it went on to become a GA. While this BLP has good potential to become a GA but in my opinion, it not ready yet and satisfies the criteria. It seems the reviewer Diogatari (talk · contribs) is not well informed about the GA criteria - xe himself stated on the talk page that it was his first GA review. For now I have removed the clearly non-RS [1] and suggest to delist this asap. While removing the sources, I found there are few grammatical issues, typos and WP:WTA as well which needs to be fixed before nominating this page for GA status. --Saqib (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- User Saqib removed the GA bar from the article but it seems like he doesn't know that Fawad Khan is STILL one of Media and drama's good article. (Please see the link) I also think I made a mistake by promoting the article to GA status therefore I support Saqib to delist it. @Amirk94391: Please let us hear your opinion. Diogatari (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Diogatari: the page entry was added to Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama by AmirK. I have removed it. --Saqib (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- User Saqib removed the GA bar from the article but it seems like he doesn't know that Fawad Khan is STILL one of Media and drama's good article. (Please see the link) I also think I made a mistake by promoting the article to GA status therefore I support Saqib to delist it. @Amirk94391: Please let us hear your opinion. Diogatari (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Saqib and Diogatari:, firstly thanks to Saqib for his review. Secondly, Saqib recently removed many N-R sources, I appreciated that, If you now look into article, Only the Awards and nominations section requires additional verification as I've added many relaible citations yesterday. I'm quite sure that in a few hours, I'll add relaible sources to that section is well and thus article will be alright. Saqib also mentioned that there are some grammatical errors, if so please discuss them bellow in their section.
- Lede
- Early life
- Music Career
- Entity Paradigm (2000–2012)
- Pepsi Battle of the Bands (2017)
- Acting career
- Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013)
- Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016)
- Upcoming projects; Pakistani films
- In the media
- Philanthropy
- Personal life
- Discography
- Filmography
- Awards and nominations
Amirk94391 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Amirk94391: I am no expert in reviewing the articles therefore I am not going to do it. However this BLP has some flaws and one of the major one is that there is a lot of OR in this BLP. For instance, there is no RS about the DOB. I am sorry but I am not going to comment further on this article. --Saqib (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Saqib: Don't be sorry you did an excellent job by letting me know about those NR sources. But I'd like you mention every single sentence that you think should be rephrased. This will help me a lot in taking it to FAC. Can you explain what do you mean by "OR in Biography of Living person"?. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:OR. As I said earlier, I won't be able to further comment on it. --Saqib (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Closure[edit]
Given the issues listed above, the fact that the original reviewer has stated that they do not understand the GA criteria, the prose issues raised during the article's FAC that make it clear that a "thorough copyedit" is needed and the article does not meet the "well-written" GA criteria, and that the person who opened the individual reassessment has declared that they are unable to continue, I am closing this as delisted. The nominator, Amirk94391, has already requested a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors and has opened a peer review; when both of these are completed and any issues or recommendations raised during these processes have been addressed, a new GAN can be opened, but should not be done before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)