Talk:Waheeda Rehman/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: PrinceofPunjab (talk · contribs) 05:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 12:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations Thank you for your review of this article and your suggestions. I will try to improve article according to those, although it may take some time because of my exams. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceofPunjab Then the question is then should we hold this GAN open for a substantial time (say a week) or close it now and let you work on it at leisure (as you exams are indeed a more pressing concern and requires your undivided attention!). I think, given that we agree there is a large amount to be done and that it will take an some amount of time to do, we should end this GAN now. You can renominate the article once the changes are made and I will look forward to seeing the rewritten article when it is ready. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations I think it is best that we close this GAN now because It will take some time and I will not be free for next 3 weeks. I nominated it on 4th April because at that time I was free but sadly, it's review took nearly a month. Anyways, Thank you for reviewing it. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 05:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PrinceofPunjab Appreciate the revert. Looking forward once you are done with the changes. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2024 (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.	Prose is largely clear
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As per MOS:CITELEAD, Lead section shall summarize the same and if it is already referenced, it is redundant and not required.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are bare citations E.g."Guru Dutt was my mentor: Waheeda/", "32nd Annual BFJA Awards" Please ensure references are quoted in proper style and the sources are quoted with the required parameters. Maintain uniformity in style as isbn numbers are in different formatting across the article (Refer WP:ISBN)
	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).	It should be a quick fail specifically for this reason. The last GA review ten years back had indicated similar issues as well, which has not been addressed. There are a lot of content with no sources provided. Please ensure that proper citations are provided for all the sentences. There are multiple instances of no citation being provided or complete citations are missing. E.g. "Beginnings and breakthrough", "Widespread success", "Continued success" paragraphs have barely 1-2 citations which do not cite most of the content.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Same as above
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No major issues as per Earwig
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.	Certain images seem to have copyright issues. E.g. "Waheeda in Pyaasa (1957)"
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article needs a lot of working, particularly in terms of providing citations. Many sections have content with no valid references. From the above items, many reviewers would conclude that the article should be failed. I believe that discussing with the respective GA nominator, who might be knowledgeable and interested in the subject, to consider how the article concerned can be reworked. With sufficient effort, often major changes can be made quite quickly. First, we need to agree on it and I look forward to hearing your response. As per subsequent discussion, closing the review.