Wikipedia:Peer review/Kalki Koechlin/archive1

Kalki Koechlin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this page for some while now and would like suggestions to improve it.

Thanks! Numerounovedant (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please fix the dead links and redirects.
Replace dubious sources like "hunt news", "commercialappeal.com", "chakpak" and "indicine".
The "early life" section goes into how his father met his mother and how they came in india. It's her article. You got to mention when she and where she was born. Also, trim some redundant family stuff mentioned above.
The opening sentence is unsourced. Add a source or re-write it.
The "2016-present" subsection looks like its been written by her fan. First, trim it down so that it'll sound neutral. Then, merge it in the previous section.
There is s big unnecessary quote in "On stage" section. Trim it.
Her play Skeleton Women should be mentioned in that section.
Publisher of ref's should be linked on their first instance when they appear, and delinked elsewhere.
The whole "Personal life" and "In the media" section looks puffer-ish. There is too much use of direct quotes and unsourced material. It needs cleanup. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed most of the references and removed most of the unnecessary information, The Commercial Appeal is a reliable source as it is taken in account by the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes and Indicine seems to be the only site keeping an account of nominations of various minor awards. Numerounovedant (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indicine doesn't seem to qualify WP:RS, same goes for "Hunt news".

Ref 65, 71 and 72 have format issue's.
There are still few dead links and redirects.
"DNA" should be Daily News and Analysis, as short-forms are discouraged.
The personal life section directly jumps into the couple separating. What about when they married? Also few claims about there divorce and separation needs source.
Trim the "Coffee with Karan" bit. Its a encyclpedia, not a personal diary.
Th opening sentence of the "Film career" section is unsourced. Either rephrase or add a source.
Links of her upcoming films Mantra and Love Affair leads to somewhere else. There should be sources claiming whether she is filming or committed to star in them. If not either, remove them.
IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
Mention the full name of publisher at ref 10.
You haven't taken care of comment #7 and 8, that I mentioned above.

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have made most of the suggested amends. Will find an alternative for Indicine. Not sure about no. 8 from the first section. Going to need help there! Thank You for you comments @Yashthepunisher. Refer anyone you think who can help improve the page to this peer review.

Numerounovedant (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Ref's are not required in the lead, per WP:LEAD. But, they should be sourced in prose of the article.
DNA issue is still unresolved.
Ref 8 is dead.
There are some more questionable sources like Friday Magazine and Vagabomb.
Ref 86 claims otherwise about Mantra. It's not in post-production.
Per Above, remove all those films from the table whose filming hasn't begun, per WP:CRYSTAL.
"Film Career" should only be "Career".
Ref 11 doesn't support the claim about Kapoor taking the award on her behalf. Also it looks redundant.
YouTube shouldn't be linked while mentioning Blush. WP:OVERLINK. Also its YouTube, "t" in caps.
The article is over-crowded with images. Remove 1 or 2 from the "career" section.
The whole "trekking" bit should be trimmed or removed entirely. We can't glorify personal hobbies here.
Mention the author names in ref's whenever they'r present.
"She in an interview with the Times of India suggested that people should celebrate "Equal Day" instead of a day for women." Opening in quite awkwardly written.
"She took to Twitter to make the announcement and shared the official Facebook page of Little Productions, "So like, I'm all grown up, with my own theater company and directing my first play...," actress posted." Why not only mention that she opened her own production house, instead of this fluff.
Is the long caption with ref's necessary for her pic with Kashyap?
About the 8th comment: publisher names should be wiki-linked when they first appear at any ref, and delinked elsewhere. For example, Times of India is linked at ref 5, but it shouldn't be at 6. As they get overlinked. You have to do this for every publisher available.
Refrain short form's, another one is TOI. Mention its full name.
IBN Live --> CNN-IBN, Screendaily.com --> Screen International, IB Times India --> International Business Times, Indian Express --> The Indian Express.
Mention the author names with there first & last one's. Just like ref 32.

I'm pretty exhausted now! There are some neutrality issues, as mentioned above. Please take care of every single query raised by me. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments! :@Yashthepunisher:

Numerounovedant (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]