Talk:Bobby Deol/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I see some major problems with the article.

The first thing that strikes me is that the section 2000s takes up most of the article, which does not follow WP:Layout. This MoS guideline says that sections should be roughly equal. It would be much more readable if this huge section were broken down into relevant sections. The sections should have titles that give some indication of the trajectory of his life, so that looking at the TOC is helpful to the reader.
The large section seems to fall into a predictable pattern of give the plot of the movie, then an evaluation of Deol's performance. Is there a way to summarize some of this and to vary the format to make it more interesting to read? (I do think subsections would help to organize the material here.)
It is difficult to evaluate the lead the way the article is sub sectioned now. One you have broken it down into relevant subsections, the lead will need to be added to, per WP:LEAD.

Lead

There needs to be an overall summary of the article's main points in the lead. The huge 2000s section needs more than a few brief sentences. Some sense of the number of films, their breadth, his role and his costars, etc. can be included for readers who are not going to read the body of the article.

Citations needed

There are at least three "citation needed" tags in the article

References Some of the references don't seem to reference the material. Some may not be reliable.

Ref 1 - http://www.pyara.com/stars/bobby/ Is this a reliable reference?
Ref 6 - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nIX_6-WPuOsC&pg=PA168&dq=bobby+deol&cd=3#v=onepage&q=bobby%20deol&f=false - this does not reference the content, I don't think.

Prose problems

There are many problems with the prose and spelling.

Example: "Deol has been featured mostly in thriller films, often playing wealthy but vulnerable middle class characters, affected by the corrupt establishment and women and often propelled into crime to avenge the deaths of loved ones." - repetition of "often"
Example: "Just ten years old at the time, he played the younger version of the film's lead actor, his father, Dharmendra. Bobby Deol then made his adult debut in Bollywood in 1995 with Twinkle Khanna in Barsaat, directed by Rajkumar Santoshi.[6] Deol plays the character of Badal, a naive but intelligent young man" - changes in tense - "he played", "plays".
Example: "Partly shot in Scotland, Deol broke his leg in an equestrian accident while filming and had to be flown to London to recooperate and had to call off several publicity shoots which documented his debut." - dangling modifier plus spelling. Also, does ref 7 fully reference this material?
Example: "Bobby Deol then made his adult debut in Bollywood in 1995 with Twinkle Khanna in Barsaat, directed by Rajkumar Santoshi." - no need for extra words like "then" that do not improve meaning.
Example: "In 2000, Deol appeared in the action drama Badal alongside Rani Mukerji, under the directors' helm of Raj Kanwar." - clumsy wording plus "directors' " is unclear. Is "director's" meant?

The article needs a thorough copy edit for prose and spelling.

It might be better to feature many of his films only in the table, and remove the ones from the text that essentially listed in the text without an evaluation of Deol's performance.

Perhaps a separate section is needed for awards/nominations and a summary of his overall career.

(I will be adding further comments, if there is an interest shown in improving this article.)

Xtzou (Talk) 13:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will put this article on hold until there is some sign that issues are being addressed. Xtzou (Talk) 23:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments. You mean tense problems like "I am review this article for GA" LOL. The 2000s section is so substantial because this forms 80% of his career to date. And when you consider that most of the information about his personal life is magazine cruft then this naturally is the way the article is constructed, otherwise it would be less encyclopedic. As for an awards section I think that it is unnecessary, he is not a particularly successful actor in terms of awards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments The article continues to need copy editing. For example, too many paragraphs begin with "In [year]:

1990s

"In 1997"
"In 1998"

2000-2003

"In 2000"
"In 2001"
"In 2002"
"Later in 2002"

2004-2006

"In 2003"
"In 2005"
"In 2006"

Well I could always say in the year of the rat or rabbit etc or In the year that England won the ashes, or 2001 sets of 12 months after the birth of Christ, Deol..... I don't honestly think that is a problem. If you think it is, I think we'd be best withdrawing this nomination. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There are prose problems as noted above, including monotonous wording caused by starting paragraphs with the same wording rather than varying it for the reader.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are three {{citation needed}} tags that have been on the article since it was nominated.

There is one dead link: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/2004.htm

Otherwise, the article is well sourced, with no original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article remains focused on the subject; however, there is little reference to critical evaluations of Bobby Deol's work, or to other aspects of his life. It is mostly a listing of the movies he has been in with plot outlines.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
There are three fair use images in the article, which is generally considered to be too many to be considered necessary to illustrate it.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
With a little effort this article could pass GA. If you disagree with this evaluation, please renominate the article or submit it for Good article reassessment.

Xtzou (Talk) 18:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]