Talk:Sarvam/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Very poorly written throughout, this article requires a thorough copy edit for grammar, tense, style, clarity and readability. Nowhere near GA standard.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
One dead link has been tagged.

What makes Behindwoods a reliable source? I can find no statement of editorial policy or evidence that the site is regarded as a reliable source by other quality sources.

Ayngaran, as a film distributor is not a reliable source, rather a primary source. Use with care

Kollywood today looks like a wiki to me, not a reliable source.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK, the main point is that this is very poorly written. There is also some doubtful sourcing. I cannot complete the review until the article is written in good clear English. After advising the nominator to get submissions copy-edited, they asked me to carry on reviewing, so I have done so, but if it cannot be brought up to standard in seven days, I shall fail the nomination. On hold until 11 April. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator has removed the nomination from the list at WP:GAN, i shall close this review as not listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]