Talk:Dabangg/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

The original review (Talk:Dabangg/GA1) was not adequate and I think that this article is severely substandard for a GA. Therefore, I will be reassessing it against the GA criteria.  Rcsprinter123    (prattle)  @ 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

There are clearly many issues with the article, not least the plot section which is in need of wikification, and the high number of dead links. Also, there is nobody providing any attention to this article who might be able to improve it to GA status. Until that time, it is as a GA.  Rcsprinter123     (state)  @ 17:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)