Talk:Dasavathaaram/GA1

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

A quick look through the article reveals several concerns:


 * 1) Much of the plot section is a word-for-word copy of http://www.pr-inside.com/dasavatharam-ten-reincarnations-revealed-r647077.htm. I am unsure which site copied from which, though.
 * It's obvious that the site concerened has copied Wikipedia Universal Hero (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that obvious? Both have the same date of publication, and the plot information was added to Wikipedia by an IP editor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The plot section is far too long.
 * This has been mentioned before. The film is full of intervowen stories, and reducing its size will make it sound rather trivial. Universal Hero (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible to reduce wordiness without removing important content. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The entire article needs a thorough copyedit by someone with a strong grasp of the English language.
 * 2) There are far too many copyrighted images to claim under fair use, especially since the article does not comment on them. They are used merely as decorations, which are not covered by fair use. In addition, the fair use rationales are very weak and probably would not hold up to a legal challenge.
 * 3) The infobox picture has no fair use rationale.
 * 4) Lord of the Web appears to be a blog site. What makes it a reliable source (see WP:RS)?

This would be a good start, although more may need to be done once this is fixed. I will place the nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any comments and/or questions can be left here, as I have placed the page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed a few issues


 * 1) Plot section is long - Not addressed
 * 2) Too many non-free images - Unnecessary images removed
 * 3) No fair use for Info box picture - Fair use added and image size reduced to comply with WP:NFC. Fair use also added to Soundtrack Album cover image and image size reduced to comply with WP:NFC.
 * 4) reliable source - Not addressed

Other issues addressed
 * Album infobox type changed to code:soundtrack
 * Changed references to two colums as the list was long

My sugessions
 * It is recommended that the track listing be chnaged from a table to bullet points. Take a look at The Beatles for example

Bharathprime (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been little response to the review. One week has passed, and major problems still exist: the plot is too long, the prose is weak, the images do not meet the fair use guidelines, and I'm still not convinced about the Lord of the Web site. Altogether, the article does not meet four of the six GA criteria, so I am going to have to fail it. I suggest that the list that I left above be used to direct future improvements to the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)