Talk:Deewana (1992 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sahajitbro. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be the one reviewing this nomination. I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with prose
Overall, the prose is very far away from reaching GA status, using a lot of nonstandard or rare words where others would work better, and having a lot of grammatical errors. I suggest you submit a request for copy editing here. I started reading the article and writing some comments, but there are just too many for me to go through in the entire article. Here are the ones from the plot section for some idea.

Plot

 * Kajal, a beautiful lady falls in love - There should be a comma after "lady"
 * Ravi, a rich famous singer - "a rich and famous singer". Remember to put a comma after "singer"
 * who and Narendra fall off a cliff as Ravi kills him before his death - This sentence doesn't make any sense. How does this lead on from the previous sentence? What does "who and" mean?
 * The hoodlums also escape - Also? Did someone else escape?
 * come again for revenge - "coma back for revenge"
 * Raja, a handsome guy accidentally - Comma after "guy"
 * accidentally hits Laxmi and meets Kajal - Hit? In what way?
 * reveals about being a widow - "reveals that she is a widow"
 * Raja's rich father Ramakant - Comma before and after father
 * tries to get rid of her - In what way? Also, remember a comma after "her"
 * Laxmi persuades Kajal who marries Raja - This sentence feels awkard. How about "Laxmi persuades Kajal to marry him, which she accepts"
 * The third paragraph has a lot of short sentence. Use some conjunctions to make it flow better.
 * meets with an accident - "gets into an accident"
 * Kajal rushes to see and - The verb "see" needs an object. Add "him"
 * Eventually - When does this happen? Maybe describe the day, or perhaps what time of year it happened? You know, to give some context to the reader.
 * an alive Ravi - This sounds strange, both in that you use an indefinite article for his name, and that you use the adjective attributively with a name.
 * How can she befriend him before she even knows who he is? The next paragraph starts with Raja introducing Ravi to her, which makes it seem like she didn't befriend him after all.
 * Dhirendra learns about Ravi. He kidnaps - Again, use a conjunction. "learns about Ravi, and kidnaps the couple"
 * and beats Dhirendra along with Ravi - Whose side is Ravi on here? Is he being beat, or is he also doing the beating?
 * switch off it - Swap the order of "off" and "it"
 * Dhirendra returns only to kill Raja - Using the word "return" here sounds strange. Also, are his intentions to kill Raja, or is that just how it ended up happening?
 * kills the two for all - What does this mean?
 * Kajal and Raja honour Ravi's sacrifice - How?

I've taken a quick look through the other sections, and they seem to have slightly better writing, but there are still some things I feel don't meet the quality of a good article. E.g. production banner (production company), he being (him being), remuneration of ₹1 million (just write "paid"), picturised on him (What?). Quick additional note: Why are there so many terms surrounded by square brackets?

It's unfortunate, but this will have to be a quick fail (per the first criterion for immediate failures). Once you've either fixed all of the prose issues in the article yourself, or have sought assistance to do so, you can renominate this, as it seems like the other criteria may be easier to meet.

Quick assessment of other GA criteria

 * Verifiable
 * Contains list of references: ✅
 * Reliable sources: - The films used as citations in the legacy section are not reliable, as they are primary sources. You'd need a non-primary source that talks about them. "fridaymoviez.com" is most likely not reliable either. Most of the references in this article are however either newspapers with editorial boards, or printed by reliable publishers. In any case, there are a lot of sources in the bibliography section that don't seem to be used. I'd suggest removing them.
 * No original research: - The casting lacks any citations, but if all of the ones listed here are from the credits, then this checks out.
 * No copyright violations: ✅
 * Coverage is broad and stays focused ✅
 * Neutral: - There is one word in the lead (chartbuster) that feels a bit too, let's say, positive.
 * Stable: ✅
 * Illustrated: ✅ - There is only one image in the article, which has a valid fair-use rationale, but I feel like this article could use more images.

In any case, good work on the article so far, but it still requires more, so good luck forward. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)