Talk:Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Meryam90 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Links

 * All links are working fine (no dead links).
 * Link # 17 is from enilandbollywood.com which is not a reliable source.
 * Fixed - same text, better source BollyJeff  ||  talk  16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well written.
 * - the prose is clear and concise and the spelling and grammar are correct. Generally very well written, nice rhymn to the sentences, generaly easy to read though the sentence Films like this that are designed to appeal to the diaspora have stories involving foreign locations, but not just for item numbers. somehow bothers me.
 * - Respects copyright laws. The duplication detector show a reasonably low number of matches.
 * - It complies with the WP:MOS for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Although the lead should probably include some portion about the awards/ critical reception.
 * I made some improvements here. BollyJeff  ||  talk  02:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is very well written. I am impressed. A pleasure to read. Little copy editing for me to do. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My two cents


 * Lead section
 * Hindi name should be in italics and both the names in brackets in bold. ASHUIND  05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure? I don't see this in any other Indian film GA and FA articles. Only the English title is italic, and neither are bold. BollyJeff  ||  talk  14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Soundtrack
 * Use the template:track listing for the tracks. ASHUIND  05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. BollyJeff  ||  talk  14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Awards
 * Here the first line reads "Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is tied for second place for the most number of Filmfare awards going to a single film with 10" but it is not mentioned with which film is it tied with. ASHUIND  05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. BollyJeff  ||  talk  14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a concern
 * Every award won is given a reference in the article. Here I don't see a single reference for any win. ASHUIND  05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation added. I may add some more later, but the citations should already be in the respective award articles. BollyJeff  ||  talk  15:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Final Analysis

 * 1) It is generally well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * yes.--Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. Whatever problems were found, were resolved. --Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * yes. --Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yes. no issues were found. --Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * Yes. No edit wars or consistent vandalism. : --Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * Yes.--Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Yes.--Meryam90 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: