Talk:Fawad Khan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Diogatari (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be doing the review of this article.


 * According to Lead section, the lead section "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". I suggest you to expand the second paragraph, it should be long.
 * Expanded it a bit, but since Khan sang only for " Irtiqa" and "Shor Macha", I think its enough.Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is one dead link (Ref no. 91). This needs to be replaced.
 * Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, the article looks really good. Regards, Diogatari (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion
This article's not quite ready for a couple of things:


 * There are a decent amount of dead refs
 * Amirk94391 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ref 91 must use inline cite
 * Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * TV.com (ref 8) emphasizes user-generated content, thus unreliable. Should be changed with a RS.
 * Beside this one, there were two citations on the page which were reliable and were clearly stating that Khan started career in theatre, So I felt it should be removed.Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For an article with a 16k character prose, the lede should be rewritten 2-3 paragraph long and should touch base on main points of the content: this is not really the case for this article.
 * Can you explain it a bit more? I mean there are 3 paragraphs in lede and they are summarizing well. If you think something is lacking from lede, please suggest it. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I would agree with the reviewer about expanding the second paragraph as it's too short. You're a major contributor to this article so the onus is on you. SLIGHTLY  mad   10:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of paragraphs that should be condensed to make them readable (e.g. third paragraph in "Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016)")
 * I fixed Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014-2016), I hope you'll like it now. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's it? What about the other paragraphs? Some of them don't look too well! I wish you had this peer reviewed and copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors before nominating it. This is not quite ready for GA to say the least. SLIGHTLY  mad   10:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013) section was a bit confusing regarding the years in which TV serials were broadcast. So I made a few changes. I also made some changes in In the media, Philanthropy and Personal life. If you still think that there are some problems in the sections, please discuss them in front of the respective section name bellow:


 * Lede
 * Try to expand the second paragraph. Diogatari (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Amirk94391 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Early life


 * Music Career
 * Entity Paradigm (2000–2012)
 * Pepsi Battle of the Bands (2017)


 * Acting career
 * Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013)
 * Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016)
 * Upcoming projects; Pakistani films''


 * In the media


 * Philanthropy


 * Personal life


 * Discography


 * Filmography

Amirk94391 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Awards and nominations


 * Passed. Good work. Diogatari (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Diogatari and Slightlymad for your comments and reviews. It was a huge honour for me that an article I nominated was being reviewed by you.

Amirk94391 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This BLP contains some non-RS therefore I am surprised to see how this article could become a GA. While this BLP has good potential to become a GA but in my opinion, it not ready yet and satisfies the criteria. It seems the reviewer  is not well informed about the GA criteria. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For now I have removed the clearly non-RS and delisted the BLP. While removing the sources, I found there are few grammatical issues, typos and WP:WTA as well which needs to be fixed before nominating this page for GA status. --Saqib (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this was actually my first review. However, you don't have the permission to remove the GA bar from the article without using the Good article reassessment. Fawad Khan is also still one of Media and Drama's good article. Diogatari (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to stop adding GA status to BLP unless you are very much sure that the page meets GA criteria. You have stated yourself that this was your first GA review but unfortunately you done it wrong. You to need to familiarize yourself with the WP:RS first before reviewing the BLP's. I don't need your permission to remove the GA status from the page because I consider your review null and void. reassessment is usually required when the article is passed by a qualified reviewer, in this case it was not. If you re-add the GA symbol without fixing the issues, I will consider it disruptive editing. --Saqib (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewer
Diogatari, I just noticed that the Fawad Khan article has been added to the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page, and further investigation shows that this has come after the article was nominated for Featured Article status six days after you approved it here, and it was failed by the following day when no fewer than three reviewers pointed out it had significant prose problems and recommended a "thorough copyedit". Any article that needs a thorough copyedit is not one that meets the Good Article "well-written" criteria, including "clear and concise" prose.

This was your first GA review, and unfortunately it does not seem that you have the necessary experience of articles at the GA level, nor yet the ability to determine when prose needs (or does not need) a major copyedit. I would suggest that you hold off doing any further GA reviews until you gain much more experience with the process, perhaps by nominating an article you've written and believe meets the criteria, and then going through the process from the other side—I see that you have nominated Beren Saat.

In the meantime, I would like to suggest that you formally withdraw your listing of this article. Amirk94391 has opened a peer review of the article, and once that has been completed and the Guild of Copy Editors has performed the needed copyedit, it can be renominated to be a Good Article. This will, as far as I can see, be the best course. While a Good Article Reassessment is typically used when articles no longer meet the criteria, and sometimes this happens right after an article is listed, there have been occasions when new reviewers who did not have the necessary skills have had their results reversed out of hand, with no GAR used. At the moment, the article is in an awkward position, with the history showing a listing, but with the visible trappings of the GA removed. It would be very helpful, though I can understand that you wouldn't relish doing so, if you would do that withdrawal. I can help with the process details if you agree. I don't think it would be useful to reopen the review, given the prose issues identified at FAC and the peer review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Thank you for your kind comment! I don't want to be the reviewer anymore cause I'm still not familiar with GA criteria. Diogatari (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure
Since a GAR had been opened on this article last week but not closed, I have closed it as delisted, and am closing this review as well. See the article talk page for further details. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)