Talk:Iyarkai/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 07:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


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

Let's see...
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Redundant
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * revise to, Marudhu leaves India aboard his ship, vowing never to return to Tamil Nadu again in favor of seeking more journeys.
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -> and got lost while his wife awaited his return.
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -> Suriya turned the offer to play the lead role, saying he was not interested in doing romantic films.
 * Iyarkai.}} Revise to, Iyarkai marked S. P. Jananathan's feature directorial debut in 2001.
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -> whose cousin V. R. Kumar agreed to serve as co-producer, having been impressed by it.
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The film was titled Iyarkai (transl. Nature) because nature was the film's antagonist. What sort of nature? Human nature? A force of nature? I don't know what the intended meaning behind this sentence (thanks to the non-English source), but syntax wise, could the original text mean that the movie's story shows conflict between man and nature?
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -> He turned down the role because it was only a cameo, though later changed his mind after Jananathan explained its importance.
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * -> He turned down the role because it was only a cameo, though later changed his mind after Jananathan explained its importance.
 * Done DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I'm assuming good faith on the verifiability of facts supported by non-English sources. However, the following sources are arguably unreliable
 * cite 4 (BizHat)
 * cite 15 & 23 (Chennai Online)
 * cite 26 & 27
 * Chennai Online is reliable. They hire independent critics. Not listed anywhere as unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chennai Online is reliable. They hire independent critics. Not listed anywhere as unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Although I believe you've reasonable covered everything you could about the movie, I'm not convinced that the article's coverage is broad enough for GA. Some concerns are due to lack of coverages on the making of the soundtrack (which is important especially in an article like this), the dates when filming occurred, and the overall critical reception.
 * 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * In light of grammar issues, questionable sources, and lack of coverage thereof, the article could take some time to reach the GA standard. In the meantime, I'm giving this article a fail to give you time to improve it further. Don't let this discourage from pursuing a renomination; I believe you can improve it further. Thanks, and happy holidays. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * In light of grammar issues, questionable sources, and lack of coverage thereof, the article could take some time to reach the GA standard. In the meantime, I'm giving this article a fail to give you time to improve it further. Don't let this discourage from pursuing a renomination; I believe you can improve it further. Thanks, and happy holidays. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)