Talk:Jab We Met/GA1

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

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

Excellent article. Just a few comments.
 * As mentioned on the talk page, too. many (6) non-free Images
 * Are these sites reliable (I do not know much about movie sites. So please forgive me)
 * 1) http://www.apunkachoice.com/
 * 2) http://www.nowrunning.com/
 * 3) http://www.businessofcinema.com/
 * 4) http://india-forums.com/
 * 5) http://www.indiaglitz.com/
 * 6) http://www.glamsham.com/
 * 7) http://www.bollyvista.com/

The prose is excellent, atleast for a GA.

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A few comments more from my side.


 * I feel that the Production section is much smaller than I would expect for an article of seemingly such high prominence.
 * The last paragraph from the Production section seems to fall under the Release section (as per the style guidelines and might be shifted there. This will bring the production section down to two paragraphs and IMO is too small for an article that has received a lot of media coverage.


 * The DVD section may be merged with the release section as per the style guidelines again
 * The awards & nominations section may be shifted to the reception section as it is quite appropriate there. Condensing it from tabular format to textual format will be good.
 * Hope these aspects are considered as well. Mspraveen (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've taken most of this into account. Universal Hero (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I only see the awards and nominations being shifted to the Release section. (I've struck off the addressed aspects). Once again, the article lacks comprehensiveness in the Production aspects. The Release section, IMO, is broad enough for a GA though. P.S.: The questions raised by User:Kensplanet aren't addressed as yet. Thanks for your work so far. Mspraveen (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, MS, you're right - too much info is lacking. The production section is messy, and such important details as casting, filming, can be described in further depth. That's considering the fact that it is a new film, and there shouldn't be any problem with expanding and sourcing it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * It has been around a week. I think there are too. many issues currently to promote this article. The nominator has not returned to any of my reliability issues. Actions and replies in a GAN and FAC should be swift. Thankyou, Kensplanet (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)