Talk:Kajol/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do this review. I might do some edits in the article as well during the process of review. if you feel some comments are too demanding (that is, is not mandatory for meeting GA criteria), please feel free to say so. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Review comments

 * Devgan and Devgn -- both these spellings have been used. Please ensure consistency.
 * "Kajol was born in Mumbai to a film-oriented family...". That hyphenated word "film-oriented" is weird and ambiguous. Replace it with another word or explanatory phrase.
 * "He died in the year 2008...". Here, "in the year" not needed. "He died in 2008" is sufficient.
 * "Simran Singh, a young NRI from London...". NRI needs to be in full (expanded) form.
 * "She explained that playing Isha Diwan was the..." That the name of the psychopath killer was Isha Diwan needs to be mentioned in the preceding sentence.
 * "termed her as a "glamorous prob" and described ...". Glamorous "prob"? You mean problem?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant 'prop'. That was a typing mistake.


 * "Kajol won her fifth Best Actress award at the Filmfare for the film, thereby sharing the record with her aunt, Nutan". Although the lead mentions this record, reader might have forgot by now about the record. So, state what is the record (highest number of Filmfare Best Actress awards).
 * "In 2008, Kajol featured as a talent judge, alongside Ajay Devgn and Tanuja..." Probably mentioning, once again, her relationship with the other judges will be good here.
 * "Tabloids have often romantically linked Devgn with other Bollywood actresses, and have reported about an imminent divorce..." Ok. Were there any similar rumour/gossip about Kajol? With SRK? Just wondering.


 * Haha, SRK and Kajol have never been linked together.


 * The lead mentions Padma Shri award, but the text does not.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Review checklist

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: