Talk:Lindsay Lohan's Indian Journey/GA1

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

Reviewer: Till (talk · contribs) 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * produced and directed by Maninderpal Sahota --> typically directed comes before produced
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is too long. Try fitting everything in one paragraph or two small paragraphs.
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * but they also found --> a bit repetitive
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some POVs in synopsis, eg. "at least"
 * Not sure what you mean exactly. Zac   04:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bharti Ali, Director of the NGO Centre for Child Rights --> comma at the end
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Two months later --> same as above
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Kate Redman from Save the Children UK --> same as above
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Basic facts such as the length of the documentary are omitted from the article.
 * ✅. Zac   04:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sahota said he thought Lohan chose to participate as a result of "working in an adult world since she was ten, she feels childhood is precious, and when you lose one you can never replace those years". --> Could use a c/e, also quotes must be directly sourced
 * ✅ Zac   04:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While in India Lohan posted on message on her Twitter account stating --> also needs c/e
 * ✅ Zac   04:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * but they also found --> same as earlier
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Any pics you could add to the article?
 * I was thinking of including an image from one of the locations in which she visited, but it would be hard to choose which one. Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then there should, because one of the requirements at WP:GACR is "illustrated, if possible, by images". Till 04:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only possible picture I could use would be either of human trafficking, and I'm not sure if such a picture exists on Wikipedia. Zac   04:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about one of Lindsay..? Till 04:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider that "relevant to the topic". Zac   04:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that a picture of Lindsay Lohan wouldn't be relevant to a documentary featuring Lindsay Lohan. My bad. Till 05:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Amelia Gentleman commented in The Guardian --> it would be better to explicitly say that she's from The Guardian
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * About the documentary she said that --> awkward
 * ✅ Zac   04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Another review in The Guardian by Sam Wollaston consisted of a satirical letter ostensibly written by Lohan --> what does this mean?
 * I am unsure how to write this. He basically wrote an entry on the The Guardian as "Lindsay Lohan", mocking her. Any suggestions? Zac   04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, quotes need to be directly sourced
 * ✅. Zac   04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * He said that rather than highlight the crime of trafficking --> comma at end
 * ✅ Zac   04:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * References are in bad condition:
 * Ref. #2 --> don't need the " | Media | guardian.co.uk " bit, and it's The Guardian, not Guardian. Also needs publisher (Guardian Media Group)
 * Ref. #3 --> Capital T for time?
 * Ref. #5 --> Publisher?
 * Ref. #7 --> same as #2
 * Remove the locations such as London. They aren't needed.
 * Ref. #9 --> UsMagazine.com is Us Magazine. And publisher?
 * Ref. #10 --> same as #2 and #7
 * Ref. #11 --> no need for '.com' and publisher is Salon Media Group
 * Ref. #12 --> same as #2, #7 and #10
 * Ref. #13 --> same as above
 * Ref. #14 --> Publisher?
 * Ref. #15 --> same as above
 * Ref. #16 --> Indepdenent News & Media for publisher.
 * ✅. Zac   04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You should archive the URLs.
 * Perhaps the article's main contributor should have some input here?

Overall

 * 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:
 * On hold for seven days. Till 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As most of the issues have been fixed, I'm passing this article. Good job~ Till 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days. Till 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As most of the issues have been fixed, I'm passing this article. Good job~ Till 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On hold for seven days. Till 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As most of the issues have been fixed, I'm passing this article. Good job~ Till 10:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)