Talk:Rang (1993 film)/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) 06:42, 3 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):
 * The article suffers from grammar and prose issues. Just to name a few:
 * Lede
 * Only notable names (i.e. those with Wikipedia articles) are identified in the lede (MOS:FILMLEDE)
 * Why are there words or names italicized words when they shouldn't be?
 * Don't you mean "unaware of each other's identities"?
 * Sentence is confusing. For one, whose connection, the women's?
 * Plot
 * As per MOS:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words; this current plot has 1295 words. Pointing out the grammar issues thereto would be utterly useless. Please leave out unnecessary details that don't serve the reader's understanding of the movie.
 * Production
 * Again, why are there several names italicized when they shouldn't be?
 * "died halfway through the shoot"
 * tautological; to release something posthumously is to release it after one's death
 * unencyclopedic word choice
 * "A body double stood in for Bharti in scenes that she left unfilmed."
 * "Finally" is editorial word choice
 * Release and reception
 * unencyclopedic phrase


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Can't say for sure how reliable the sources cited
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Major pieces of information are missing from the article. Firstly, production section mostly talks about casting, there is no information beyond that. Casting is only one step in the stages of filmmaking. There is no information on how the film came to be through concept, writing, editing, music composition, etc. Secondly, is unreferenced and substantiated by a single review that only cites the positive reaction. Bottomline, expansion is needed for the Release and reception to give appropriate weight to both positive and negative reactions.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Due to issues raised as a result of my review of criteria 1 and 3, safe to say this article automatically fails this criterion
 * 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:
 * Unfortunately, this GAN merits a quick fail. Article badly needs a copy edit and major expansion with citations to reliable sources. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Unfortunately, this GAN merits a quick fail. Article badly needs a copy edit and major expansion with citations to reliable sources. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)