Talk:Sapne Suhane Ladakpan Ke/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Going to put down some comments on this one. —Ed!(talk) 00:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article suffers from a number of major issues which will require substantial reworking. I will also note that the original nominator has been blocked, however I am wary of simply removing the GAN, in part because it's been up for several months and in part because I'd hope future editors of the page avoid the sense of hostility about the process, especially given its nature and tendency to attract non-native-English and casual users, per WP:BITE. Based on these issues, I am going to quick fail the article. For future reference and as advice for other would-be nominators, I will offer some suggestions here for how it can be improved. —Ed!(talk) 03:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Fail
 * See WP:LEAD for some ideas how to write the lead of the article; the lead should adequately summarize the entire content of the piece, and in the case of a television show, it's typical to note major stars, a sentence or two about the plot, and some detail about she show's production and reception.
 * There are a number of glaring instances of major English errors ("The teenage years mark the real beginning of a person's blossoming youth and the events that occur in one's life in this period leave permanent imprints affecting his/her personality."; "The series starts with Gunjan a fun loving girl from Mumbai who lives her life to the fullest, enjoy hanging out with her friend's.") It's clear in some cases the article is in need of a close copy-edit by an English-fluent speaker.
 * The plot summary is in need of significant work. See MOS:PLOT for a guideline on how to write an effective plot. It would likely be narrowed to about 400 words and in this case, it's pretty typical to split a major television series into a "List of X Episodes" list, which is likely to help here, and where additional plot details may be fleshed out.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Fail
 * Major areas in need of citations: Awards section, special episodes and casting.
 * A large number of the citations lack full context and should be added in a template. See WP:CITE for more advice on this.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Fail There are a number of sections of additional content that could be added or expanded, with info that is likely to be found on the internet:
 * A section for casting, which would likely list the major actors in the series and the decisions that went into casting them. Not necessarily too much detail about the characters themselves, but a real-world look at the people who were in the show.
 * A section for background, where we understand who ordered and bankrolled the show, the social context of when it began and who inspired it.
 * "Special Episode" can probably be pared down, the list of actors isn't as useful and likely is better as a shorter paragraph of names.
 * "Production" should be expanded to include budgeting, more specifics about filming and maybe some of the major players behind the scenes.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Fail
 * The article should lose some of the promotional language ("Nevertheless,the show was quite popular among the Indian audience, specially youth's.") in favor of some more neutral language, especially in the reception section.
 * Some international sourcing to show reception abroad would also help.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Definitely a need for more high quality images, though this is likely a result of systematic bias that under-covers Indian topics on Wikipedia.
 * 1) Other:
 * Quick Fail But would be happy to work with any users in the future who might like help with some of the above advice. After some significant work, there is potential to see this article get another look. Thanks for interest! —Ed!(talk) 03:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)