Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this Vensatry. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 12:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to review this article. Will start the review by tomorrow. &mdash; Commander (Ping me) 12:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at the article reveals that it's very close to GA. However, there are a few concerns which needs to be addressed.
 * Comments

I'm putting this article on hold and it shouldn't take much time to resolve these issues. &mdash; Commander (Ping me) 08:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Something more to brief about his personal life?
 * I really thought a lot about this, but at present there is no concrete info from reliable sources certifying anything about his personal life. I am strongly against adding any kind of rumor mongering stuff, and fancruft like he's dating Saba Azad or not etc etc. Even a GA like Ranveer Singh is devoid of personal life since there is no confirmation of whether he's dating Anushka or Sonakshi etc etc. It really comes to the point until the couple formally announce their courtship. Same with Salim. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As per MOS:DATEUNIFY, date format needs to be maintained consistently. Same style should be followed through out the article.
 * Pardon me, but I could not see any discrepancy. Can you please point me to it? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The film collected about 50 lakh (US$95,000) on the first day of its release" needs sources. The existing source doesn't mention that.
 * This has been added now from editorial by Komal NAhta. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a connection issue with one of the references.
 * There is no problem with the source Indian Express. Its the problem with the toolserver tool which cannot acccess Indian Express links. Same happens with CNN, BBC etc. I think those websites have blocked external tools like this from accessing it. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing this. I have resolved the issues pointed I believe. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Checking against GA criteria

Congratulations! Keep up the good work! &mdash; Commander (Ping me) 07:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Article is well sourced with proper inline citations.
 * 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):
 * Article has images wherever appropriate with suitable captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Article has images wherever appropriate with suitable captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: