Talk:Sarvam/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Very poorly written throughout, this article requires a thorough copy edit for grammar, tense, style, clarity and readability. Nowhere near GA standard.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * One dead link has been tagged.
 * What makes Behindwoods a reliable source? I can find no statement of editorial policy or evidence that the site is regarded as a reliable source by other quality sources.
 * Ayngaran, as a film distributor is not a reliable source, rather a primary source. Use with care
 * Kollywood today looks like a wiki to me, not a reliable source.
 * 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:
 * OK, the main point is that this is very poorly written. There is also some doubtful sourcing. I cannot complete the review until the article is written in good clear English. After advising the nominator to get submissions copy-edited, they asked me to carry on reviewing, so I have done so, but if it cannot be brought up to standard in seven days, I shall fail the nomination. On hold until 11 April. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the nominator has removed the nomination from the list at WP:GAN, i shall close this review as not listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, the main point is that this is very poorly written. There is also some doubtful sourcing. I cannot complete the review until the article is written in good clear English. After advising the nominator to get submissions copy-edited, they asked me to carry on reviewing, so I have done so, but if it cannot be brought up to standard in seven days, I shall fail the nomination. On hold until 11 April. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the nominator has removed the nomination from the list at WP:GAN, i shall close this review as not listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)