Talk:Soha Ali Khan/GA1

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

 * At approximately 550 words of prose including the WP:LEAD (approximately 400 excluding it), this is a very short article.
 * Why is this article in Category:Actresses from Mumbai?
 * The article switches between referring to its subject as "Soha", "Khan", and "Pataudi".
 * This needs substantial copyediting.
 * I don't see a strong reason to include all three images. The one in the infobox is fine, but the two in the body add very little. They are not particularly high-quality images in terms of lighting, sharpness, composition, and so on.
 * The images present a MOS:SANDWICH issue.

Lead

 * who has worked in Hindi, Bengali and English films – I would write "English-language" (i.e. not made in England but made in English) and link English language.
 * younger sister of actor Saif Ali Khan – no reason to link actor, and even if there were it should have been linked at the first occurrence of "actress".
 * best known for – this needs a source.
 * She won Global Indian Film Awards, International Indian Film Academy Awards, Bengal Film Journalists' Association Awards for her performance – why the italics? For that matter, did she win multiple of each?
 * for her performance in the movie Rang De Basanti. – clunky. The film is named in the preceding sentence.
 * She was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress for the same movie. – again, clunky. And again, why the italics?
 * she authored a book The Perils of Being Moderately Famous – grammar.
 * that won Crossword Book Award in 2018. – grammar. And why the italics?

Early life

 * This entire section is pretty much all genealogy. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's also pretty difficult to follow without a family tree.
 * was born [...] to the Pataudi family – odd phrasing.
 * to the Pataudi family as the Nawab of Pataudis – what?
 * Hailing from the Pashtun ancestry – grammar.
 * Both her father Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi – already linked in the preceding sentence.
 * were former captains – "were former" is rather clunky.
 * the mutawalli of Auqaf-e-Shahi – meaning what?
 * The late – unencyclopedic phrasing.
 * The late major general of Pakistan, Sher Ali Khan Pataudi, is her great-granduncle – "the late" and "is" are contradictory.

Education

 * This section consists of a single sentence. It should either be expanded or incorporated elsewhere.

Personal life

 * She gave birth to their daughter, Inaaya Naumi Khemu on 29 September 2017. – is there a strong reason to provide the name of a non-notable minor here? WP:BLPNAME says The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. with an explanatory note that says This is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor.

Career

 * This section is very thin. It barely goes beyond listing works. Where it does present additional information, it ends up taking up almost half the section for a single work (Soundproof).
 * at the premiere Of – stray capitalization.
 * http://www.starplus.in/pages/index.php?s=Godrej%20Khelo%20Jeeto%20Jiyo&showid=29&pid=727 is a dead link, and from what I can gather it's a link to a streaming service? That doesn't strike me as an appropriate source.

Filmography

 * Separate language into its own column rather than including it in the "notes" column.

Publications

 * This section should be at the end (i.e. immediately preceding the "See also" section), per MOS:LAYOUTWORKS.
 * Including the award here is inappropriate.

Awards and nominations

 * With such a low number of awards and nominations as this, Template:Infobox actor awards is unnecessary.
 * The totals do not match the table. I count four wins, not six.
 * https://movieetalks.com/soha-ali-khan/ looks a lot like it plagiarised this Wikipedia article. That makes it a non-reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR.

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * See my comments above.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * See my comments above.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * See my comments above.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See my comments above.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction. Because the article will need to be extensively rewritten before it can be promoted to WP:Good article status, I have not checked for WP:Close paraphrasing at this point.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * This is basically a genealogy and a resume, with scant information beyond that.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * The genealogy is a clear instance of not staying focused on the topic.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No obvious neutrality issues, but there is so little information that it's a bit difficult to tell.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All media are public domain or use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * See my comments above.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

I'm closing this as unsuccessful. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)