Talk:The Kapil Sharma Show/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick Look

Just after a quick glance, i am looking at an instant fail: I will wait for the nominator to go through he comments, but this looks like a very premature nomination. Numerounovedant  Talk  07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The covereage is not wide enough, lacks many imposrant details, and sections.
 * The lead itself is nowhere near GA standard
 * No references in parts.
 * Too many bare URLs
 * Unreliable sources.


 * The covereage is not wide enough, lacks many imposrant details, and sections.


 * Just take a look at some of the TV show GA. They are of the same length as that of this article. To name a few are: Beat the Chefs, Family Trade and It Takes a Church.
 * Citing other articles is not a valid argument while discussing reviews.


 * The lead itself is nowhere near GA standard


 * As for the lead of the article, I would give the same explanation as given above for the coverage.
 * Same.


 * No references in parts.


 * Please tell which parts of the article need references. In my view, article has enough references.


 * The writer, director, production, distribution houses, runtime, picture formats are nowhere substantiated.


 * Too many bare URLs


 * Filled.


 * Unreliable sources.


 * Removed.

What makes India.com, an RS?

Further comments are welcome. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 11:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No pretext provided for Comedy Knights to viewers unfamiliar with teh topic.


 * Three reviews which are largely negative don't make up for a comprehensive section.


 * The production does not talk about any filming/writing details.


 * The mention of most of the technical aspects mentioned in teh info box are largely missing.

I am sorry to say, but IMO this article is nowhere near the standard of GA, and needs a considerable amount of work. I suggest a PR for the suggestions as this is not the platform for it. Thank you for co operating. I will now fail the article. Numerounovedant  Talk  03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, over linking is largely persisting problem. Next time, try to ping me after leaving comments. Numerounovedant   Talk  13:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Final comments


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: