Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kamal Haasan/1

Kamal Haasan
Result: Delist. Though it has no great quorum, and no lengthy discussions, the article has the problems pointed below that no longer make it a GA. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 19:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I have listed this article for GA reassessment bcoz it was badly damaged by edit wars, content deletion, info not up-to-date and too many dead links. i want it to therefore improve it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So? Did you improve it? Please be specific on why do you think this article does not meet GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I found these statements unsourced:
 * "The late 1970s was a period that saw Haasan's continued collaboration with K. Balachander, who cast him in many of his social-themed films."
 * "Haasan has refrained from politics in spite several people from the film Industry taking the plunge in Politics."
 * ...and many statements in the awards section. But will try to fix them. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Request to close this dumb review due to inactivity. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 16:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I hereby declare that the article be delisted from its GA status. Like u once said, the article is "not GA-worthy" due to having been "degraded a lot since it was last promoted" and there is no time to fix those errors. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So what has happened finally? If its not GA, why does it still have GA mark? Or is it GA? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 12:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , Vensa and I have agreed that the article has far been degraded from its GA status (the nominator and reviewer did not actually work well at the time I think), but Dwai has not yet responded. I say the article be delisted now itself... Or wait for a third editor's reply. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * With no active participation, this one clearly lacks consensus. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 13:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not read the article, so you can disregard my view. However, on a quick glance, the article seemed quite good. What specific GA criteria are you guys worried about?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delist – Sourcing is been a major concern throughout the article. Looks like a lot of sourced content was removed/changed since the last assessment. IMO, it fails to satisfy criterion 2(a), 2(b) and 3 (a). The 1970s which is supposed to be a turning point in the actor's career is summarised in just four small paras; Lead roles, 1970–1975 has just one ref and Late 1970s has just a single ref. to back up two paras. The subsequent sections have the same problem. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 05:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the delist - I also think that the now retired User:Universal Hero did not work well on the article and nominated it just like that, which a docile reviewer just blindly passed. His errors are also hard to correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kailash, we are not here to discuss the quality of work, be it the contribution or reviews carried out by other users. It passed GAN four years ago and has suffered a lot in the form of vandals and POV pushers. So give your opinion based on the current status of the article. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)