Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shraddha Kapoor/1

Shraddha Kapoor

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Shraddha_Kapoor/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted. Reviewer was sockpuppet of nominator, no review was conducted. Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC).

This article was just passed on its fourth try by a new reviewer who doesn't appear to have checked against the GA criteria, made any suggestions, or made any changes. I previously failed this article as a reviewer, recommending a thorough copyediting that was never done.

Obvious copyediting problems remain:
 * "She consequently appeared " -- "subsequently" appears to be the intended word rather than "consequently"
 * " In 2013, she appeared in the romantic musical drama Aashiqui 2, which was declared a commercial success,[6][7] and established herself as a promising actress of Hindi Cinema, alongside her acting career, she participates in stage shows, and is a celebrity endorser for brands and products." -- comma splice, misplaced commas (also nonneutral in phrasing)
 * "Her maternal grand father, was a classical singer, and he was the second-cousin of Dinanath Mangeshkar, the father of singers, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle. Despite, hailing from a mixed ethnic family, she said, her upbringing has been as a Maharashtrian, as she always stays close to her mother and maternal grand-parents" --misspellings, random commas
 * "which specialised a social cause for the empowerment of the girl child in rural India" -- word choice seems badly off here; I'm not completely sure what this is even saying
 * " That year, being the spokesperson of Wella, she supported a campaign by P&G professional's brand Wella Professionals [...] which aimed to inform that ammonia-free hair [colours] are not completely safe.″" --an end quotation mark without an opening quotation mark

The copyediting problems could be fixed with minimal effort, but the bigger problem is that this simply hasn't received a review yet. I recommend that it be delisted until a review can be done against the GA criteria, and I'd suggest that the reviewer try to work through the Good Article Recruitment Centre for her next review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius, the review was carried out by a sock of the nominator. Support procedural delisting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)