Talk:A. R. Rahman: The Musical Storm

A. R. Rahman: The Musical Storm has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 13, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

India: Cinema / Literature Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A. R. Rahman: The Musical Storm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll take on this review. I will have it done in the coming days. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose, spelling, and grammar is of good quality. I made some wording edits to improve grammar and readability in reviewing the article. The article generally follows MoS for word choice, lead, layout, etc.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article has both a References and Sources section, both of which contain WP:RS. URL's to sources lead to reliable news sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article covers the entire timeline of Mathai's research and writing process up until release and reception of the book. Is there any more detail you'd want to add to the Summary section? The other sections provide comprehensive coverage of those aspects, so perhaps fleshing out the Summary section would make it proportionate in size and detail to the others.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article follows WP:NPOV. The background and release section describes Mathai's challenges in contacting the author in a neutral manner. critical reception section highlights both negative and positive reviews without editorial bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There is no indication of edit wars in the edit history or on the article talk page.
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):
The images used fall under either fair use or CC licenses.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Another solid article! Nice work! Cheers~ PinkElixir (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]