Talk:Aishwarya Rai Bachchan/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of going over the article and comparing against the necessary requirements as stated at WP:Good article criteria. — Cirt (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've made one minor edit, fixing dashes using a script, at 22:08, 18 October 2015. — Cirt (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not GA at this time

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
I'm sorry to say, unfortunately, this article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria at this time.
It appears that the three (3) prior unsuccessful reviews of this article were not sufficiently consulted:
Please look at those three (3) prior reviews, and this one, below, and try to address all points raised at those, before renominating again. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is not clear and concise. Grammar needs significant improvement throughout the entire article. Overusage of commas. Several sentences are too long and can be broken apart into shorter sentences. Article is too long and has poor organizational flow and is thus a disservice to our readers. Needs significant copy-editing work. Much more than could be done in the course of a seven day period. Fails here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede sect does not meet WP:LEAD. Lede imbalanced. Two large paragraphs, followed by 3rd, two-sentence-long paragraph. Lede fails WP:LEADCITE and WP:LEAD, citations should be in body text of article itself, and then summarized in the lede sect. Lede is not an adequate summary of all subsections of the entire article's contents, and does not function adequately as a standalone summary of the article. Fails here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Several instances of completely unreferenced material. Fails here.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Over ninety (90) sources have dead-links or non-functional links. Fails here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I count at least five (5) instances of wholly unsourced information. Fails here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Filmography and awards includes a few movies in a list format. Then Awards sect switches abruptly back to paragraph format -- but the paragraph is a couple lines long, and again, tons of citations which is excessive. Either have a good comprehensive filmography, or discuss it instead in paragraph form worked into the article. Better example at current WP:FA page, Cillian Murphy. Fails here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article goes into unnecessary detail. Huge subsections with walls-of-text paragraphs that are over four sentences long per paragraph. Amounts to TL;DR -- and thus, does not serve our readers well. Fails here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article tone is POV. Reads like a promotional form of hagiography. Six (6) citations in lede intro sect, for has been cited in the media as the "most beautiful woman in the world" -- not only is this unencyclopedic and not memorable 100 years from now, the citations are excessive, fails WP:LEADCITE, and is another red-flag indicative of promotion and hagiography. Fails here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is not stable. I see recent reverts in last few days, even after semi-protection. Article talk page is also not stable, I see repeated attempts at nomination of this page to forms of GA and FA quality review, only to be reverted, and then re-done, again, and here we are, again, now, with problem editor not addressed. Fails here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The main infobox image is wrong. Source link says "All Rights Reserved". Several other images in article also link to website that says "All Rights Reserved". Fails here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are ten (10) images used in the article. I agree with a talk page post that said this was a bit too many and not necessary for the article. Fails here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately, not GA at this time, per above. — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]