Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Greatuser (talk · contribs) I am reviewing the page and I am over looking the page, currently i don't find any problem in the article, Later if i find any problem i will fix those myself and will mention in this page 07:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some points which i have added below

• Contains Dead Link(s)

 also done Rv Dead Link

• Section Cast is Unreferenced

 Done I have added a reliable source to the section Cast and Characters

• The names of Actors are not mentioned in the section Plot while their characters are mentioned

 also done I mentioned, so that Readers can easily know the names of actors in the section plot while character are mentioned so their real names also have to be mentioned

• I have totally improved the article i need some comments from other users then i will decide to pass/fail the article as Good article
• I Currently Keep the article in hold Later when it get improved or it remain in the same state then i will pass/fail the article as GA

Non-reviewer comments: The article has multiple issues, most prominent among them is the poor quality of prose. The article is riddled with grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. Just reading the section 'Overview' confirms it. Other than that, the article has issues with non-compliance of referencing MoS (lack of access dates etc. in several references), usage of peacock terms ('He is the humble father of Priya'), use of unencyclopedic language ('She is very sweet and lovingly calls Ram as Golu. She is very caring as every grandmother is.'). There are several uncited claims ('he loves to have aloo-ke-paranthe (an Indian Punjabi dish) and is highly dependent on his tablets'). The article needs huge improvements all over. It doesn't meet the GA criteria in its present state. - DSachan (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article has far too many issues. I suggest a quick fail. smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Many problems with this, support a quick fail - I'm doubtful if this even meets the B class criteria... Mdann52 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• I am wondering how this is a good article nominee. The prose is very bad and the article needs clarification. Contains peacock terms too. I am trying to improve the article. Tagged article with {{peacock}} and {{Clarify}} tags. A quick fail would be appropriate. Forgot to put name (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Failed - I am quick failing this article as an outside reviewer because of the many issues raised above by others and the "mini consensus"-type discussion above. Per WP:PEACOCK, missing citations and references that are not fully filled out. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Review list

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: