Talk:Dia (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: DareshMohan (talk · contribs) 02:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 08:40, 11 May 2024 (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.	Plot section is OK. However, the Reception section needs thematic organization to reduce quote farm and juxtaposed details; see WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to write this section better. Soundtrack, on the other hand, unnecessarily uses Template:Infobox album and Template:Track listing templates just to cover a single track, you might as well include everything in the prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As a result of a very thin coverage on the background and production section (which I raised in criterion 3a), the lede does not touch on these in the lede
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All good
	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).	Ditto
	2c. it contains no original research.	This film was one of the few commercially successful Kannada films in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. You misinterpret the source: the movie became a hit during COVID, not due to COVID
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's yielded a 14–26% copyvio coming mostly from the Reception section where there's incessant quote farming. While these figures are not inherently bad, they could be significantly lowered by paraphrasing. Requesting once again to read WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION to write a better reception section
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Expansion is needed for the Background and Production section, which is very thin for the Good Article standard: according to the content assessment scale, Good articles must surpass the B-class criteria and be [U]seful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Rather, we have a section that touches only on the director and actor's previous works, and a shooting of a few scenes in a place not even in the Wiki mainspace. See Don (2006 film) for a decent example of a Good Article
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	@DareshMohan: I'm afraid the article merits a quick fail, as it needs more work to attain the much-coveted Good Article status. Major expansion is needed on the Production section (which should cover actual details demanded by MOS:FILMPRODUCTION and not just a mere propounding of the director and actors' previous works) and a copy edit of the Reception section riddled with quotes that could be paraphrased for presentability. I shall tag the Production section with a maintenance template. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]