Talk:Enthiran/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- There's a few "citation needed" tags that need to be addressed (or the contested information removed, since the information tagged is trivial). Otherwise, citations are fine.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Scope seems grand to me.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Article is neutral.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- History has been chequered. I had a look through the edit history and it seems to have abated, but I'd appreciate someone involved in the article confirming for me that the edit warring mentioned on the talk page is over. If so then that'll be grand.
- I believe it is self-evident from the page history that edit-warring over budget and revenue figures and the long, long term issue over how the title is transliterated into English are contentious and have been subject to continuous edit warring since the article was created. That I have just reverted changes related to both these topics shows the article is not stable and I am surprised that this would not be evident to any reviewer checking the history. Fæ (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen anything recently when reviewing, and asked for clarification on the matter from the nominator, which I received here. I took this at face value and assumed it would hold true, though if it hasn't then I'll stick by my initial apprehension over this criterion. GRAPPLE X 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- A stroll through the most recent history over just the last month shows continuing instability on box office figures:
- The edit history should be preferred to make any decision on stability rather than giving such weight to the opinion of one major contributor who is the same person requesting GAR. Thanks Fæ (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- This change made today is the same issue. Fæ (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, I'll accept that this promotion was premature, as this is definitely not satisfying the criterion listed. I'm unsure of the procedure for overturning a promotion, should I withdraw the promotion and fail the article myself or should I hand over the reigns to someone else? GRAPPLE X 13:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen anything recently when reviewing, and asked for clarification on the matter from the nominator, which I received here. I took this at face value and assumed it would hold true, though if it hasn't then I'll stick by my initial apprehension over this criterion. GRAPPLE X 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it is self-evident from the page history that edit-warring over budget and revenue figures and the long, long term issue over how the title is transliterated into English are contentious and have been subject to continuous edit warring since the article was created. That I have just reverted changes related to both these topics shows the article is not stable and I am surprised that this would not be evident to any reviewer checking the history. Fæ (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- History has been chequered. I had a look through the edit history and it seems to have abated, but I'd appreciate someone involved in the article confirming for me that the edit warring mentioned on the talk page is over. If so then that'll be grand.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Images are grand, no problem with their sourcing or use.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm going to put this on hold for now until I hear back from someone about whether the article is still contested as it has been of late; also 'd like those citation needed tags to be addressed, though they arent crucial since they aren't marking controversial material,|I'm going to put this on hold for now until I hear back from someone about whether the article is still contested as it has been of late; also 'd like those citation needed tags to be addressed, though they arent crucial since they aren't marking controversial material,- Everything raised has been addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and pass this as a Good Article. Well done.
- Pass or Fail:
