Talk:Iyarkai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 07:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let's see...

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Though Nancy had earlier proposed to Mukundan, he declined because he was 17, ~~which he considered a very young age to marry.~~ Redundant

Marudhu boards his ship and leaves India in his ship, seeking more journeys and promising never to return to Tamil Nadu. revise to, Marudhu leaves India aboard his ship, vowing never to return to Tamil Nadu again in favor of seeking more journeys.

and got lost at sea while his wife who waited for him to return. -> and got lost while his wife awaited his return.

In 2001, S. P. Jananathan, ~~who worked under B. Lenin, Bharathan, Vincent Selva and Keyaar,~~ began working on his directorial debut

Suriya was initially offered the lead role but did not accept the film, saying he was not interested in doing romantic films. -> Suriya turned the offer to play the lead role, saying he was not interested in doing romantic films.
He was cast in the role of a sailor who knew everything about life except ~~for~~ love. Iyarkai.}} Revise to, Iyarkai marked S. P. Jananathan's feature directorial debut in 2001.

He was later replaced with Shaam, with whom Jananathan worked ~~with~~ as an assistant editor in 12B (2001).

whose cousin V. R. Kumar became the producer after liking the story -> whose cousin V. R. Kumar agreed to serve as co-producer, having been impressed by it.

The film was titled Iyarkai (transl. Nature) because nature was the film's antagonist. What sort of nature? Human nature? A force of nature? I don't know what the intended meaning behind this sentence (thanks to the non-English source), but syntax wise, could the original text mean that the movie's story shows conflict between man and nature?

Since the role was only a cameo, he initially rejected the role; however, he later accepted it after Jananathan explained the importance of the role. -> He turned down the role because it was only a cameo, though later changed his mind after Jananathan explained its importance.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

I'm assuming good faith on the verifiability of facts supported by non-English sources. However, the following sources are arguably unreliable

Chennai Online is reliable. They hire independent critics. Not listed anywhere as unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Although I believe you've reasonable covered everything you could about the movie, I'm not convinced that the article's coverage is broad enough for GA. Some concerns are due to lack of coverages on the making of the soundtrack (which is important especially in an article like this), the dates when filming occurred, and the overall critical reception.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
In light of grammar issues, questionable sources, and lack of coverage thereof, the article could take some time to reach the GA standard. In the meantime, I'm giving this article a fail to give you time to improve it further. Don't let this discourage from pursuing a renomination; I believe you can improve it further. Thanks, and happy holidays. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]