Talk:KGF: Chapter 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 15:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sorry this has been in the queue so long! I'll take it for a review. The article has a lot of potential, but it's got a few major issues. In reading the feedback, it may be useful to consult recently promoted featured/good articles about films (e.g. Kal Ho Naa Ho) and consider their structure.

"Trivia" is not an appropriate section for an encyclopedic article. This information should be incorporated into "Box office".
Much more information on "Production" is needed. Here are some questions that need detailed answers: What ideas inspired the writing process? When and how did this process take place? What happened during the casting process? What ideas did the director bring to the movie? When and where did filming take place?
"Release and reception" just covers "Release", and should be named as such. "Box office" could perhaps be a subsection of this.
Some of the information about "Production" is actually "Marketing", which belongs either as its own section or somewhere within "Release". More details about marketing and trailers are needed.
Information on "Chapter 2" belongs somewhere in the body of the article. Not too much, but something about when "Chapter 2" was announced, and how many chapters are planned in total, and any details that might be relevant to "Chapter 1" (e.g. if the writing processes overlapped).

I'm putting this article On hold and need to see major improvement within a week to continue with this review, as we are quite far from the broadness GA criterion at present. I'm happy to move this deadline back if an editor is busy but can give a specific date range in the not-too-far future at which they will be able to address the above problems. If there are any other questions, please ask. — Bilorv (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Manthara, the user who nominated this, is now perhaps not active enough to see this within a week. Pinging the other two contributors who have added at least 10% of the text of the article (according to page stats), Editor5454 and Isaccc. If either of you want to commit to this review, I'm happy to keep going, but we are quite far from GA quality so I reserve the right to fail the article if progress is not made speedily and substantially. If there's no positive response within 24 to 48 hours then I'll close this review. — Bilorv (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bilorv! A lot of work is still required to go into the Production section, and the page is definitely not ready for GA status. So, I'd say please go ahead and close the review. Thanks! Editor5454 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Editor5454. Unfortunately it's a

fail for GA for this review, but if anyone is interested in improving the article then I hope the comments are helpful. I welcome any pings for clarification or further questions about my feedback, no matter how far in the future. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]