Talk:King of Bollywood (book)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be taking on the GA review for this page! Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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.	The prose is clear and concise. There are no glaring spelling or grammar errors. Writing is easy to understand for a general audience. There are some minor spelling/awkward wording issues that I can help edit myself upon completing this review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section appropriately summarizes the article. There are no issues with "words to watch." Headings and sections are appropriately ordered and titled.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Information is properly sourced. The references follow MOS:REFERENCES.
	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).	All content is appropriately sourced using appropriate WP:RS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no signs of WP:PLAG or WP:CV. There are some quotations, but sources are appropriately referenced in such instances.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article focuses on relevant main aspects of the topic, including the book's summary, development, release, and critical reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There are some places where excessive detail might not be necessary. I can help edit those myself after this review. Overall, the article stays focused and to the point.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no history of edit warring or content dispute on the article. It seems like most of the article has been written by one single user.
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.	The image used is part of Wikipedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image used and its caption are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	Y - article passes GA criteria