Talk:Rajinikanth/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 12:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I've had a read over the previous review for this article, and I've found that most of these issues have been addressed, so that's a promising start.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is fine, and for the most part your prose style is also fine. There are, however, a few links to disambiguation pages, which you can see here. There aren't many and it shouldn't take much to fix.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Your citations seem fine. The issue last time was that they were just bare URLs, I see that now they are filled out with more information, which is good.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The scope is good. I like that the sections which have main articles for themselves (ie Filmography or Awards) have been kept brief but not cursory - there's a pitfall to give either too much or too little information when a main article can be linked to, and this hovers nicely in the middle.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Tone is neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History seems fine. A few reverted edits but none seem contentious or hostile at all.

6. 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 fine and attributions check out grand.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Given that the only issue I've found with this article is the disambiguation links mentioned above, I'm going to pass it as a good article. However, I would like to see these links fixed, I just don't think they're enough of an issue by themselves to keep the article on hold.