Talk:Salman Khan/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. FrB.TG (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 14:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quick-failing this nomination as it fails 3a criterion. Given Khan's success as an actor, I don't believe there are only two tiny paragraphs of information to cover "1989–93: Debut and breakthrough". This issue is prevalent throughout the article, where for most of his less-known films, only a passing note is made. I don't think this is sufficient for GA. There are also prose issues and downright false information. Examples just from the first subsection of Career section:

"He went on to play the leading role in Sooraj R. Barjatya's romantic family drama Maine Pyar Kiya (1989), which become one of the highest-grossing Indian films at the time."
"along with a nomination for Best Male Debut at the same ceremony; the latter was awarded to Barjatya." That is simply not true. Khan won his nomination for Best Male Debut. Only actors win in this category, not directors (Barjatya didn't star in the film).
"1990 saw one film release starring Khan ; Baaghi, a box office success" - don't start a sentence with a number and the space between "Khan" and the semi-colon is unnecessary.

Several unsourced statements:

"It earned him his first nomination for the Best Actor at Filmfare along with a nomination for Best Male Debut at the same ceremony"
"The film [Wanted] received generally positive reviews."
"He appeared in two other films that year, Main Aurr Mrs Khanna and London Dreams." Only London Dreams part is sourced.
The Discography section is almost enitrely unsourced.

Sorry but these issues are an absolute deal-breaker. For this to pass, you would need to conduct a more thorough research so that it is "broad in its coverage". You would also have to check the entire article for potentially unsourced material and have someone copy-edit the prose. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.