Talk:Shahid Kapoor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this review by tomorrow, if that's OK JAGUAR 16:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks Jaguar. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

"In 2014, Kapoor portrayed the Hamlet character in Bhardwaj's critically acclaimed drama Haider" - I would cut "In 2014" and put the year in brackets beside Haider, so it reads "Haider (2014)", for the sake of consistency
"and Kapoor lived in New Delhi with his mother and maternal grandparents" - the lead says Delhi, so is New Delhi more accurate?
"When Kapoor was 10, his mother, who was working as a dancer, shifted to Mumbai to work as an actress" - shifted? How about moved?
"Kapoor performed on the songs "Vogue" and "GoldenEye"" - in the songs
"The year 2006 saw Kapoor play opposite Kareena Kapoor in two films" - I'd rephrase this to In 2007, Kapoor played opposite Kareena Kapoor in two films
"Kapoor next appeared in his father's directorial Mausam (2011); co-starring Sonam Kapoor," - is Shahid related to Sonam? May be worth mentioning

They aren't related. There are a bit too many Kapoors in Bollywood. Hehe. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Kapoor began 2015 by featuring" - would sound better as In 2015, Kapoor began...
"For his role as an air force pilot in it" - no need for "in it"
"He is filming Udta Punjab, a thriller on drug abuse" - might be worth changing this to He is currently filming, if this is the case

Instead of saying WP:CURRENTLY, I've used "as of", at the beginning of the paragraph. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Following the success Jab We Met (2007) and Kaminey (2009)" - success of
"Kapoor is considered one of the most-attractive male celebrities in India" - no need for hyphen

References

Ref 75 is dead

On hold

This is a very well written article, overall very comprehensive and enjoyable to read. The majority of the references all appear reliable and should be fine. Once those minor prose issues are addressed then this should have no problem passing! JAGUAR 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar All done. Thanks for the review. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Krimuk! Upon a second look this now meets the GA criteria and should be good to go. Well done on all the work

JAGUAR 14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Jaguar for such a positive review.

--Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]