Jump to content

Talk:Taapsee Pannu/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Secret of success (talk · contribs) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the GA review process of this article and will be posting comments below. Feel free to contact me in talk page if any doubts or questions arise. X.One SOS 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]
Good question! I had this doubt earlier. The thing is I don't know how is she credited in Telugu where she has done most of the films. She is referred to as "Taapsee Pannu" in most of the media. —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If she is credited as TP in most of the media reports, then why does the first sentence say that she is better called as Taapsee? X.One SOS 08:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing it as it's a bit subjective. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. X.One SOS 14:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She has also been featured on the cover of some of the leading magazines." - Unsourced. And what magazines? On what basis are they considered "leading"? X.One SOS 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you see the caption, it says "Taapsee talking about how she got into films". So I think it's more relevant here. —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think not. None of the sentences from the box have been reproduced in the film section. Whereas the early life section says "Taapsee initially wanted to be a full-time model and never thought of acting." X.One SOS 08:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. the purpose is to introduce how she got into films. That's not a part of her early life according to the section titles. I included that in the "quotebox" so that there is no need to reproduce it back. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then please remove the sentence which I quoted above. It is not really necessary if it has been used in the quote box. X.One SOS 15:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References must adhere to WP:CITEHOW. They commonly require these : Author, date, accessdate, publisher, title and url. Online-only entities like Sify and Rediff do not require italics.
 Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Authors are missing in almost all references, for instance 17, the work being that of "Paresh C. Palicha". Dates are also missing in many citations. X.One SOS 09:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many don't have authors mentioned in the links. I think I have added "dates" to most of the (missing) references. If there are still problems, can you specifically point out. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in cases where the full name of a person is credited, "first" and "last" are used. But when its something like "Moviebuzz" of sify, use the "author" parameter. I think it works on cite news and cite web. X.One SOS 14:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have formatted most of them. If not, please point out. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confirmation that she's dating either. So I think adding such kinda stuff doesn't give weightage and isn't much encyclopedic. In the meanwhile, will try to find out. —Vensatry (Ping me) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that deserves a mention. Something like "Taapsee has been the subject of wide media coverage and has often turned away reports which have hinted the idea of her being in a relationship" could be added. X.One SOS 08:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, that did not stir up much controversy and she has denied all the rumors and says, "we are just friends". Unless there are reports stating that she herself has confirmed that I don't think there in nothing special it. I'm personally against adding such stuff as they add little encyclopedic value to the article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm....All right. I think any person in the film industry will have such a shadow lurking over their actions. Its not something that needs weightage, I guess. X.One SOS 14:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A look at her official website reveals that to be her nick name —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the other two names mentioned in that parameter? They don't seem to be present in the official site. X.One SOS 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when these issues are brought to task. X.One SOS 15:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Analysis

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [4] Images are absent, but still due to the optional nature of the GA criteria, it is fine:
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

All right, all issues have been addressed and the article seems dandy now. I shall pass it. X.One SOS 08:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Endnotes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or theManual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references orfootnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  5. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taapsee_Pannu/GA1&oldid=1137216751"