Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fawad Khan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2017 [1].

Fawad Khan

Nominator(s): Amirk94391 (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fawad Khan is a Pakistani actor who've also worked in Bollywood and is known for his looks. I've been working on this article for the last three months and it has been promoted to GA. It is thoroughly researched. This is my first FAC. I am looking forward to your comments. Amirk94391 (talk)

Quickly looking through it, while the effort is commendable, it needs a thorough copyedit. An example: "where he played Arsalan.[26] Later that year, in Anjum Shahzad's travel adventure TV series Satrangi, he played a young boy who, after having fight with parents, leaves home.[27] In 2009, Khan played a rich boy who changes girlfriends every week in Haissam Hussain's drama TV serial Jeevan Ki Rahon Mein.[28] The same year, he played". "played" is used four times. The prose needs work throughout still, I would suggest that you hold off on FAC for now until the article is peer reviewed. Don't feel discouraged though, it's great to see something of good quality on here for Pakistan, but FA is a whole different kettle of fish. FA level is way above GA, always take an article to peer review after you think you've done the best you can do with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amirk, welcome to FAC. Unfortunately I agree with the Dr that this isn't quite ready for FAC yet. In addition to the prose issues noted, there are a lot of inconsistencies in your reference formatting - similar sources should be similarly formatted - and some of the references don't appear to be of high quality (eg this one). I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination and seeking a peer review or mentorship first. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose. Echoing the comments above: for some reason, prose seems to have been largely overlooked at the GA recent stage, yet there are some very obvious errors and poor formulations. Here are a few of the problems:

The first sentence of the article is mangled and ungrammatical
First paragraph: clarify what you mean by "in the industry".
Suggest delete the words "several awards including", to improve the prose flow.
Second paragraph: "started his music career" → "began his music career". The rest of the paragraph is written in short staccato sentences "He sang...", "He also sang...", "He also sang..." etc. It should be possible to summarize Khan's musical career less repetitively and more elegantly.
Third paragraph: I think you "achieve" popularity rather than "garner" it, at least in modern prose.
I think the more usual term is "closet homosexual" rather than "closeted"
Unnecessary "also" after "Kapoor & Sons..."
I'd rephrase the penultimate sentence: "He appeared as a judge on Pepsi Battle of the Bands (2017)..." I'd also question whether this appearance as a judge can be termed his "return to music".

All the above relate to the lead. There's plenty more that needs attention in the body of the article, but nothing as far as I see that couldn't be fixed quite quickly in a peer review with attention from a competent copoyeditor. I agree with Nikki's suggestion of withdrawal and resubmission when the article is properly ready. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dr. Blofeld, Nikkimaria and Brianboulton for your comments. I'm going to submit it for peer review and then I'll renominate it. Amirk94391 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.