Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain

Confusion

It is a confusion that whether the name of the character played by Mahesh Shetty is Shiddharth or Siddhanth! Please leve me a Tb templet when replying! --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 03:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bade Achhe Lagte Hain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Greatuser (talk · contribs) I am reviewing the page and I am over looking the page, currently i don't find any problem in the article, Later if i find any problem i will fix those myself and will mention in this page 07:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some points which i have added below

• Contains Dead Link(s)

 also done Rv Dead Link

• Section Cast is Unreferenced

 Done I have added a reliable source to the section Cast and Characters

• The names of Actors are not mentioned in the section Plot while their characters are mentioned

 also done I mentioned, so that Readers can easily know the names of actors in the section plot while character are mentioned so their real names also have to be mentioned

• I have totally improved the article i need some comments from other users then i will decide to pass/fail the article as Good article
• I Currently Keep the article in hold Later when it get improved or it remain in the same state then i will pass/fail the article as GA

Non-reviewer comments: The article has multiple issues, most prominent among them is the poor quality of prose. The article is riddled with grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. Just reading the section 'Overview' confirms it. Other than that, the article has issues with non-compliance of referencing MoS (lack of access dates etc. in several references), usage of peacock terms ('He is the humble father of Priya'), use of unencyclopedic language ('She is very sweet and lovingly calls Ram as Golu. She is very caring as every grandmother is.'). There are several uncited claims ('he loves to have aloo-ke-paranthe (an Indian Punjabi dish) and is highly dependent on his tablets'). The article needs huge improvements all over. It doesn't meet the GA criteria in its present state. - DSachan (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article has far too many issues. I suggest a quick fail. smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Many problems with this, support a quick fail - I'm doubtful if this even meets the B class criteria... Mdann52 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• I am wondering how this is a good article nominee. The prose is very bad and the article needs clarification. Contains peacock terms too. I am trying to improve the article. Tagged article with {{peacock}} and {{Clarify}} tags. A quick fail would be appropriate. Forgot to put name (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Failed - I am quick failing this article as an outside reviewer because of the many issues raised above by others and the "mini consensus"-type discussion above. Per WP:PEACOCK, missing citations and references that are not fully filled out. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Review list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Peacock terms and Neutral point of view problems.

This article has lot of problems, namely contains peacock terms in characters and is biased in the Marketing section. "caught the great eyeballs" what can you understand from this? I think the Marketing section must be rewritten to remove such language. I am currently working on this article. If you have any suggestions please post here.If we collaboratively work on this article then probably the problems can be fixed. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem namely contained peacock terms in section Character but it has now been removed by me and i am working on article to promote the article to GA, Thank You A Great User ✉ ✉ 04:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Karekar family as a separate family?

I noticed that in the Cast list, the Karekars had been listed as a separate family. I do not think it is necessary and thus removed it, because, Ishika and Sid had grown up in the Kapoor family as children. Furthermore, Niharika was Amarnath Kapoor's second wife. Therefore, I placed Ishika, Sid, Niharika, Ayesha and others in the Kapoor family and Jayesh Karekar in the Other characters section. User:Shounak donal (talk)

Edit request on 20 August 2013

Rohan Mehra as Varun 86.19.141.151 (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -Ryan 01:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Issue Regarding Cast Section

Please it's a request to all editors that do not add middle names or several names/surnames for a single character. It makes the article look clumsy and confusing. Secondly, the correct spelling of the character which is presently played by Lavin Gothi is Sameer and not Samar. If you would like to suggest or say something please leave your message on this talk page under this section. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

--Tamravidhir (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Daniellia brooks (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Allegation laid down by User :TheRedPenOfDoom

The User :TheRedPenOfDoom says that the article is purely promotional blurb and also mentions in his edit summaries that "we do not accept rumours/we do not accept this". Could you please explain User :TheRedPenOfDoom that why do you think it to be promotional and on what grounds do you say them to be rumours and delete references? And which article says that plot section cannot have the actual story in a beter language and why do you call it to be a promotional blurb? --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User :TheRedPenOfDoom, an article with 40 references can become a good article then how could you say that this article needs references? --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

it has a lot of footnotes but Wikipedia requires reliably published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and editorial orversight , not merely any website spreading celebrity gossip. a great many of the footnotes you keep restoring fail those requirements. bollywoodlife etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

see also more details on your talk page [1] and the previous versions of your talk page [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

seeing no response, removing improper content again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The section on shooting

Thank you for removing the unreferenced information from the article. But keeping in mind that last edits by you and the IP address user, I have just added a sentence in the section that Most of the shooting was done in India, as that is a general fact evident from the show. But I have not added specific city names. But that needs to be referenced, well I don't think that we may find a reference for that, but still I am adding a citation needed tag. But I guess that you were nearly going to engaged in an edit-war please don't do that. You could discuss here now, and not in the user talk pages. Thank you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the section on music. But I have just re-included the crossover section as that is correct, but just that there's no citation. But there's a citation tag. --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Work to achieve GA

@Tamravidhir: Okay, I'm here to help. What can I do?Amanda Smalls 13:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amanda Smalls: Please watchlist this Amanda. Have you gone through the article. The text, images, citations, the videos, and all. Then just go through them once. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about me watchlisting stuff. If it's something important I always watchlist it. I practically watchlist every page.Amanda Smalls 13:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay (:D) so have you gone through it? --Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amanda Smalls: Amanda! You here? Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues pointed out by Yunshui which need to be resolved

• the lead section needs a rewrite (the sources there should be moved elsewhere in the article) to meet MOS:LEDE
• there's a lot of citation redundancy
• the images (especially the cast image) should be checked, as I'm not sure they all meet the fair use criteria
• the Music section needs better sourcing
• the cast list doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST and WP:Source list
• some of the wording could be more neutral; the plot section in particular could use a bit of work.

--Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I keep getting into an edit conflict.Amanda Smalls 13:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Onel5969's comments

Okay, I'll take a look at this over today and tomorrow. For the moment, I have some initial comments:

1. - The article has way too many references in some places, and needs references in others. As a rule, an item should have at most two cites, so pick the best two.
2. - The cast list is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY to long. It most likely should also be subsectioned into at least main and secondary characters. For example, take a look at Bold and the Beautiful, which has been on air 25 years longer than this soap opera, and yet its cast list (on its own separate page - which I don't think this one needs) is about the same length as this. However, the cast list is broken down nicely and tabulated.
3. - The guest appearances subsection should be in the cast list section. Or else, if this is a function of production (i.e. producers made a decision to have this concept as a way to cross-promote), than that should be discussed in a brief (cited) paragraph prior to the list.
4. - Yunshui's point about the references in the lead is spot on. Also, the last two paragraphs of the lead need to be re-worked. The third paragraph is too detailed, and should just be a simple summary, which is then fleshed out in the body of the article. The fourth paragraph are details which probably shouldn't be in the lead at all, but if they are, again, should most likely be a single sentence summarizing dubs. You might want to include a line or two about it's reception (you could group it with the line regarding the awards)
5. - a positive is the way the accolades section was handled.

I'll try to go over it in more detail over the next two days, and add more notes. One last thing, before sending it up to GA, you might want to request a C/E from GOCE. Onel5969 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Thank you so much Onel! Thank you as you will be further pointing out issues which should be resolved. And yes, I have requested a c/e but it's pending. I hope they will do it soon. Thank you once again Onel. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Although you shouldn't request the C/E until you're done with all the changes, just before you submit it for GA.Onel5969 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Even I was thinking of withdrawing the request. Should I withdraw it? --Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Final draft of issues to be resolved

• There's a lot of citation redundancy. Only the best two should be used for a piece of information/a sentence/a part.
• The lead section needs a rewrite (should cover all the sections of the article) to meet MOS:LEDE. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
  The last two paragraphs of the lead need to be re-written. The third paragraph is too detailed, and should just be a simple summary, which is then fleshed out in the body of the article. The fourth paragraph are details which probably shouldn't be in the lead at all, but if they are, again, should most likely be a single sentence summarizing dubs.
  A line or two about it's reception could be added (you could be group along with the line regarding the awards).
  The sources in the lead should be moved elsewhere in the article.
• Some of the wording could be more neutral; the plot section in particular could use a bit of work.
• The section on music needs better sourcing.
• The cast list doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST and WP:Source list. The cast list is too long. It most likely should also be subsectioned into at least main and secondary characters. For example, like List of The Bold and the Beautiful cast members. It has the cast list broken down and tabulated. This article however does not need a separate article/list on its cast.
• The producers made a decision to have guest appearances to promote films. In that case, it should be discussed in a brief "cited" paragraph prior to the list.

--Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

• I was about to begin a copyedit of the article, but there are some issues that need to be resolve before I do. The lead in particular needs a lot of cleanup.
  • Generally, the lead is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body of the article, and so the lead normally doesn't need inline citations (generally, they should be avoided in the lead unless it contains something particularly controversial). Please make sure all of the information in the lead is also somewhere in the body, and then please get rid of the citations from the lead.
  • The groups of citations are an eyesore—they make it difficult to read the prose. Either reduce the number of citations you use at once (say, two or three), or, even better, take a look at WP:CITEBUNDLE, which shows a number of techniques for combining multiple sources into one inline citation.
  • You'll have to deal with the deadlinks—fix them, replace them, or remove them. The article won't pass GA as long as they're there.
  • The show's in Hindi, right? It surprises me that there's no interwiki link to a Hindi article on the show. Is it because there is no such article, or does the article need to be added through the "Languages" link on the right of the page? Also, I'd include the name of the title in Devanagari in the opening sentence.
  • There are those who may tell you the infobox is too long & detailed. You might want to consider that.
• I'll return when these issues are dealt with. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Curly Turkey. I will fix these issues. --Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prhartcom

I started by looking at Wikipedia articles of other popular Indian television shows to find a well-written example to follow. Unfortunately, none of the ones I found were the kind of example we want to follow. So, I turned to popular American and British television shows. Even though I found many that are well-written, I was surprised to find very many that have been taken to GA. However, I did find a few good examples of GA and FA television show articles that this article can follow. I hope you are ready to do some major work here, not only during the process of getting this article ready for GA but in the painful process of having others criticize your work. If you are ready, this article could become the best written Indian television article on Wikipedia.

Three examples of well-written recognized articles I found are Friends (GA), Sherlock, (GA), and Firefly (FA). Take a look at the structure of these articles, then examine their writing. I'm sure you already know this, but be sure this article meets the GA criteria.

For this article, I notice it has a "Plot" section, and not a "Premise" section. It seems to me that a "Plot" section should actually tell a story, with a beginning, middle, and end. It should be a summary of the show's story, not a description of it. For example, in a Plot, we would probably not say "The story begins ..." or "As the story progresses ...". It should instead actually be the story. Take a look at WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Now a Premise section probably would describe the show from the outside, so to speak. Decide which of these, or both, should be in this article. The Plot section in this article starts out quite well, then seems to accidentally become a Premise section. Perhaps it could have two paragraphs: The first could briefly provide an overview of the story, the second could describe how the story became a story.

The Cast section in this article has a problem: It is just a list of cast members. How could something like that hold anyone's interest? Readers are going to skip this section, and you may even lose them completely as they go read something else. Instead, we need to hold their interest. Notice in the three examples articles how the Cast sections are a little more interesting: The cast is explained to the reader in prose. It can still be a list if you want, with prose. This show has a big cast, so perhaps have two cast sub-sections: Main cast and supporting or recurring cast. If you did this, the first could describe the main characters in detail and, if you wished, could also provide behind-the-scenes information on each actor being their character. The second could list the supporting cast as it does now, but perhaps with a one-sentence description for each character/actor. Actually, I believe this cast list is too big; you should delete the cast members that are unimportant. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts. It is not important for any Wikipedia article have every single fact on its subject, but instead each article should include all of what is important. The Guest cast section that appears further down in this article should be in this rewritten Cast section (as a sub-section).

The Production section of this article with its sub-sections is in much better shape. Take a look at the example articles for more good ideas for this section.

Same with the Reception section of this article; it is in much better shape. Good job!

There is a way to cite your sources without the long "[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] ..." stuff. All those can be combined into one, if you are interested. Take a look at the article I just completed (Tintin in Tibet) for the way to do that. But it isn't critical; you can ignore this advice.

As for the lead section; you are on the right track. You are doing a good job summarizing the entire article. Let me look closely at it now and see if I can do more for you. Of course remember: Many readers are only going to read the lead section and then move on. Therefore, it should be an interesting summary of the entire article. It also shouldn't contain anything that isn't discussed in more detail in the article body. The example articles above also do a good job in their lead sections, so look at them for more ideas. I'm sure you have already read WP:LEAD.

I will now try to copy edit the article, so wish me luck. :-) Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: All the best ^_^...you obviously will not be knowing what I will be telling you now. Someone had mentioned the article Tintin in Tibet on Yunshui's talk page. And when I read "Tintin" and "Tibet" I immediately clicked the link. And the...well this is extremely bad but I almost always judge an article by its references. I love properly cited articles where the articles are nicely arranged and bundled. And writing such an article is my dream. I hope I'm able to fulfill the dream through this article. Now, when I saw those citations in the article I was awestruck! The notes, the bibliography, the citations...aaa! They were perfect. I even thought of giving you a barnstar but somehow it went out of my head...but today I've been reminded of it and you deserve a barnstar...Thank you so much! Thank you so much Prhartcom! Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamravidhir, I realized I don't think I can copy edit the Synopsis after all, as I don't know the story. But I know you have what it takes to do it! Did the other articles I mentioned give you ideas on how to proceed? Do you feel you know the path? Your competence gives you the confidence you need to proceed! Prhartcom (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of improper content

• "bagging" is complete hyperbolic jargon, unacceptable in an encyclopedia
• Tellychakkar is the media wing of a PR firm - as such it is completely unacceptable as a reliable source
• Pull quote from a participant thanking the fans is not only WP:UNDUE weight, such content has no encyclopedic value on its own. if the "thank you" was in some way so unique that third parties had commented on its unusualness, THEN there might be a reason to include it with such context but not on its own.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is no response providing valid rationale, these issues will be fixed again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I have replaced bagging with receiving and there's already a discussion regarding tellychakkar.com at WP:RSN. So I feel that we should wait for the final consensus. And Michael had mentioned on my talk page that quotes can be added to an article and this is not at all undue weight on the article. I will go for a 3O. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute that we may use quotes. What we cannot do is present, in pull out format nonetheless, a half dozen quotes from parties related to the subject that act as promotional commentary for the article subject. We are not a celebrity entertainment gossip magazine. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:There are not a half dozen quotes but only three and I don't feel that Ram Kapoor clarifying that he won't lose weight for the industry is promotional, nor is the quote criticising Indian television. And I feel that Ram Kapoor's tweet is necessary to portray the scale of the response to the much hyped 12 March'12 episode of BALH but I will wait for the 3O. Tamravidhir (talk!) 13:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021114031/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2012 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021114031/http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2012 to http://www.indiantelevisionacademy.com/site/awards_hhita_details_new.php?year=2012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

this is not right do ur revision right bro

so don’t change it 90.254.31.144 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)