Talk:Rekha/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Dindriyena (talk · contribs) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC) _{Taking over review from nominator. —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

I'm nominating this article for GA. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part.

Note of interest to reviewers. Because this article was slightly long, we removed a few things to keep it all tight and neat. A few of the things removed were on the topic of [Personal life] and [Image]. To help the GA review, we removed some of these details and I set up a new article for it which has been nominated for deletion. We have reviewed this article and have all agreed that content was of an GA standard in it's own right. If the article is rejected, we are going to have to bring some of the info back, wasting our hard work trimming. For those editors who understand the article and the content please help, that info needed its own article because of this article's length.Dindriyena (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong on many levels. First you nominated an article that you had very little input on. Second, you cannot review an article that you nominated. You need to read the policies, starting with WP:GA. BollyJeff | talk 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, your WP:GA says,If you believe an article meets the Good article criteria, you may nominate it. Second later,agree with your suggestion "had very little input on". If article isn't on the point of GA, will re nominee after having too much little input on.cheersDindriyena (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the main point, which is that you cannot review an article you nominated. And there's something else: if you have to ask those who comment to do so in "clear, full sentences" to avoid confusion on your part, you have to ask yourself if you are qualified to review articles for GA status, since prose is an essential part of it. Finally, who is "we"? Drmies (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to reviewing it. My intention was just to nominate it,none more than that. Reviewing might have been accidentally.Dindriyena (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing

There's still a fair bit of work to get it to GA class and therefore I'm quick failing this for the following reasons:

Comprehensiveness -- Personal biography coverage is very weak; there are sources available for the same. Awards section is left with a link (although awards are covered within the career part) either the link should be moved to see also or a summary of awards and nominations and any significance should be included etc.
Repetition -- learning Hindi is mentioned twice
Lede -- lede is not a summary of the article, rather it adds new information
Referencing -- appears good, but there are some issues, e.g. spot check on [15a] shows that the reference doesn't support the statement, as it's used in conjunction with the earlier ref.

Also, it is best to consult with the major contributors of the article before nominating, as they would know the background of these issues. Result: Fail —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]