Wikipedia:Peer review/Sivaji Ganesan/archive1

Sivaji Ganesan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been well expanded and cleaned up before few months. Thanks, Thalapathi (Ping Back) 11:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given the article a real review (just clicked it open basically), but I can see that the citation style isn't completely consistent. Any web citation needs the following basic information: date retrieved, author, publisher/work, url and title. The best way to consistently achieve that is by using a template such as {{cite web}}, which I'd recommend strongly. Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable suggestions, will improve the citations style. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. Although you do not say what your goal for the article is, I will assume it is GA at least. Unfortunatley this would be a quick fail at WP:GAN in its current state, so here are some suggestions for improvement.

Biggest problem with the article is the references. Article needs more references, for example the whole "Matured roles: 1980-1992" section has zero references, and the last paragraph of the preceding section Donning versatile roles: 1960-1979 also has no refs and needs them. Also, since has last film was in 1999, whiy does the section end in 1992 according to the title?
Passages like Owing to the fact that, the actors who are well trained in classical dance could effectively showcase different expressions called "Nava Ras" on their face, Ganesan went on to become one of the popular actors in Tamil cinema in the 1950s itself. His unique voice had a greater appeal. He adopted his own style of dialogue delivery with a long spell of dialogues like a poetry recitation with much clarity earned him critical recognition. also need references
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Or this needs a ref Ganesan has remained as one of the popular Tamil actors with a large fan base. This was evident in a survey conducted by Kumudham magazine, in 1990, where Ganesan was voted as the most popular actor with 35% of the votes. Also the phrase "has remained as one of the popular Tamil actors" makes it sound like he is popular today, but 1990 is now 21 years ago...
Some of the exisiting refs do not have sufficient information as required. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
As an example, see current ref 2, which is only "Autobiography of Actor" right now, and a link to http://www.sangam.org/2008/11/Sivaji_Ganesan.php?uid=3155. However, when you look at the link, the title given is not the complete title "Book Review: Autobiography of Actor-Politician Sivaji Ganesan", the author is omitted (should include by Sachi Sri Kantha), and the date is missing: November 9, 2008.
Another ref problem is that some of the sources do not seem to meet WP:RS - what makes www.sangam.org a reliable source, for example?
There is a toolbox on the upper right corner of this peer review page which has an external links checker - this finds two dead external links, which need to be fixed.
The same toolbox has a disambiguation link checker which finds quite a few dab links.
The language needs to follow WP:NPOV better. Please see WP:PEACOCK
There are two fair use images and File:Smgrmhgrrt.jpg looks like it is a violation of copyright - no indication that the person who uploaded it actually holds the copyright.
Watch short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as they impede the narrative flow - where possible combine short paragraphs or perhaps expand them
The language is rough in places and could use a copyedit - I would fix all the other issues first before getting a copyedit.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]