Talk:I (2015 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Writing quality is quite poor, consisting of run-on-sentences, sentences that use too many commas, or just go on too long, or could be broken apart into shorter sentences, really just sentences, that are a lot like this one, and could have improvement for the article if they were broken apart, with a view towards improving making the article both more concise and writing style more succinct.
2. Example: In an interview with the Tamil channel Sun TV, held shortly after the release of Enthiran in October 2010, the film's lead actor Rajinikanth revealed that Shankar, in 1996, following the release of his Indian, had approached and pitched three storylines for him to consider for his next venture. -- way way way too long sentence with overusage of commas.
3. Lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD, for article of this size citing one-hundred-and-twenty (120) citations, would expect larger lede intro sect of four paragraphs with each having four to five total sentences per paragraph.
4. Copyvio Detector using only external links and not search engine shows copyvio problems at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=I+%28film%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1

2. Verifiable?: Checklinks tool shows at least seven (7) links with problems at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=I_%28film%29 -- best to archive these and all links in article using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive with fields archiveurl and archivedate parameters via WP:CIT citation templates.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article does indeed seem to cover most major aspects of topic.

4. Neutral point of view?: Not enough info fully summarizing large Critical response sect in lede intro sect -- lede only says The film received mixed to positive reviews from critics, who praised Vikram's performance and the technical aspects of the film, but criticised the writing and the film's excessive length. about Critical response. Needs more info from both the mixed to negative and positive reviews, what they said, and why, and from whom.

5. Stable?: Stability concerns with recent insertions of original research problems in article that then had to be removed.

6. Images?:

1. File:Hunchbacked look of Vikram in I.jpg - someone needs to have an admin delete prior versions of this image.
2. File:Richard Taylor 2003.jpg - I've tagged this one as missing permission documentation; it also needs more info with commons:Template:Information formatting.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— — Cirt (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)