Talk:Keechaka Vadham/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 07:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Will review later, very old film!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reading now♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • "The film was based" -don't we use present tense for films? It is a lost film though so I guess..
  • "invest on the production house" -on?
  • "However, some of Nataraja Mudaliar's relatives objected to it for they felt that it was not a proper story for his debut venture.[1] But " -never good to have However and but following each other
  • "The production for the film cost ₹35,000,[a] which was then considered high, revealing Nataraja Mudaliar's inexperience in filmmaking.[1]" -not sure how that reveals his inexperience, you mean that he wouldn't haven known how much filmmaking would cost? Seems a bit OR, is that in the source?
  • "Later a difference of opinion arose between him and his investors." -vague, can you elaborate?

@Dr. Blofeld: Resolved all your comments.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  Dr. Blofeld 06:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply