Talk:King of Bollywood (book)

King of Bollywood (book) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 17, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

India: Cinema / Literature Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian literature workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:King of Bollywood (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'll be taking on the GA review for this page! Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise. There are no glaring spelling or grammar errors. Writing is easy to understand for a general audience. There are some minor spelling/awkward wording issues that I can help edit myself upon completing this review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section appropriately summarizes the article. There are no issues with "words to watch." Headings and sections are appropriately ordered and titled.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Information is properly sourced. The references follow MOS:REFERENCES.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All content is appropriately sourced using appropriate WP:RS.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no signs of WP:PLAG or WP:CV. There are some quotations, but sources are appropriately referenced in such instances.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article focuses on relevant main aspects of the topic, including the book's summary, development, release, and critical reception.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There are some places where excessive detail might not be necessary. I can help edit those myself after this review. Overall, the article stays focused and to the point.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article follows NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no history of edit warring or content dispute on the article. It seems like most of the article has been written by one single user.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The image used is part of Wikipedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image used and its caption are relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	Y - article passes GA criteria

Add topic