Talk:The Dirty Picture/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this article, as I'm happy to see that the links have been fixed.

• Note: there is one dead link - ref 23. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the dead link. Thanks. :) Smarojit (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

review

(This article has some very strange wording in it. Is it a translation or something? I have copy edited some of it but I'm unsure if I am interpreting the meaning correctly.)

lede

• "the hero of the film" - needs citation
• "The film's music, composed by Vishal Shekhar with lyrics by Rajat Aroraa, was popular." - needs better word than "popular" - popular by what standards?

plot

• "where her mother disconnects with Silk forever" - what does "disconnects" mean? - disowned
• "degrade" - I don't think this is the word you want - I have changed it in several places
• " on the same lines" - what lines?

Cast

• "libelous"? - what is meant here?
• "enjoys the flesh of women" encyclopedic wording?

(I will continue - the article needs a copy edit.)

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes made

lead

• Provided a citation for "the hero of the film"
• Removed the use of "popular"

plot

• Copy edited the plot

Cast

• Used scandalous instead of libelous.

Smarojit (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

review continued

• "enjoys the flesh of women" - doesn't seem like encyclopedic wording
• "Additionally, all actors, including Balan and Shah attended workshops for almost two months before filming could begin." why? what were the workshops about?
• "met-at-a-party stories, quick tea-break chats," - doesn't seem like encyclopedic language

(will continue) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Made the above changes. Smarojit (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the changes. The wording is still a little odd in places but I attribute that to cultural differences. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   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:

Congratulations! Good job on an interesting film! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)