Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Santosh Subramaniam/1

Santosh Subramaniam edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. Substantial rewriting is needed to improve the grammar and distinguish this article from Bommarillu. Geometry guy 10:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article conspicuously fails the "well-written" criterion, which the reviewer appears to have narrowly interpreted as requiring only that all of the words are correctly spelled. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than re-assess, why don't you just help improve it? Jeez. Universal Hero (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have neither the time nor the interest. Why don't you improve it? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical. I'll dot when I have time. What do you want me to do? Check for spelling/grammatical errors? I would love an inch more clarity. Maybe a discusiion topic rather than a GAR? Think about it. Universal Hero (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical of what? If you have something you'd like to say, best spit it out and get it off your chest. In the meantime I would point to a representative sample of sentences to support my proposition that this article needs a substantial amount of work to meet the GA well-written criteria:

"The film primarily revolves around a father and son relationship with the father's dote on his son ironically leaving a bitter taste with the latter."
"When inquired about his disgust ..."
"He cites instances where his choices of dressing, hairdo and many others are stashed away by his father’s".
"When asked for his reason to like Hasini ..."
"After saving their grace, Santhosh admonishes Hasini for her antics at the marriage."
"The choice of Genelia was due to her performance in the original, for which she was critically praised and gained stardom with."

I'm afraid that if you can't see what's wrong with this article then there's very little chance that you'll be able to fix it by editing it into idiomatic and correct English. It is not enough that each individual word is correctly spelled. They have to make sense when they're put together as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be complete by the weekend, don't worry. Typical, as in hypocrisy and civil laziness. Universal Hero (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I cared about your observations on my work ethic or integrity I might have considered opening a WP:WQA to remind you of how you are expected to conduct yourself. As it is though, I really couldn't give a toss what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Malleus here: the article is not well-written, and looks (not be offensive, but) to be written by someone who's native language is not English.

And to Universal: You don't really need to be quite to harsh. There are reasons people can't try to improve a particular article. One the reasons can be that if you try to correct an article you know nothing about, then you can introduce a lot of inaccuracies, because you haven't the movie. That's one reason among others. So please don't be so unfriendly. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Malleus. Stressful Lives. =D Universal Hero (talk)

As an independent observer here, perhaps Malleus could have presented his/her opening criticism with a little less contempt. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contempt? I think you ought to think carefully before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already do. If you check the GA review you'll see that my comment accurately reflects the comments of the reviewer. A great many people seem to have a problem with honest criticism around here, very unhealthy. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]