GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Yashthepunisher (talk · contribs) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review it in few days. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

done. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

Actually, Birth is sourced from here. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
removed. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Content is sourced, so no need to make it short. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
No, GA mentions such redundant details. It makes the article unnecessarily long, and effects its flow. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 4:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
done. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some GA/FA articles writes it like this. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
personal life is not enough for a separate section. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
What makes you think that personal life is not enough for a separate section. This section is about her early life and education, and there is enough substance for a seperate section. Please try and split it, because it looks absurd --Yashthepunisher (talk) 4:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

No any archive or other reliable sources found on net. please suggest me something for this content. Hetika (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hetika: I got here by your message on my talk page. Anyways I am not sure about the reliability of Tellychakkar, but since you have already used that in your article, you can replace that dead link (ref. 72) with this source. It does indicate her nomination for the award. Hope it helps! :) -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:44, 5 June 2015 (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: