Talk:Padayappa/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will complete this review within a day ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"On the other end is Neelambari" - what does on the other end mean? On the other side of the plot? Two different characters?
"This was the first Tamil film to be released worldwide with 210 prints" - what are prints? Posters? Sorry I'm unfamiliar with this!
"who had earlier worked with Rajini on Padikkadavan (1985)" - 1985 to 1999 is a 14 year difference, "earlier" sounds too short. This could be cut?
I think the first two paragraphs in the Music section could be merged to create a better flow
700,000 audio cassettes being sold could be mention in the lead (after 210 prints)
"The digital art was hand drawn on a digital pad by Gautham Raj" - this part is unsourced

Done all of the above comments have been resolved. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 02:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

No dead links, very impressive! But I notice that a lot of links are missing access dates. They can easily be added through that link.

@Jaguar: Can you name the references that are missing access dates. I will fix them. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 02:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really strange, they are the final five in the toolserver link but since they are biographies/books they don't need access dates, so maybe I was mistaken ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you mentioning References 15 and 63? They don't have date of publishing. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:YOUTUBE, there is no actual restriction with YouTube links on Wikipedia (although they are generally discouraged), but reading through WP:ELNEVER, I'm not sure if the videos linked are for free use. If they are, leave them in?

The "Lollu Sabha" video and "Enn Purushan Kuzhaindai Madhiri" video is linked for free use. (Just like in Puthiya Paravai, another article you reviewed). The rest are not. That's why they are in this format. "Vel (DVD). Clip from 17:28 to 17:57." Even in other GAs like Chandramukhi, there are references like that.

— Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 02:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Just mainly technical issues, but I like the way the article is written overall. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they are all addressed we'll take a look. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them Ssven, this article now meets the GA criteria. It is broad, well written and well referenced. I don't know what else to say without repeating myself in the last 100 GANs! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]