Talk:Amrita Rao/GA1

GA Review

Passed BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 08:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Some recent reverts, but no warring IMO. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking up the review. I would try to fix all issue raised. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 17:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check - I reviewed all matches over 7.5% from Earwig's Copyvio detector. No concerns - one repeated sentence that looks like possibly a backwards-copy, rest is titles and attributed quotes.
Images - rather surprising that the infobox pic, which looks like it's from a photoshoot would be uploaded CC with no real credit. Date of the pic in the summary doesn't match metadata. I tried a reverse image search but found nothing conclusive. Are you satisfied that it's free to use? Could add alt text for infobox pic (assuming it's retained). Captions and positioning are fine.

Fixed Changed year to metadata i.e 2019. Cannot find more image as an option for infobox pic. Considering quality, have added this one.

I'll assume good faith on the part of the uploader, in the absence of any evidence to the contary, even though I find the behaviour a bit odd. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with Indian English, so if any of my suggestions about wording changes are inappropriate, just let me know in your replies. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are good. Better than me when it comes to English.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

How can we be confident that the Wilkins (2012) book (ref. 8) is a reliable source?

Sandra Wilkins seems to be renowned author. About 8,66,000 results came when search her name + author.

I'm not convinced that it's the same person. Can you see this book listed on a page of hers somewhere? The title looks like it's scraped from other sources, so this blog post may have a point. The archive link doens't show any of the content, and the source is being used to support quite a lot of personal information. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. "Thackeray19": Template:Cite_news says to not use agency for sources published on the agency's own website; e.g. apnews.com or reuters.com; instead, use work or publisher.

Please have a look now.

Ref 84 (for Chalte Chalte Phir) is broken.

Fixed

Awards and nominations - some table entries are missing references.
Removed unsourced claims.
The Tips Official YouTube source looks OK per WP:RSPYT. (No action needed here)
I reviewed Times of India refs, in light of WP:TOI. Ref 5 can be removed from the lead as it's cited in the text with a different source. Refs 36, 39, 53, 54 are OK, cited quotes or reporting on the source's rankings. 42 is OK, uncontroversial. Ref 85 is OK for confirming awards, but better sources would be nice. Ref 31 can be expanded, I think; it's OK for what it's supporting.

Fixed Ref 5 removed.

Looking at the concerns in discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com, is there a different source that can be used?

I checked discussion wrt Box Office India. Actually most of GAs and Even FAs have used Box Office India as a reliable source.

I looked at a couple of reviews from recent years (FLCs for Shilpa Shetty filmography and Karisma Kapoor filmography) and I can see that indeed, it has not been questioned by reviewers. As this is more recent than the discussion I linked, I'm happy with it as a source here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Given that Rao has apparently not publicly confirmed her date of birth, are you confident that including the date in the infobox is in line with WP:BLPPRIVACY?

Fixed Have added a note as well.

Early life

"Rao has not ever put out her birthday details in public" - how about "Rao has never publicised her birthday details."?

Fixed

"She has a younger sister Preetika Rao, who is also an actress." - suggest moving this to the end of the para so there can be no confusion with the subject of the following sentences like "Rao studied.." etc.

Fixed

"Rao studied at Canossa Girls School, Andheri (Bombay). Rao went to Sophia College (Mumbai) " - can probably be joined as one sentence, e.g. "..(Bombay), then to Sophia.."

Fixed

Is the use of both "Bombay" and "Mumbai" due to the date of the official name change?

Yes.

Career

"biographical period film The Legend of Bhagat Singh. In the film, which narrates the story of Indian independence Freedom Fighter Bhagat Singh," - a bit of a MOS:SEAOFBLUE issue here, but I think it's OK rather than rewording which risks making the text too complicated or unnatural.
"The film became successful at the box office" - would be good, but not necessary, to add the gross takings if a reliable source is available, as this would give a better comparison to "film did not perform well at the box office, grossing only ₹129 million"

Fixed Added a link.

"In the film, which .." to "...Filmfare Best Female Debut Award (2003)" is not supported by the IIFA source cited.

Working on it

Added Please have a look now.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Tried best to find if she is really nominated for the award, no such records found. Hence, I have removed all unsourced claims with respect to awards nominations. Maybe it could have been added by her fan.
"Her first release of the year was" - I can't see this supporte in the cited sources.

Done

"and also managed to do well at the box office" - suggest rewording, e.g. "also did well at the box office"

Done

"over-possessive wife received well among critics" - should this be "over-possessive wife was well-received by critics"?

Done

"Critical response to the film was negative, although Rao garnered acclaim for her performance as a school teacher." - I'm not sure that the cited source is strong enough to support this. Is it?

Added Two refs added. First tells about her role and second her performance.

"Rediff noted," "Sify wrote" and similar phrases - mention the individual authors where possible, although "Moviebuzz" should be in quotemarks as it's obviously not the actual name.

Reddif fixed, for sify author name is not given.

I made a copyedit re "Moviebuzz" for Sify, which I hope is acceptable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Other critics" - either delete, or add additional critics.

Fixed

"Rao with limited performance in the film received average applause" doesn't read right to me, but that may be due to the variation of English employed.
"The film was largely panned by critics but Rao's performance earned positive reviews" - doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source, which is one review.

Added

"Her character's older version was played by Deepti Naval." - missing a citation.

Added

Personal life and media image

Consider combining these short paragraphs, although they are on different topics.

Done

"7 years" and "2nd muse" to "seven years" and "second muse" per MOS:NUMERAL
- Done

Filmography

What does "Special appearance" mean?

Special appearance is nothing but sort of Cameo appearance.

Maybe wikilink it to Cameo appearance?

Done

Thanks for your work on the article, 25 Cents FC. I've made a couple of edits to the article that I think are uncontroversial but please review them. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the points about the Wilkins book pending, 25 Cents FC. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find a reliable source that could possibly prove about her family. Will it be good if I remove them? 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For that sort of info we would need a reliable source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all concerns raised. Please let me know if I missed something. Cheers.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 25 Cents FC. I made a couple of very minor edits. Passing the article for GA as I'm satisfied that it meets the criteria. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.