Talk:The Kapil Sharma Show/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Look

Just after a quick glance, i am looking at an instant fail:

• The covereage is not wide enough, lacks many imposrant details, and sections.
• The lead itself is nowhere near GA standard
• No references in parts.
• Too many bare URLs
• Unreliable sources.

I will wait for the nominator to go through he comments, but this looks like a very premature nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The covereage is not wide enough, lacks many imposrant details, and sections.

Just take a look at some of the TV show GA. They are of the same length as that of this article. To name a few are: Beat the Chefs, Family Trade and It Takes a Church.

Citing other articles is not a valid argument while discussing reviews.

• The lead itself is nowhere near GA standard

As for the lead of the article, I would give the same explanation as given above for the coverage.

Same.

• No references in parts.

Please tell which parts of the article need references. In my view, article has enough references.

The writer, director, production, distribution houses, runtime, picture formats are nowhere substantiated.

• Too many bare URLs

Filled.

• Unreliable sources.

Removed.

What makes India.com, an RS?

Further comments are welcome. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 11:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No pretext provided for Comedy Knights to viewers unfamiliar with teh topic.

• Three reviews which are largely negative don't make up for a comprehensive section.

• The production does not talk about any filming/writing details.

• The mention of most of the technical aspects mentioned in teh info box are largely missing.

• Also, over linking is largely persisting problem. Next time, try to ping me after leaving comments. NumerounovedantTalk 13:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say, but IMO this article is nowhere near the standard of GA, and needs a considerable amount of work. I suggest a PR for the suggestions as this is not the platform for it. Thank you for co operating. I will now fail the article. NumerounovedantTalk 03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: