Talk:Dimple Kapadia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 12:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I'll review this article. Will have a look at it soon. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

• Is "Dimple Chunnibhai Kapadia" her common name.

• As far as I can tell, "Dimple Chunnibhai Kapadia" is her full name (shown in a number of general i'net searches, but no references in Google news or Google books), while "Dimple Kapadia" is her common name (much larger showing in general i'net searches, plus numerous refs in Google news and Google books). - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The lead should precisely start with the common name. However, her birth name can be included in the brackets. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure it should - as per WP:BIRTHNAME. I think we have followed the format suggested there? - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• My bad! Also there should be a mention of her stage name in the lead according to the convention. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The Debut section is dominated by quotes.

•   Done Balance of quotes and cited info. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I'd advise to remove the bracketed year in "Comeback (1984) and work in the 1980s" as it's a bit redundant.

•   Done - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• "after a common friend had notified Sippy about her willingness to come back to movies" is unsourced.

•   Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• "The film was a critical success and was eventually chosen as India’s official entry to the Oscars that year", ditto.

•   Done - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• What makes "buzzintown" a RS. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Done

• Last three lines of the second para in the comeback section are unsourced.

•   Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Link art-house.

•   Done - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• "earned her a third Filmfare nomination" not verified by source.

•   Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

My initial impression with this article is that it's very close to GA stuff. However, there are a few glitches with respect to MoS compliance and sourcing. I'll revisit this article to provide a detailed review with in the the next couple of days. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Doc seems to have retired perhaps, if you don't mind, I'll address the issues that are brought up. Thanks for taking the review. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Further comments

• National Film Awards and Filmfare Awards are completely unsourced in the "Awards" section.   Done
• Make the filmography table sortable.   Done
• She is a Hindu?

Where is this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Why is the first occurrence of "Rediff.com" (in the debut section) not linked and the second occurrence (Comeback and work in the 1980s) linked.   Done
• Also in references either link all or just the first one alone.  Done
• "The film was acknowledged as the Best Hindi Film of that year at the annual National Film Awards" unsourced.  Done
• Last four lines of the third para in the 1990s section rely on a single source.  Done
• Last two lines of the next para, ditto
    Done

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congrats and keep up the good work! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Vens for the decent review, got there eventually!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply