Talk:R. Madhavan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R. Madhavan was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-14

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian cinema, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Indian cinema. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale by the India project. This article was nominated to be an India Collaboration of the week on 18 October 2006 and failed to qualify. This article was last assessed in October 2006.

---

Contents 1 Well Done 2 Template 3 Speedy delete 4 Neutrality? 5 Not Priority "Top" for WikiProject Biography 6 Incomplete FAC nom 7 Auto Peer Review 8 Good article review 9 Watch out for Sockpuppet Abuse

[edit] Well Done

An administrator told me today that Madhavan was an ideal article. Well done to all that has contributted

[edit] Template

According to the folks who oversea the broader film projects (all of them, worldwide), it's OK to have templates for directors, but not for actors. The problem is that you can end up with multiple templates at the bottom of some films and squabbles about whose template comes first, etc. As long as there's a link to the actor's main page, anyone interested can find the filmography. Could the Madhavan fans busy adding templates please help in removing them? Zora 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete

I removed the speedy delete tags from this article . It clearly is more than advertising and does assert the importance of the subject. GameKeeper 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

Doesn't anyone here beside me feel this article has not been written in a neutral point of view? It's just too long and well, its very fan-ishly written. Comments? -- Visual planet 12:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick read through, I knew nothing of this person before reading the article. The only thing I thought was dubious was the 'wrongfully jailed father' part. This needs a source and it has to be more than a quote from an interested party. An overturned court case for instance. There are films mentions in which R. Madhavan's role was criticized , giving the impression of a balanced article. Unless someone with knowledge of R. Madhavan can list verifiable negative things not mentioned in the article, then I think it looks OK. I did not remove the NPOV tag , but I do think its removal is justified, but not for the reasons given by the remover. GameKeeper 20:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Priority "Top" for WikiProject Biography

This is clearly not a top priority article for the WikiProject Biography. See here for the criteria Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Priority scale. In my opinion Mid or Low would be more appropriate. GameKeeper 16:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete FAC nom

An incomplete FAC nom was added to the bottom of WP:FAC. I removed the fac tag from here, as there was no nom. Please re-add the tag here, fill out the nomination, and then re-add it to the top of the list at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Peer Review

I've been learning how to use the auto peer reviewing tool . I tried it on this article, the results may be of interest and can be seen here Talk:R. Madhavan/autoPR GameKeeper 23:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

This article is great, and I think it's worthy of featured status, with a few minor corrections. I already fixed a few minor grammatical things (e.g. placement of references after the ending punctuation of sentence, instead of before; and a few language issues). What the editors need to fix before GA status is to add citations to the 'film career' section, as well as the 'game host' section (change the name of this section to 'game show host' or 'deal ya no deal'). Reference citations that link to URLs should also have dates of retrieval for the URL in the citation.

It might also be good to make a statement that 'deal ya no deal' is the Indian version of the american show, Deal or No Deal, to tie this into the commonly advertised show that most people would be familiar with (if there's a british version of the show, maybe say something about that, too).

Other than that, this article looks great! Quite an interesting read. Dr. Cash 20:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The on hold for this article seems to have expired, but the sections that citations were requested for seem, well, lacking in citation. However, since Derek says this article is perhaps worthy of featured status, I dunno what to do about this article, I don't suppose anyone is planning to carpet bomb the sections in question with citation any time soon? Homestarmy 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the hold be extended pending more detailed examination, or the article be removed from GA consideration altogether. A quick examination shows there are numerous spelling and grammar issues, as well as some NPOV problems, things that should not exist at all for a GA nominee. I'll do what I can to correct when I have some time, but the original editors should review for these before continuing with the nomination.

— Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at the article and there are too many copyedit issues that should be addressed before the GA nomination goes further. This is a compliment to the content — it looks good where NPOV doesn't intrude. I flagged the article so someone will take some time with the grammar, spelling and run-on sentences.

— Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I took another look at the article, and the concerns were still not addressed. It's been at least a week (a little over). Combined with the concerns given by other editors, I am removing this article from the Good article candidates list. Dr. Cash 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out for Sockpuppet Abuse

This article has been repeatedly tageted by the user:Prince Godfather and his sock puppets, he seems to have some WP:OWN issues with this article in particular. He reverted much of the copy editing that has been completed recently (revert). I have unpicked this. Please be extra vigalent to check that vandalism has not occured before editing this article. GameKeeper 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)