Talk:Bommarillu/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Assessment/Review being conducted by Ncmvocalist

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  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:


Ncmvocalist 09:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At this stage, I am inclined to put this article on hold. Images do not have fair use rationale. After this, there are many improvements that can be made to the prose, and this is a major factor for GAs. I will endeavour to give more details once I put it on hold. Ncmvocalist 12:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair-use rationales + Prose

Have been provided appropriately to the images in the article. Looking forward to hear about your details while I look into improving the prose. Regards, Mspraveen 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The prose has been reviewed, corrected and reworded at many places. Please keep the article posted on what areas of prose it still needs to improve on. I hope the issue of images rationale has been resolved. Regards, Mspraveen 04:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, but, the prose can still be improved in some other areas. I'll pose some of these areas as questions due to time constraints.
The first sentence for example has "his first film" sitting out of place with the rest of the sentence. What role do the prominent actors from South (capitalise it) India play? Significant role - i.e. ??
"The film sees a baby taking it's first steps"? Sees? "However, with Arvind's final say" (comma) "they eventually get engaged" The rest of the plot section seems to be good. Will continue soon (but going over the rest again wouldn't hurt)...Ncmvocalist 11:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Corrected the pointed aspects...I did a further review and corrected a few more that appeared to me. However, will wait for a second perspective! :) Thanks and regards, Mspraveen 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. Congratulations!! Apologies for the lack of detail in the reviewing, and for the vague concerns I gave regarding why it appeared to fail on those two areas. You seemed to have tackled them well - great work! Ncmvocalist 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)