Talk:R. Madhavan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the R. Madhavan article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	R. Madhavan has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Needs more references. The lead come use some improvement. Remember it has to stand on its own and summarize the whole article. Trivia sections are not recommended anymore. Try to include it in the rest of the article. Is the Noted Roles section really necessary? Maybe you can talk about the roles in Film Career. Again, these are just some comments. If you want a review, please use the peer review process. Nat91 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Contents 1 Assessment comments 2 R. Madhavan 3 Well Done 4 Template 5 Speedy delete 6 Neutrality? 7 Not Priority "Top" for WikiProject Biography 8 Incomplete FAC nom 9 Auto Peer Review 10 Good article review 11 Watch out for Sockpuppet Abuse 12 Spurious/Incorrect citations and references 13 GA Nomination 14 Second GA Review [edit] Assessment comments It has loads of information and the list is comprehensive. However, early life section needs to be expanded, and the film career has to be polished so that it doesn't look like a summary of the list. The noted roles section is contentious and may not be approved by the community in current form as it may be considered POV. Try bringing in the gross sales figures or relevant award nominations for those movies to prove that those roles are noted. Cheers -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 22:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC) [edit] R. Madhavan The article has all the key features and opefully it will become Indian cinema's second featured article. Prince Godfather 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (edit) WikiProject Indian cinema (Rated GA-Class) 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. WikiProject India (Rated GA-Class) 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. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup. This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup. This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup. 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. WikiProject Animal rights (Rated GA-Class) R. Madhavan is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale Low rated as low-importance on the assessment scale
This article has an assessment summary page.

[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)

[edit] Spurious/Incorrect citations and references

I noticed that many of the citations referenced to the same links, but the article titles had been changed to make it appear as if the references where on-topic and different. Also, a number of the "correct" citations had incorrect information (such as titles and dates). I'm not sure how (or why) this happened, but I've removed quite a few of the erroneous and spurious references (but not all) and replaced them with {{fact}} tags. I've also added a "citations needed" tag to the whole article.

If the copy is correct, then citations are needed to replace the erroneous ones ASAP. —  Jim Dunning  talk  :  12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've done it. Universal Hero 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

This article has been quick-failed for various reasons including those noted in the nomination. Biographies for living people should include an image. Additionally, almost half of the article lacks citation. Random wikification of stand-alone years and the wikification of month/year combos needs to be removed. The prose could be improved in places, for example, the first paragraph of the lead could be better worded. Lastly, an article should be thoroughly copyedited to ensure there are no typos or misspellings before an article is nominated for GA.

Once the article is improved to meet the standards listed at WP:WIAGA, the article may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you do not agree with this review, you make seek remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, Lara♥Love 14:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second GA Review

The article now meets the Good Article criteria, and will be listed. The article still needs an image for the infobox, but this is not explicitly part of the GA criteria. It should be done at some point in the near future, however. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)