Talk:Kuch Kuch Hota Hai/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pks1142 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refrences
When I first looked at the article, I got my eyes on the references (very badly styled). Publisher names are missing from several references.
Why 'The Times of India and other print media are not italicized at some places (but are italicized at many places). Also, they are not consistent. For example, source 11 says Times of India and at several places, it says The Times of India.
What makes TagsUp, Traiblazer tours, VisitBritain, Awards and Shows, a reliable sources?
The Box Offfice India names are not conistent either. In 33, it is mentioned as BoxOfficeIndia.Com while in 34, it is mentioned as Boxofficeindia.com . Be consistent with names.
No linking of publishers name at first occurances. Why? Prashant talk 21:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four of these five points can be answerd by reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, where it says:

Mistakes to avoid - Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)

(but I fixed some of them anyway) I will look into the mentioned sources soon. BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the budget because I could not find a good source, and replaced most other problem sources, except on the Zee Cine and Star Screen awards, where I added an additional source. Are you contesting this information and asking me to remove all the awards there? BollyJeff | talk 02:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article
Filmed in India, Mauritius, and Scotland, this was Karan Johar's directorial debut, and he wanted to set a new level for style in Hindi cinema.

What does it mean? Looks incomplete.

Years after its release, it still makes appearances on Indian television and has achieved a "must watch" status. Tweak it for encyclopedic reading.
DDLJ --> Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge.
Karan Johar knew who he wanted to cast in the lead roles, having observed Khan and Kajol during the making of DDLJ. What? He knew.....(WP is not a blog). Something like he was assured to whom he'll cast (something like that).
The crew was young and inexperienced to the point where Shah Rukh Khan had to explain basic technicalities of filming. Crew was young? Is this a Wikipedia article?

No need for the condescending tone. The source, a published book, says: "The crew was young and raw". BollyJeff | talk 18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A symbol of the iconic status of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai was confirmed when Farah Khan and Boman Irani re-created a scene and characters from the film for posters to promote their 2012 film Shirin Farhad Ki Toh Nikal Padi. What confirmed? It is one of the best iconic examples. Also, Shirin.....has a whole song (along with posters) in which they portrayed KKHH characters. Correct it.

Done Most of the above is completed now, but if the book says the crew was young, then I suppose they were. BollyJeff | talk 00:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: The article meets GA criteria.Prashant talk 17:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The article used simple language and is good enough to pass the criteria. So, no need to stretch the review. Passing it as the article meets all GA criteria.Prashant talk 04:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]