Talk:Eurekha!
 | Eurekha! has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 8, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Her response to it
[edit]Here. Shahid • Talk2me 09:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Eurekha!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PinkElixir (talk · contribs) 19:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I will take on this review in the coming 2-3 days. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The prose, spelling, and grammar is acceptable and I made some wording-related edits myself in the course of the review. The article generally follows MoS for word choice, lead, layout, etc. I am concerned with the "Summary" section. Firstly, it seems to only supply very limited information (which I understand is the byproduct of the book being out of print.) The information that has been provided is heavily focused on her affairs, and I'm concerned about any potential WP:BLP violations here (both in discussing Rekha and the alleged abusers - allegations of abuse constitute criminal allegations). The reference to Hitler also seems somewhat inciting, and I can imagine it might be taken controversially. Of course, the goal of WP is not to overly protect feelings, but I think given the near unanimous censure of Hitler in society, a reference to him should be used with much caution (maybe WP:CIVIL is applicable to this point?)
- I have make the sentence as shorter as I can and remove unnecessary details like the trivial ones. I will just write what is really important here like her acting career and her marriage. I also mentioned that the thirteenth chapter of the book is available on Deep's website, but what do you think if I add some summary there like "that investigates her alleged relationship with Amitabh Bachchan" or just make it like that? Besides, I think the information about why Deep wrote this book should be mentioned too since it's important enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)
- @Nicholas Michael Halim: Yes, the amount of information there now is reasonable. PinkElixir (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have make the sentence as shorter as I can and remove unnecessary details like the trivial ones. I will just write what is really important here like her acting career and her marriage. I also mentioned that the thirteenth chapter of the book is available on Deep's website, but what do you think if I add some summary there like "that investigates her alleged relationship with Amitabh Bachchan" or just make it like that? Besides, I think the information about why Deep wrote this book should be mentioned too since it's important enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)
- The prose, spelling, and grammar is acceptable and I made some wording-related edits myself in the course of the review. The article generally follows MoS for word choice, lead, layout, etc. I am concerned with the "Summary" section. Firstly, it seems to only supply very limited information (which I understand is the byproduct of the book being out of print.) The information that has been provided is heavily focused on her affairs, and I'm concerned about any potential WP:BLP violations here (both in discussing Rekha and the alleged abusers - allegations of abuse constitute criminal allegations). The reference to Hitler also seems somewhat inciting, and I can imagine it might be taken controversially. Of course, the goal of WP is not to overly protect feelings, but I think given the near unanimous censure of Hitler in society, a reference to him should be used with much caution (maybe WP:CIVIL is applicable to this point?)
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- The article has a References and Sources section that contains WP:RS. Since the book is out of print, I am unable to verify the information in the Summary section, which, for reasons outlined in the above section, I am hesitant about.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
-
- Given the sparsity of information in the Summary section, it feels the Development and release and Critical reception sections are inordinately broad in their coverage. In addition, the Development and release section reads more about the author, Deep, than the book itself. I have tried to remove some information which felt too tangential to the topic, but I encourage you to play around with it further; I did not want to overstep my bounds in making significant edits to your hard work and efforts here.
- The critical reviews of the book are provided by Deep himself on his website, both positive and negative. I have re-added the sentence you removed before, about why he wrote this book on a living person. I think this is reasonable since sources are provided, and it mostly talks about the book (not his previous ones because if so I will not added that). —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Nicholas Michael Halim: The section is much more concise and reasonable in its coverage now! PinkElixir (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- The critical reviews of the book are provided by Deep himself on his website, both positive and negative. I have re-added the sentence you removed before, about why he wrote this book on a living person. I think this is reasonable since sources are provided, and it mostly talks about the book (not his previous ones because if so I will not added that). —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Given the sparsity of information in the Summary section, it feels the Development and release and Critical reception sections are inordinately broad in their coverage. In addition, the Development and release section reads more about the author, Deep, than the book itself. I have tried to remove some information which felt too tangential to the topic, but I encourage you to play around with it further; I did not want to overstep my bounds in making significant edits to your hard work and efforts here.
-
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article follows WP:NPOV. The critical reception section especially highlights both negative and positive reviews without editorial bias.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- There is no indication of edit wars in the edit history or on the article talk page.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- The image of the book cover falls within fair use guidelines and is of course relevant to the article topic.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I am not ready to pass this article. Would you want to ask for a second set of eyes on this article/review? I am mostly concerned with the 'Summary' section here, and perhaps a third-party opinion from a GAN perspective could offer ideas or solutions on how to improve the page quality given the lack of access to the book itself. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @PinkElixir: This is the best I can do for now. Please check it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hello @Nicholas Michael Halim: apologies for the slight delay. Thanks for your work on this article! I am comfortable passing it now. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @PinkElixir: This is the best I can do for now. Please check it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- I am not ready to pass this article. Would you want to ask for a second set of eyes on this article/review? I am mostly concerned with the 'Summary' section here, and perhaps a third-party opinion from a GAN perspective could offer ideas or solutions on how to improve the page quality given the lack of access to the book itself. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
