Talk:Kamal Haasan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall this is a good article, however I have the following concerns:

• Ref #28 (Kamal as we know him) isn't working right. I think the url just needs replacing because it got moved.✔
• In Ref #5, you have the url in place of the title mistakenly.✔
• The two non-lead images I question the value of. They're both fair use and seem to just show what he looks like in the movies. Either beef up the rationales on why they 'have' to be in the article or remove them.✔
• "Kamal Haasan made his film debut as a 4-year-old child artiste, in the film Kalathur Kannamma, which was released on 12 August 1959, directed by A. Bhimsingh." The punctuation and structure is rather odd here, reword.✔
• You only need to link a name once in the main text, and it should be the first mention. (for example, Rajinikanth is only linked on its second mention, and sridevi is linked three times)✔
• Each award win in the 70s-80s section (and technically throughout the article) should be cited.✔

I'm sorry to make excuses, but finding citations on Indian (and especially South Indian) film of the 1970s and 1980s is close to impossible, and we'll ahve to believe as much as we're given. Actually, even the Filmfare Awards (South India's answer to the Academy Awards) fail to give proper citations before the 1990s. I'll try hard though :) Universal Hero (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That I can understand. For some reason award citations in general are very hard to find. Most of the issues elsewhere are fixed so you have time to work on that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Rajinikanth had previously appeared in some of Kamal Haasan's previous films." the sentence sounds redundant with both previouses in the sentence.✔
• Is it K. Balachander or Balachandar? You use both.✔
• "Michael Madhana Kamarajan in 1991 saw Haasan go one step further, acting in four different roles as quadruplets, the film started an ongoing collabaration for comedy films between Haasan and Crazy Mohan, a dialogue writer." This should probably be two sentences, right now it's a run-on where I can't tell where to split.✔
• "as well as renewing his collobaration with Kasinadhuni Viswanath in his last Telugu language film till date, Subha Sankalpam." you mean to date?✔
• "His following film was Aalavandhan, where he portrayed two distinct roles, for one of which he had his head tonsured and gained ten kilograms" Tonsured's a term I've never heard before; is there a better term?✔ fyi Tonsure
• Try and find an outside editor to do a punctuation copyedit. I'm seeing many issues on that front, though I fixed some of them.

I'm going to put the article on hold for five days. When this is all fixed I'll give it another look over, if the above is not fixed then I'll fail it. It's a pretty good article, but it's a ways away yet from GA status. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on the rest of the awards to be cited, though progress so far is good. With the addition of the two public domain images, I'm now wondering if we need the fair use images at all; we have two of earlier in his career now, and three is actually quite good for a living person. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably, best to keep them in at the moment as the new two don't signify anything particularly extravagant in his career. Universal Hero (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the freeness of those two images though, so I'll ask around abotu that. If they're actually from a film as the description says then they're not free. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm requesting a 2nd opinion on the images for this article; namely, if the two non-leads that are claimed PD actually are such (they seem suspicious), and whether the two fair use images are actually necessary. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The two images, which were there earlier, do indicate significant projects in his career - also highlighting the versatility of the roles that Kamal Haasan has portrayed throughout his career. Other than those supicious images, is the article passable for a GA? Universal Hero (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, yes. Though the 2nd opinion may find extra issues to fix. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a second opinion yet and I have no clue when that will happen, I'll try an alternate approach. Let's remove one of the two fair use images and I'll pass the article. Personally I'd get rid of the one from the unfinished movie for pretty much that reason; not really that notable and significant to the article if the film hasn't finished. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I saw the request for a second opinion and thought I'd weigh in. I've only looked at the images and I don't claim to be an expert in the area, but I would say that the images that are tagged as non free likely fail WP:NFCC 3a (minimal use) and probably 8 (contextual significance) in that they do not appear to significantly add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Also, it's very difficult to come up with an acceptable fair use rationale for an image of a living person. I'm also curious as to how File:Kuttykamal.jpg and File:Kamalmgr.JPG are in the public domain since no information on the source is provided. From a brief look, I cannot see any significant issues with the content of the article, but if this was my review, I'd be uncomfortable listing it as a GA until the question marks on the images are resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, after giving it some thought, I came up with this. There are two free images in the article, and the second opinion above, as well as a couple other people I talked to, are finding the public domain note inconclusive. It's tough to say that it's the user's pic, but we have found nothing definitively noting it as a copyvio either. (With how old the pics are - created 2006, if I were to find a website with them, they could've just gotten them from this site) So as a result, I'm not going to worry about them. If they are later deleted, then they are later deleted. I have an FA that just had an image deleted due to an issue similar to this, so it happens. Since that is the only outstanding issue, I am going to pass this article, though be careful about image use in future articles you write. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, per [1] the two images are fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)