Talk:Soha Ali Khan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 18:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

At approximately 550 words of prose including the WP:LEAD (approximately 400 excluding it), this is a very short article.
Why is this article in Category:Actresses from Mumbai?
The article switches between referring to its subject as "Soha", "Khan", and "Pataudi".
This needs substantial copyediting.
I don't see a strong reason to include all three images. The one in the infobox is fine, but the two in the body add very little. They are not particularly high-quality images in terms of lighting, sharpness, composition, and so on.
The images present a MOS:SANDWICH issue.

Lead[edit]

who has worked in Hindi, Bengali and English films – I would write "English-language" (i.e. not made in England but made in English) and link English language.
younger sister of actor Saif Ali Khan – no reason to link actor, and even if there were it should have been linked at the first occurrence of "actress".
best known for – this needs a source.
She won Global Indian Film Awards, International Indian Film Academy Awards, Bengal Film Journalists' Association Awards for her performance – why the italics? For that matter, did she win multiple of each?
for her performance in the movie Rang De Basanti. – clunky. The film is named in the preceding sentence.
She was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress for the same movie. – again, clunky. And again, why the italics?
she authored a book The Perils of Being Moderately Famous – grammar.
that won Crossword Book Award in 2018. – grammar. And why the italics?

Early life[edit]

This entire section is pretty much all genealogy. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's also pretty difficult to follow without a family tree.
was born [...] to the Pataudi family – odd phrasing.
to the Pataudi family as the Nawab of Pataudis – what?
Hailing from the Pashtun ancestry – grammar.
Both her father Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi – already linked in the preceding sentence.
were former captains – "were former" is rather clunky.
the mutawalli of Auqaf-e-Shahi – meaning what?
The late – unencyclopedic phrasing.
The late major general of Pakistan, Sher Ali Khan Pataudi, is her great-granduncle – "the late" and "is" are contradictory.

Education[edit]

This section consists of a single sentence. It should either be expanded or incorporated elsewhere.

Personal life[edit]

She gave birth to their daughter, Inaaya Naumi Khemu on 29 September 2017. – is there a strong reason to provide the name of a non-notable minor here? WP:BLPNAME says The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. with an explanatory note that says This is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor.

Career[edit]

This section is very thin. It barely goes beyond listing works. Where it does present additional information, it ends up taking up almost half the section for a single work (Soundproof).
at the premiere Of – stray capitalization.
http://www.starplus.in/pages/index.php?s=Godrej%20Khelo%20Jeeto%20Jiyo&showid=29&pid=727 is a dead link, and from what I can gather it's a link to a streaming service? That doesn't strike me as an appropriate source.

Filmography[edit]

Separate language into its own column rather than including it in the "notes" column.

Publications[edit]

This section should be at the end (i.e. immediately preceding the "See also" section), per MOS:LAYOUTWORKS.
Including the award here is inappropriate.

Awards and nominations[edit]

With such a low number of awards and nominations as this, Template:Infobox actor awards is unnecessary.
The totals do not match the table. I count four wins, not six.
https://movieetalks.com/soha-ali-khan/ looks a lot like it plagiarised this Wikipedia article. That makes it a non-reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR.

Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See my comments above.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
See my comments above.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
See my comments above.

C. It contains no original research:
See my comments above.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction. Because the article will need to be extensively rewritten before it can be promoted to WP:Good article status, I have not checked for WP:Close paraphrasing at this point.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
This is basically a genealogy and a resume, with scant information beyond that.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The genealogy is a clear instance of not staying focused on the topic.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No obvious neutrality issues, but there is so little information that it's a bit difficult to tell.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All media are public domain or use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
See my comments above.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

@Twinkle1990: I'm closing this as unsuccessful. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.