A quick glance at the article reveals that a lot needs to be done before the article could be rated GA.
The lead lists her name only in
Kannada/
Tulu script. However, Aishwarya Rai was brought up in
Mumbai and most of her films were in the
Hindi language. Hence, it might be necessary to give her name in the
Devanagari script also.
According to the
manual of style, the lead should completely summarize the article. However, most of the lead section speaks only about Aishwarya Rai's film career. There is practically nothing mentioned about her modelling assignments, social work or personal life.
I observe that some of your friends have been simultaneously editing this article even as the review is going on. Now, reversion of edits made to the article as part of the GA-review process might clearly constitute edit warring. Hence, I insist that the concerned user initiate discussions in this review page before making such edits. Else, it might be considered a violation of
rule 5 of the GAC and affect the article's chances of passing this review.-
The EnforcerOffice of the secret service03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
The section "Early life" is extremely small. It could probably be expanded or merged with some other section in the article.
I feel that a new section called "Modelling Career" could be created and the stuff in "Miss World" section could be moved there. Also more weightage should be given to Aish's modelling career; there should atleast be a list of products she has modelled for.
The nominator might care to check some of the sources used. The sites liveindia, angelfire, bollywoodhungama, boxofficemojo, newsofap, chitramala,businessofcinema, behindwoods, nowrunning and ibosnetwork don't appear reliable to me. I shall begin a detailed review once these issues are fixed. -
The EnforcerOffice of the secret service03:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)reply
I was trying to help the nominator meet your demands. Unfortunately another editor disagreed with some of my additions. But then you, as the reviewer, made some additions to the lead that were simply not accurate or represented in the rest of the article, which led to more reverts. It seems harsh to fail the article on stability, when you caused some of the instability with your own edits.
BollyJeff||talk17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
I guess the same is applicable to good article reviews, too. I only edited the article as a part of the good article review process which I feel is perfectly permissible. However, I noticed that there were many who were making edits without any prior discussion in the GA-review.-
The EnforcerOffice of the secret service04:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Images:
Overall: I may have to fail this article now. I'd rather suggest that the nominator sort out his/her disputes with other editors before nominating it. This article has been changing drastically day-by-day that it may not be possible for me to pass this one. It may also be better to go for a peer review before nominating this article as there is still a lot of work to done in it. -
The EnforcerOffice of the secret service03:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply