361:. I have looked at the article, and to these two criticisms I add that the review is completely unsatisfactory. There's one single sentence, littered with grammatical errors, there's a couple of edit summaries with various irrelevant and misspelled remarks and a couple of cusswords, and that's it. Since the proper procedure for a GA review wasn't followed at all I have no problem with simply removing the GA star: this was never a GA to begin with since there was never a proper GA review and so we don't have to reassess. Derevation, you should not be doing any more GA reviews.
317:. Two, note that the phrasing and grammar in that article are far beyond what this article has. And finally, look at the GA review for that article and compare it to the rather lame review you gave. Have you read through the GA criteria? Your review did not state how this article met those criteria, it was just a "Hey, looks fine" with any apparent attempt at a real review.
42:
387:
for your reply. I would in fact also suggest
Derevation to not nominate any articles as well for GA as of now. Today also they nominated a Hollywood film article which they hadn't even edited before nomination. And this isnt the first time such poor choice has been shown. They also have one quick
268:
a GA check that has this sort of thing as an explicit detail of one of the criteria? Since then, other editors have raised many concerns (via tagging) that seem like valid problems (and ones that someone with good knowledge of this article-genre and its associated guidelines would likely have
263:
The grammar is terrible in many places (quick glance finds non-sentences, missing articles, confusion between subject and object of a verb, etc.). These are all easy mistakes to make when writing, especially for non-native speakers. They are here
202:. Sounds very fishy to me. Also reminds me of some people who did such things on another TV show article last year. Does it also remind you of that? For now, please revert your all edits of passing this article. §§
295:. Really. Well, i had to face you all to know even such articles are passed. Oh sorry being too emotional. Well, it's ok to re-revise it ( notfor the filthy title, but the grammar!)
479:
552:
80:
564:
70:
166:
According to GA criteria, this article includes much sources and written in detailed manner, but still more reviews are left to pass it as a Good
Article
47:
480:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Qubool+Hai&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
358:
421:, mostly by references. The lede needs more words, and must be clear. There are too many primary source in Awards section. — Recently one user
198:. I do not consider you competent enough to review another article for GA. Here you write this reason to not pass the GA and then you go and
558:
403:
249:
217:
579:
126:
269:
recognized). No way this article should have passed GA. Looks like part of a pattern of this reviewer failing to do an acceptable job.
575:
450:
52:
156:
122:
454:
75:
292:
107:
500:
Curious as to why the name of the movie itself is italicized in some citations as if it were the work in the citation.
99:
504:
399:
245:
213:
388:
fail nomination on credit. This is simply wasting reviewer's time and giving bad history to the article. §§
542:
Both the article edit history and the article talk page history show evidence of instability at this time.
434:
418:
314:
324:
195:
150:
389:
350:
235:
203:
194:
Few days back you nominated a film article for GA which did not even have the plot section. See
533:
430:
426:
366:
274:
346:
318:
296:
229:
189:
167:
146:
115:
17:
516:
Due to Karan Singh Grover's presence, the show made a grand entry into Indian television.
353:) who suspects that the GA review itself was not on the level, but was rather than as a
589:
469:
284:
494:
505:
http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Qubool_Hai
382:
362:
342:
270:
475:
The grammar is terrible, as noted already by multiple different editors, above.
288:
92:
584:
514:
Concerns about promotional nature, especially with this sort of language
528:
sect. The lede intro sect fails to fairly represent all perspectives of
453:. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2015, compares against the
593:
438:
408:
370:
330:
308:
278:
254:
222:
179:
160:
478:
Copyvio
Detector shows copyvio problems with at least one source, at
417:
Many problems with this; Too many references for a short commentry.
503:
At least fifty (50) links in citations have problems, as shown at
578:. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it
349:
who do not believe this article is at GA status, and one editor (
429:. So i suggest a quick fail as needs more hard work on this.
518:-- it's likely not all critical viewpoints are covered here.
359:
Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#2nd_opinion_request
287:. Ah, plus i have even, even saw G.A articles of the show
422:
199:
134:
103:
285:
is not ad, hoax or neither has filthy abusive content
574:
When these issues are addressed, the article can be
497:, upon spotcheck, such as Oneindia.in, Dailybhaskar.
567:- at least two fields are missing on image page.
553:File:Surbhi Jyoti at Television Style Awards.jpg
472:, it is not an adequate summary of the article.
8:
565:File:Qubool Hai 17th Break Bumper Poster.png
561:- tagged with problem issue on image page.
555:- tagged with problem issue on image page.
30:
234:So are you going to revert it or not? §§
357:. (Ravensfire also started a thread at
61:
33:
524:Significant concerns about POV in the
582:. Thank you for your work so far.— —
493:Not sure if some of the sources fail
7:
559:File:Imran Khan and Surbhi Jyoti.jpg
196:Talk:Singh_Is_Bliing#GA_nom_reverted
24:
445:Failed "good article" nomination
1:
293:Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut
594:09:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
449:This article has failed its
439:12:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
409:18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
371:14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
331:13:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
309:08:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
283:Oh Hey all. This article is
279:06:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
255:12:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
223:08:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
180:06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
161:06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
609:
522:4. Neutral point of view?:
468:The lede intro sect fails
341:We have two editors here (
455:six good article criteria
315:Knowledge is not censored
451:Good article nomination
512:3. Broad in coverage?:
425:that was removed by
532:type info, failing
530:Critical response
462:1. Well written?:
423:re-added material
407:
253:
221:
89:
88:
600:
427:User:Digvijay411
397:
386:
327:
306:
301:
243:
233:
211:
193:
177:
172:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
608:
607:
603:
602:
601:
599:
598:
597:
487:2. Verifiable?:
447:
380:
325:
313:One, note that
302:
297:
291:of the episode
227:
187:
173:
168:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Qubool Hai
12:
11:
5:
606:
604:
571:
569:
568:
562:
556:
549:
548:
543:
537:
519:
508:
507:
501:
498:
490:
489:
483:
482:
476:
473:
465:
464:
446:
443:
442:
441:
419:wp:overlinking
414:
413:
412:
411:
392:Dharmadhyaksha
374:
373:
351:Dharmadhyaksha
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
238:Dharmadhyaksha
206:Dharmadhyaksha
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
605:
596:
595:
591:
587:
586:
581:
577:
572:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
551:
550:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
531:
527:
526:Controversies
523:
520:
517:
513:
510:
509:
506:
502:
499:
496:
492:
491:
488:
485:
484:
481:
477:
474:
471:
467:
466:
463:
460:
459:
458:
456:
452:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
410:
405:
401:
395:
394:
393:
384:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
332:
328:
322:
321:
316:
312:
311:
310:
307:
305:
300:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
267:
262:
256:
251:
247:
241:
240:
239:
231:
226:
225:
224:
219:
215:
209:
208:
207:
201:
200:pass it as GA
197:
191:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
176:
171:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
583:
573:
570:
545:
539:
529:
525:
521:
515:
511:
486:
461:
448:
391:
390:
355:quid pro quo
354:
319:
303:
298:
265:
237:
236:
205:
204:
174:
169:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
576:renominated
546:6. Images?:
540:5. Stable?:
431:Jimmy Aneja
104:visual edit
580:reassessed
534:WP:MOSFILM
347:Ravensfire
320:Ravensfire
289:South Park
230:Derevation
190:Derevation
147:Derevation
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
157:contribs
76:Criteria
470:WP:LEAD
379:Thanks
127:history
108:history
94:Article
383:Drmies
363:Drmies
343:DMacks
304:vation
271:DMacks
175:vation
495:WP:RS
404:Edits
266:after
250:Edits
218:Edits
136:Watch
16:<
590:talk
585:Cirt
435:talk
400:Talk
367:talk
345:and
326:talk
299:Dere
275:talk
246:Talk
214:Talk
170:Dere
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
396:§§
242:§§
210:§§
592:)
457::
437:)
402:/
369:)
329:)
277:)
248:/
216:/
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
588:(
536:.
433:(
406:}
398:{
385::
381:@
365:(
323:(
273:(
252:}
244:{
232::
228:@
220:}
212:{
192::
188:@
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.