Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article for possible Good Article status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 18:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-11T18:28:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:28:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":[]}}-->

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC) This article is kind of massive, this Review might take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-11T18:49:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:49:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":[]}}-->

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I am a little put off by the usage of so many tables, but I need to delve into the GA parameters for this type of content to make sure it isn't just my personal preferences on this issue. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-GA_Review","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","c-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","c-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-1"]}}-->

   I am still uncertain about the article's present style, especially all the tables...are they really necessary? I try to be very careful about imposing my own personal preferences onto other editors' work in the matter of GA Reviews, but I need to keep on considering this particular GA criterion and am not willing to give 1b a Yes at this time. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z"]}}-->

   The above 1b issues have been resolved. Shearonink (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

2. 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:

   Endemolindia has changed its URL - please fix the website URL. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-1"]}}-->

   Ref #10's URL needs to be updated. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

   The referencing issues have all been resolved. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-1","replies":[]}}-->

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Interesting stuff - I think many readers will not realize how huge The Voice is all over the world. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Even though the images in the judges' gallery are relevant - since they are photos of the judges - the size of the gallery within the text/content is visually jarring. Also it seems to me that having a gallery of photos of the judges is unnecessary since they are all Wikilinked in the infobox and elsewhere in the text anyway. Shearonink (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-1","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-1"]}}-->

   With the downsizing of the judges gallery, this issue has been resolved to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-12T20:31:00.000Z-1","replies":[]}}-->

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

"leading Bollywood singers" is a phrase that appears twice in the article and is also used in the Endemol India announcement. Please recraft/adjust the term to similar wording/meaning. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z-phrase","replies":["c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-13T07:33:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","c-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

@Shearonink: I've updated the article. I've also addressed some of your said issues. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 07:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-13T07:33:00.000Z","author":"Mr. Smart LION","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-13T07:33:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-13T08:58:00.000Z-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-13T07:33:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Mr. Smart \u2112ION"}}-->

And as for the images in the Coaches gallery, they seem OK to me. It's OK that the names of the coaches are wiki linked in the infobox and elsewhere in the text, but if the readers don't want to click on their link, then what? I think no reader would be interested in going through the coaches' artilces. So in my opinion, they are alright. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 08:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-13T08:58:00.000Z","author":"Mr. Smart LION","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-13T08:58:00.000Z-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-13T07:33:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Mr. Smart \u2112ION"}}-->

@Mr. Smart LION:

• Per WP:IG, "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." I am not sure that they do, but I am going to think about it and get back to you on this later. I do think that the gallery would look better if the images were all on one line. Perhaps see what they would look like using Template:Gallery or Template:Multiple image. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-11T18:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you for adjusting the size of the gallery down so it doesn't take up as much space visually Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The following tables/sections are unreferenced:

• Timeline of coaches and hosts
• Coaches' teams
• Series overview

The following section needs more referencing:

• Format - 4-5 paragraphs, 2 paragraphs have no references

Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z-Unreferenced_sections\/tables","replies":[]}}-->

There is too much Wikilinking within the article, I noticed it especially with the names of the judges. Neet Mohan, for instance, is Wikilinked 7 times, Salim Merchant is Wikilinked 6 times, and so on. Some of the redundant linking needs to go.

• Per MOS:DUPLINK: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z-Overlinking","replies":["c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-14T13:36:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z"]}}-->

 Done I've corrected all the above said issues. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-14T13:36:00.000Z","author":"Mr. Smart LION","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-14T13:36:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-13T20:35:00.000Z","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-14T13:36:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Mr. Smart \u2112ION"}}-->

@Mr. Smart LION: Thank you. I appreciate your being willing to work on this article per my suggestions above. I am going to do some more readthroughs and take a look at similar articles per the present style of so many tables - just because "I don't like it" isn't a good enough reason not to pass this article to GA status but the Review will stay On Hold pending some further work on my part. Shearonink (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-14T16:41:00.000Z-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-14T13:36:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Did another read-through and found the following:

• word-choice: Currently, the series is running its second season. Everyone on the judging panel has been replaced, except Shaan in the season. Should be: Currently, the series is running its second season. Everyone on the judging panel has been replaced, except for Shaan or ...except Shaan
• Spelling: and developed by their coach inn the second stage... inn->in
• and in 2013, the Indian version of the show was launched on &TV. In April 2015, The Hollywood Reporter reported that &TV would broadcast The Voice in June 2015. Is this correct? The news was announced in 2013 but then announced again in 2015?
• The show had seen 60 local productions in over 180 countries. Should be: had seen-> had been seen
• Sunidhi Chauhan flaunted a dress worth ₹0.3 million (US$4,500) The word-choice here is slightly odd. Maybe it should be "wore".
• The amount of white-space around the "Timeline of coaches and hosts" and "Coaches' teams" tables is visually jarring within the article's main text. Please see if you can adjust them to perhaps have less white-space around them...maybe be more horizontal than vertical.

I will be able to finish the Review when the above is dealt with or discussed further. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-15T17:46:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-15T17:46:00.000Z-Some_other_issues","replies":["c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-16T09:50:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-15T17:46:00.000Z"]}}-->

 Done I've solved all the above said issues. I've also removed two tables from the article as the information that was present in those tables is also mentioned in infobox and text anywhere. So now the article is left with only three tables. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-16T09:50:00.000Z","author":"Mr. Smart LION","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-16T09:50:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-15T17:46:00.000Z","replies":["c-Shearonink-2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-16T09:50:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Mr. Smart \u2112ION"}}-->

Thank you. It's been a pleasure working with you as your partner on this article's GA Review... Congratulations. Shearonink (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z","author":"Shearonink","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Shearonink-2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-16T09:50:00.000Z","replies":["c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-17T06:50:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z"]}}-->

Same to you! Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-01-17T06:50:00.000Z","author":"Mr. Smart LION","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Mr._Smart_LION-2017-01-17T06:50:00.000Z-Shearonink-2017-01-16T17:09:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Mr. Smart \u2112ION"}}-->