Talk:Santosh (2024 film)/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Taking this as part of the GAN Backlog Drive. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Criteria 1

There are quite a few writing issues, more than I would expect for an article that is nominated for GA. I have not done a full breakdown here as my recommendation is that the article go through significant expansion first. I do have a couple specific things I noticed though:

• The infobox has a bunch of details that are not sourced in the body of the article, some things can be infobox only but still need sources.
• There may be some undue weight being applied in the cases of many "production companies", multiple distribution companies and release dates, etc. Please ensure you have read the documentation at Template:Infobox film and the guidelines at MOS:FILM.
• Either the Accolades section should be a subsection of Reception or the "Critical response" heading should be removed, a section should not have a single subsection like that.
• The Accolades table includes things that are not actual awards (i.e. an accolade that the film was nominated for and/or won); being named on a top list or being shortlisted for potential nomination can be presented in prose, except where discouraged by MOS:FILMCRITICLIST.

Criteria 2

No copyvio concerns at the moment, a few source issues raised by Link Dispenser tool. There are also some duplicate references.

Criteria 3

This is the biggest issue, currently I feel that we only have the bare minimum of coverage. For a film article at GA level, I would expect more details on the production and a bigger reception section, especially for a film that has received such praise and accolades. The casting section is also too small, if there are genuinely only three noteworthy cast members in the film then they should be presented in a different way as having a whole section dedicated to three names with no other details feels ridiculous. A quick Google shows that there are plenty of sources available covering interviews with the cast and crew, plus plenty more reviews that could be used.

Review status

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@RFNirmala: Unfortunately I have to fail this review, as I do not believe it is close enough to meeting all the criteria and it would be unreasonable to try solve that through the standard review process. I have left some feedback above for things that could be improved. I see that you did a Peer review for the article before nominating for GA, which is great, but unfortunately you did not get much feedback on that so the article did not benefit much. My recommendation is to work through my feedback, particularly the suggestions for expanding the article. You can look to other and level film articles as guides for what this one should look like, and definitely read through the guidance at MOS:FILM. Once you are confident that my concerns have been addressed, I would recommend that you request a copy editor to ensure the prose is up to a level appropriate for GA. Then you should be able to nominate the article again and hopefully be more successful. Good luck! - adamstom97 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

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.