Well written, no spelling or grammatical issues. However, the lead should summarize all parts of the article. Currently it doesn't summarize his early life, and his early career.
No copyright vio detected by Earwig. It has a properly formatted references section and all references are properly formatted. The article does rely on
WP:SPS, most of which is appropriate. However, I'm concerned about this claim, which is sourced back to Usman himself being presented as fact: "Following the publication, Usman received handwritten letters and emails from Khanna's fans, saying that they were surprised about Khanna's loneliness, motivating him to research other popular film stars' lives." Either we find independent secondary sources to verify this claim or we attribute it to Usman himself. We should not pass an author's self-praise off in wikipedia's voice.
The article appears neutral. One concern I have is that the reactions to each of his books in this article are positive and shallow, making this article read almost like a promotion for the author. I think this will be resolved when more detailed reviews are included in the article, some of which hopefully go beyond simple praise and analyze his works more deeply.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
@
Nicholas Michael Halim: Thanks! Do you think the article could benefit from an image or two of Usman's books? VRtalk 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Vice regent: I think it's unnecessary. All the cover images are in copyright and should be placed only in one article, which is about the book the cover belongs to; I read the policy somewhere but I forgot the exact. —
Nicholas Michael Halim (
talk) 00:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Ok, GA passed. Congratulations.VRtalk 16:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply