# Talk:Mujhse Shaadi Karogi

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mujhse Shaadi Karogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=312&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU=
Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=210&catName=MjAwNA==
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mujhse Shaadi Karogi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pavanjandhyala (talk · contribs) 13:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail:  Made some minor fixes myself. Good work by the nominator and the copyeditor. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hindustan Times --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)