Wikipedia:Peer review/Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)/archive1

Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I and Kailash29792 wish to take it to FA. This film is noted for the performance of its lead actor and the international recognition it received. Constructive comments are most welcome. Thanks, — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} and Kailash29792 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick scroll-down I noticed this, "so much so that Tamil people identified Kattabomman with him". I think Kattabomman should be replaced with pronoun or "the film". - FrB.TG (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tamil people identified the real Kattabomman with Sivaji. It's like identifying Gandhi with Ben Kingsley. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! - FrB.TG (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Before I start my review, I want to clarify that I know absolutely nothing about this type of film and have never seen a Tamil-language film or even an Indian film for that matter so I apologize for any mistakes in advance:

You repeat the word "play" several times in the second paragraph of the "Origin" subsection. Please change for variety and to avoid repetition.
I am not sure the quote box in the "Origin" section is entirely necessary as I am not sure you necessarily need to use the entire quote for this article. You label the quote as the actor's inspiration to play the character, but this is cover only in the first two sentences and the rest of the quote box is his discussion of his other roles and what it means to be an actor. I feel that you should only use the first two lines as they are relevant to the article and maybe consider placing them in the actual text of the subsection rather than setting it aside as a quote box. However, this is a more stylistic choice and up to you.

I tool feel only the first few sentences of the quote are relevant to the article, and must be downgraded from a quote box to an inline quote. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the "Casting and filming" subsection reads a little awkwardly to me and I would suggest revision. There is a lot of information in that sentence and it may be beneficial to split that sentence into two to help an unfamiliar reader understand the ideas better.

If you are referring to the "Singapore Movie News" statement, it has been shifted to "Origin". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should puja be in italics?

As a non-English term which is not used so much in English like tsunami and samurai, I think it is best to remain italicised. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but my only concern is there are a lot of words in italics in this article and a majority of them are in italics to signify the title of a film or another project. I still do not believe you need to put this in italics, but I guess it is up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid putting your reference titles in all caps (such as Reference 27).

Done Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be careful about using too many quotes, especially in the "Critical reception" subsection. Remember it is encouraged that you paraphrase and only use quotes when the exact wording is important. I am definitely guilty of using quotes too much and I frequently get notes to scale back on my use of them so that is why I want to pass that along to you. You want to avoid making this section look like a quote farm, especially if you want to put this up for FAC sometime in the future.
I would consider adding some topic sentences to the second and third paragraphs of the same subsection to help organize the ideas for the reader. The second paragraph seems to focus on the film's impact on a Tamil audience and the third paragraph seems to about praise for the main actor.
I like the quote in the second paragraph of the "Accolades" subsection, but is there a way to interweave a little more into the article? Right now, it is just set aside by itself in a rather short paragraph, but it may be more beneficial to either find more information about this to add more context or find a better way of incorporating it into the article if that makes sense.

...or would it be best to merge the paragraphs? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the "Legacy" section sounds too informal to me, especially "took Ganesan's career to a higher level". Something about that phrase sounds a little informal.
Do you think it would be more beneficial to put the information about the re-releases under the release section so all of the information regarding the film's release is in one section?

Nope, I wouldn't go with that. Info on the 3D re-release of Sholay was made into a subsection under "Release", but was later shifted to the end of the article. I guess chronology matters. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Good job with the article. Let me know if you find my comments helpful. Also let me know when you take this to FAC, as I would be more than happy to provide more in-depth comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]