Talk:Dhaam Dhoom

This movie is an ADAPTATION of English movie

This Dhaam Dhoom movie is an ADAPTATION of "RED CORNER" movie.Added with some masala in Tamil version to satisfy South Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajivkannan (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dhaam Dhoom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I know very little about Bollywood movies, but I'll make a few comments, since this article is backlogged.

• The references need to be checked and improved. For example, the very first link is broken. Also, refer back to the Wikipedia:Citation templates and make sure your references are faithful to the templates. For example (again), the accessdate is in the 00-00-0000 form.

• This article needs a thorough copyedit. Much of the language is stilted and has tone problems.

• The improvements suggested in the numerous tags need to be made before this article can be promoted. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Further review

• Since the reviewer above did not marked this page as under review and stated that these are "a few comments", I'm not sure that this is a full review. I will add my review and place the nomination on hold.

1. The image in the "plot" section cannot be used under fair use terms, as the image is not discussed. A fair use image cannot simply be used as illustration.
2. The fair use rationale for the poster is incomplete, and the purpose of use needs a better explanation.
3. Some of the sentences in the "characters" section are complete, while others are not. The section should also be referenced for consistency with other film articles.
4. The "soundtrack" section says that the soundtrack was praised, but it gives no detail. Can information from the reviews be added (including quotations)?
5. The table for the soundtrack is also awkward, as the word under "length" is cut off.
6. Reference 8 and references 12-17 don't have publishers listed.
7. References 14 and 15 are the same and can be combined. The link is dead, however (as is reference 1).
8. There is a comment on the talk page (about this movie being a remake of Red Corner) that should be addressed if it is true.
9. One of the biggest problems, however, is the quality of the prose. It needs to be copyediting by someone with a strong grasp of English grammar. Other problems to look for include point of view ("Fortunately"), unnecessary filler ("Suddenly the whole world around Gautham changes in a flash."), and various other issues. For example, "He gets abused (by whom?), accused (of what?) and is jailed (perhaps not the best word choice, as it seems informal) by the cops (slang)."

I will place this nomination on hold for one week to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If this can be accomplished, I will look through the article again to find any remaining issues. Any questions and/or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all the points above. Thanks. Universal Hero (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Although some of the symptoms have been fixed, the underlying problem of weak prose remains. As I mentioned, it need a complete copyedit by someone with a strong grasp of English. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is being done to improve the prose issues. The initial reviewer stated 12 days ago that the article needs a thorough copyedit. I repeated that statement twice, and no effort has been made to fix this. The issues also remain with both images. I am failing the nomination at this time due to lack of progress. I urge the editor(s) involved to use the concerns brought up in this review as a guide to future improvements that need to be made to reach GA status. If you feel that the review is in error, you are free to list it at WP:GAR. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

The reference to Moscow Airport needs to be disambiguated. I would do it myself, but I am unfamiliar with the film. - Canglesea (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dhaam Dhoom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is very poorly written and does not approach the criteria of "reasonably well written."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have fixed some disambiguations, please check that the correct targets have been chose, especially Moscow Airport (there are five possibilities}

   I have fixed some and tagged three dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS

   Behindwoods is not a reliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article seems rather underdeveloped, with cursory details of production and release. Suggest that you study WP:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very poorly written, a long way away from GA standard. The issues raised at the last GA review have not been addressed. Suggest that you study the good article criteria before submitting again. Fail GA nomination. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dhaam Dhoom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080903175142/http://www.behindwoods.com:80/tamil-movies-slide-shows/movie-2/top-ten-movies/tamil-cinema-topten-movie-dhaam.html to http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movies-slide-shows/movie-2/top-ten-movies/tamil-cinema-topten-movie-dhaam.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080903175142/http://www.behindwoods.com:80/tamil-movies-slide-shows/movie-2/top-ten-movies/tamil-cinema-topten-movie-dhaam.html to http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movies-slide-shows/movie-2/top-ten-movies/tamil-cinema-topten-movie-dhaam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)