Talk:Don 2/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 04:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Starting the Review. Will post comments and problem soon. ASHU^IND 04:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Failing the GA Due to absurd behavior from the contributors of the article and their wish to Fail the GA Review. Wishing good faith luck for next time nomination.

Problems

• Remove all the links regarding Don (character) since they are simply redirecting to the original Don film. ASHU^IND 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Lead Section

Please mention the two Filmfares won by the film. Its necessary. ASHU^IND 11:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Added Filmfare best sound design and best action to the lead.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dead links found and tagged.ASHU^IND 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• concerning this edit. I have no idea why IndiaToday.com links give a soft 404 in the Checklinks Tool. However, if you would check them yourself, they're working just fine.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Soundtrack

The sound track is too small to be called as a section. Just two lines are not sufficient to make readers aware of the soundtrack info. Add more info regarding reception and some background too.ASHU^IND 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Box Office Gross

When you are saying in the article everything about overseas even about reception, then you should find the correct amount regarding total gross worldwide.ASHU^IND 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem regarding the worldwide gross is not in the overseas numbers, it's in the domestic one. Since the film is dubbed and box office India doesn't keep track of the Tamil/Telugu versions. So unless an other 3rd source reports the worldwide gross (as the case for Ra.One), we only obtain the Hindi version's worldwide gross.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern is regarding the statement (Hindi Version Only). One cant write that when the film is globally released. You'll have to remove this statement. Box Office India is a reliable resource so just stick with that unless BOM updates their database. Else keep the figure as it is and remove the statement regarding Hindi Version. ASHU^IND 10:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindi version only doesn't refer to domestic gross only or India gross only...It means that the version spoken in Hindi has grossed this amount of money...but I see your concern there. I suppose safest road to take is to remove (Hindi Version Only) but that will make the info sort of inaccurate. However, I will remove it since not many would understand the difference and state a full explanation in the box office section. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't understand why that is being done. "Hindi Version" (no need for only) can be put up in small font next to the gross to make it accurate. 210 is only that value and it includes the overseas collections. There is no issue if worldwide gross is not available, that does not make the article go against any of the GA criteria. If I overlooked any point, please let me know. X.One ^SOS 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

First there is no mention that the film was dubbed in English. So we have to consider the worldwide (oversease included) income with Hindi language. This simply eliminates the necessity of saying (Hindi Gross) in the grossing . ASHU^IND 12:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubbed in English? I didn't get you. X.One ^SOS 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Like the foreign language films are dubbed in Hindi when release in India, no such thing is done for Don 2's international release. So my point is its pointless to say Hindi Version Gross since its released worldwide in Hindi only. Any ways I guess Meryam90 has already solved that part and stated it in the box office section. ASHU^IND 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But that means that we are neglecting the Tamil and Telugu versions, however paltry their combined gross may be. In the lead and BO section, one version and in the infobox, another one? X.One ^SOS 13:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashu, this has been a very heavily-discussed and often unnecessarily disrupted controversy, but I'll state it flat: we have to write the (Hindi Version) part. You are not getting the point; Don 2 was dubbed in Tamil and Telugu, and those bits also earned revenue. For Hollywood films Box Office Mojo does include dubbed versions; the same must be done here was well. Since dubbed version revenue is unavailable, we must specify the Hindi part, otherwise we are misleading the people who read the article. I see Meryam has already removed the bit, but I strongly object to that. Already there has been too much of dirty fighting and overlong "consensus-making" especially regarding Ra.One and Bodyguard, and in both cases the discussions got inevitably hijacked to fan warring. Please, let's avoid that here. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, removing Hindi version only would be inaccurate of sort. However, since the matter has been going through endless discussions over a long period of time and none of the parties involved managed to come up with a solution. In addition, for a reader not familiar with the whole Tam/Tel dubbing concept, I have removed the expression from the Info Box only and kept it in the Box Office section. I don't suppose it would be a big deal anyway. Oh and Ashu, the Telugu and Tamil version have been released internationally as well.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Meryam, that is not a reason to remove the Hindi part; yes, the box office and lead do mention that, but understand that many of our readers look towards the infoboxes for a quick glance summary-type view; if that is incorrect then most people would get the wrong idea. No consensus was obtained simply because consensus-making was purposely disrupted, diverted and man-handled by Scieberking and his gang of trolls, and that's not even a secret (notice that HereToSaveWiki and Seeta Mayya are nowhere here). We can't stop in our tracks and start putting false information just to satisfy an egotist fanatic's wish. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the box office part is a bit complex. We all here are members of Indian Cinema Task Force so its simple to make it a convention just to use the worldwide colection (hindi+other languages). If other language data is not available, then it'll simply be considered negligible to make it to the news. Hence no need to write anything about which we have no data or sources. This issues will always be presented whenever an Indian film article goes for a GA nomination. Simply in the infobox write the total or watever amount is known, dnt write to which language it belongs. Box Office India mostly shows the Indian box office performance is maximum number of cases. ASHU^IND 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The lack of availability does not make it negligible of any sort. X.One ^SOS 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What? NO. Just because they are not reported does no mean in any way that the collections are negligible. You've got it all wrong. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I just point out that it make me feel (I have no words for how it makes me feel) having to go through this? because we have gone through it A LOT! Seriously, it isn't THAT significant! so I'm gonna fix the rest of User:Secret of success suggestions while you boys try to agree on something here. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand LOL. We have been through this often enough. Don't worry, we'll come to something. Sure, carry on. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me make one thing very clear. If something doesn't have a source provided for it, it can not exist on wiki. Else simply tags will be placed that article contains uncensored material. I've reviewed so many film article but this kind of situation only arises in case of Bollywood films. Every thing about the article is based on poor resources and presumptions. Many reviewers from other countries ask questions about the sources. Some i simply ignore becoz those websites are primary source in India and they wont get it right. Regarding budget. Let it be like this till you get a proper source which it says about worldwide gross. Else simply leave that thing blank. You cant go on like this assuming that there is some amount which can be added to the gross. Holywoood film article literally ignore income from the countries about which no data is available. You guys have to learn this. And when the clear data regarding the gross is available it can be simply update. All I'm saying is, you cant write gross according to the language. If it was domestic or international you could have specified it but same thing does not work in the favor of languages. Who know in which country its dubbed into what language. ASHU^IND 17:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I beg your pardon? This is now reaching to the point of emotional over-reacting. I absolutely oppose this statement "Every thing about the article is based on poor resources and presumptions." There is nothing that allows you to say this. You may have reviewed thousands of articles but that does not give you freedom to speak anything as you wish. Such comments are not entertained. If you feel so, then cancel this GA review as quick-fail, why are you bothered for reviewing this article? And you are not an authority to state that "Indian websites never get it right". You should learn how to speak properly. And NO, they are not primary sources no matter how much people state; it is clearly stated that BOI estimates based on numbers given by theater distributors. They DO NOT make their own figures. You should just have given suggestions about improvement, who asked you to air such smart claims that you have? We can leave it blank; there is no issue in that.

Clearly, you do not know how to speak in a review process and are clearly far away from proper review process for anything, much less a GA. It would be best if a peer review is taken up before this GA review that is beginning to turn into a pile of nonsense. You have no idea of the amount of trouble we had regarding box office figures, and these issues will remain very touchy, and your totally insensitive and silly way of taking up this matter is infuriating. If you have problems, state them and be quiet. Otherwise, stop this GA right now. This mater should be handled much more competently, and frankly I am totally appalled. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt so. It was the nominator who requested me to review. If you think I'am not well versed with the facts then sure go ahead. I'm failing this GA. ASHU^IND 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Plot

1. Link to Don word redirects to Don (1978 film). A misleading redirect. Remove that. ASHU^IND 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Add the link to Kunal Kapoor's page. Dont mistreat that actor :) ASHU^IND 10:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Capitalize the Don in the statement ...Sameer was loyal to don and giving his information ... ASHU^IND
4. Spacing problems after braces () and fulstops.

1. ...and Don is captured.Don threatens Sameer...
2. ...Sameer (Kunal Kapoor)calls the police...
3. ...assassins Jabbar(Nawab Shah) instead....
4. ...papers and surrenders the disc(containing the information about his associates) and ...
5. ..that kills Diwan.It is also revealed that Sameer...

• All done. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Casting And Filming

1. Six pack problem. Didn't SRK had six packs in Om Shanti Om and Ra.One already? ASHU^IND 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• No. he lost the Om Shanti Om six packs for the filming of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2008) and he was asked to gain the muscles for the lean body of Don before he started his training for the superhero look in Ra.One.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The last para. Tense is futuristic. This will be the first of a kind music... and The song is a special promotional video that will not appear in the film itself... ASHU^IND 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed it.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Critical Reception (India)

1. Make the zoOm normal as it is titled it its own article. (i.e. Zoom). ASHU^IND 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)