Talk:Mullum Malarum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Soham (talk · contribs) 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the Article per WP:WIAGA. Soham 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Excellent, not a single ref excepting one note regarding the name translation, provides a summary of the entire article. Can IPA be added?

Reply: I would love to add IPA, but I do not understand how they work. Because IPA was one English lesson I was never taught in school. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Kailash, no need to if you can't, many FA's don't have IPA. Does not matter much. Soham 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Plot

Short, concise. Does not exceed WP:FILMPLOT limitation of 700 words and is only 360 words.

U know that GA reviewers are allowed to give minor copyedits to the articles they review? Pls do so if any needed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes I know, will do if I see something. Soham

I see one inconsistency though in the plot, in the cast section its mentioned than Kali's wife is Manga but there is no mention of him getting married to her, do they simply have a romantic relationship or are they married? Soham 11:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes they do get married later in the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Mention in the plot. Soham 13:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Production

• "Ridiculous! Preposterous! You say there is no romantic lead for the hero and you also say a villain plays the main role,", adds nothing but drama to the article, was he a talking parrot or a robot programed to utter the same sentence each time he was at the sets? Soham 16:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

He would speak like that whenever he came to the shooting spot, and was not a parrot or robot. Can I write something like "The producer thought that the fact that there is no romantic lead for the hero and a villain plays the main role was "ridiculous" and "preposterous"; voicing this opinion whenever he came to the location."? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yup! Much better, I've c/e'd. Soham 11:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• What is "call sheet" Please explain in a note or link. Soham 16:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Rewritten, saying she could not accept the offer due to her tight schedule. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "Balu Mahendra told Mahendran"? Soham 17:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

They are two different people. Balu Mahendra is the cinematographer, and J. Mahendran is the director. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. So this issue has been settled by adding the director's initial "J". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• "most prized moment and possession" Was it described by Rajnikanth himself? Soham 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sify described it as such. But I'll rewrite it soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)  Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats it for the day. I'll review the sections, Reflective reviews and Legacy tomorrow. Soham 17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Themes

Soham, Sriram Vikram and Vensa, is the "themes" section all right? I feel some content can be deleted, but I cannot decide which, as I have rarely written such sections before. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it is pretty good. No need to remove anything. If need be, checkout Mother_India#Themes -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And I hope this is after a good analysis? Well even if all the content there can stay, I think it can be written more neutrally. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be rewritten, in case it has close paraphrasing. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 16:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see no problems whatsoever with it. Soham 15:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Release and reception

FYI, "reflective reviews" section contains modern day reviews of the film. Is that the best title for the section? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think not, but I am struggling to find a better alternate myself, I suggest you merge the two sections as part of Critical reception section with a para containing old and a para containing the new one. Soham 05:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be off till 6pm, but I named the section "Reflective reviews" bcos that is how many James Bond film articles name them (all of them are good articles). Till then, someone please try giving it a CE. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Suits me. Soham 06:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh where's is a BO section? Soham 11:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No information available on the film's box office collections. As a result, there is no box office section. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt if box-office figures would be available for a Tamil film that was released 35 years ago. If this was popular like MEA or Sholay it's worth adding in the article, but not for this three-decade old film unfortunately. —Vensatry _(Ping) 13:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soham (talk • contribs)

• "In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film in her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[57] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth in her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth", saying "This film brought out the human side of the actor".[58] In 2007, Settu Shankar of Oneindia.in called it "a perfect blend of literature with mass entertainment".[59] S. R. Ashok Kumar said Shoba's performance as the hero's sister was "a brilliant performance" in May 2002."

Koimoi, OneIndia, BollywoodMantra are not the most reliable sources you get but there is no need to list who placed the film in what position. A one line mention like, "It was mentioned in other top 10 list of Rajnikant films, like in those of ...." Something like this without emphasising too much, remember the section is already too long, therefore provide it in a summary style. Remove the fluff. Soham 11:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Koimoi and OneIndia have articles on Wikipedia, does that make them reliable enough? Also, BollywoodMantra has frequently been mentioned by International Business Times in their news articles ([1] [2] and [3]), does that make it reliable? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable sources, no doubt but all I am asking to is to present it in a concise form. Soham 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Shifted content like "Top 10 movies" etc. to a new section named accolades (following the style of Pather Panchali). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

• "established Rajinikanth as an actor par finenesses" cites The Name is Rajnikant, biography and per WP:PRIMARY "an actor par finenesses" sounds a bit biased. Will affect criteria 4.
  • I don't think it violates NPOV, since it's placed within quotes, but I think it should be attributed to the author's name. —Vensatry _(Ping) 13:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The person is Rajini's personal biographer, of-course there will be puffery. S/he has done that in the book, has every right to do so but not necessarily mean that it has to be included. I would not have objected had a reviewer said this. Soham 16:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It doesn't really matter who said that when they are placed inside quotes with proper attribution. It's up to the original contributor to include whatever stuff they want. —Vensatry _(Ping) 03:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I an a simple man, the author is paid by Rajni for writing good about him. Independent reliable source need to say that it "established him as an actor par finesses". Soham 14:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have settled this by writing "Rajinikanth's biographer Gayathri Sreekanth states that the film "gave a new dimension to brother and sister relations on screen", and established Rajinikanth as an "actor par finenesses"." How abt that? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Soham: The author Naman Ramachandran is not Rajini's personal biographer as you say and mentioning that he was paid by the latter to write a book sounds ridiculous. Naman is a reputed writer and film critic who works for Variety. Read this article to know more about him and how he got into writing the book (He attacks Wikipedia in one of the points as well). Now coming to quotes, they are perfectly allowed in articles, see WP:QUOTE and WP:ATT. If you're still not convinced please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hence, there is absolutely no harm in adding quotes in articles even if biased, provided an attribution is there. —Vensatry _(Ping) 15:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Has underwent a C/e from WP:GOCE so no issues regarding prose, there were few, I fixed them while reviewing. Quotes use " " and have sources backing them up. So Criteria 1a is good for me.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Complies with WP:MOS but I have placed a tag, no big issue. Sort it out quick.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   cites books, news daily's but has few behindwoods citations but not for big claims so passable

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Koimoi, OneIndia, BollywoodMantra things need to go

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Okay, now that the attribution is provided. I opposed to the unattributed one.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

I won't be able to edit for a few days cause I will be in school, I'll complete in Sat/Sun. Hope you'll wait and would'n't mind. Soham 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all! Just your absence should not automatically fail the review. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: and @Soham: Great job guys. Very good quality. I've added some gloss to it and improved the structure of the reception a bit. A worthy GA, very well written. Keep up the good work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)