Talk:Santosh Subramaniam

GA Review

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

Good Article Criteria

(1). It is well written

1(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
Well, I checked the Article and I could not find spelling mistakes very easily. So the article satisfies condition 1(a).

1(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
Everything is proper. So the article satisfies condition 1(b).

(2). It is factually accurate and verifiable

2(a). it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout,

2(b). at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.

2(c). it contains no original research.

(3). It is broad in its coverage

3(a). it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3(b). it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

(4). It is neutral, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

(5). It is stable, it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images

6(a). Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

6(b). Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

OVERALL ---

I gladly will promote this article. But I found that most of the contents of this article is just copied from Bommarillu. The Plot section is word to word xerox copied. Although Santosh Subramaniam is a remake of Bomarillu, that doesn't mean even the text should be the remake. Some originality is required. Anyway there is no rule on Wikipedia regarding this.

Since the article satisfies GA criteria. I will promote this article. Thankyou, Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions}

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 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):

   The prose is quite hopeless. It needs thorough copy-editing so that it it is written in clear plain English, without elementary grammatical mistakes

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Behindwoods does not appear to be a reliable source.

   I fixed two and tagged three dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS

   Idle Brain [1] does not appear to be a reliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   This article is very badly written and I am going to fail this on those grounds alone. Several dubious sources are used. There are dead links. If you wish to nominate films for Good Article status, please ensure that they meet the good article criteria before doing so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santosh Subramaniam/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

• Doesn't really need sourcing aside from "unreleased".

The second source does not mention that It's My Life is a remake, contrary to the first.

• Bommarillu -year in brackets?

 Done

• At the end of the film, the father repents his foolishness and the happy marriage of the protagonists. Santosh Subramaniam was released = - Paragraph break needed

 Done

• "dotes on his son, who resents his father's dotage." -repetition

 Done I have written it differently.

• No mention of production and the shooting in New Zealand and of the award nominations?

 Done

Plot

• "even after he is 24 years old. The son, Santosh (Jayam Ravi)—who is now 24 years old" -repetition of 24 years old, not needed in second instance.

 Done written "grown up".

• "begins verbally abusing all the fathers in the world" - eh?

What do I write, when that is just what the hero does?

I don't understand what you mean? How can he verbally abuse all of the fathers in the world?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As I recollect watching the film, he was ranting away while drunk. Guess I'll just write that.

• "When inquired about his disgust" -awkward wording

How about "asked/questioned"?

"When questioned about his strong reaction"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Seeing her chirpy nature" -doesn't fit, reword.

How about "jovial"?

Perhaps "Noting her jovial, vibrant personality"

 Done. Written as "Seeing her jovial and vibrant personality" because "noting" is a word to watch.

Nothing wrong with it in that context!! I've used the word in FAs. Maybe if you're referring to somebody as being a "notable" person. Its use as an adverb to describe people is frowned upon on here, not when writing about somebody surveying something. I really don't know why some editors here swear by the guidelines as if God himself ordered them anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He tell her that he is " -informs?

 Done Ok, informs written.

Cast

Remove full stops.

 Done

Production

• "300 talking invitations" -oral invitations?

I don't know, the source reads "talking invitations".

That doesn't make it superior to oral invitations or 300 invitations by word of mouth in good English! The invitations don't actually talk! Shoddy journalism, he'll soon be hired by the Daily Mail LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have now written it as just "invitations".

• Why is mention of the launch before casting?

 Done casting now comes before the launch.

Soundtrack

• "'santhosham'(happiness)" -gap needed
• Shouldn't track listing be sourced too?

Comments: I am maintaining SIC, and the tracklist does have a source.

santhosham vs santhosam in second instance. Which is more widely used? Also you can remove happiness in brackets in the second instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Santhosham" (also called Santhosam) is a Tamil term meaning happiness. Because non-Tamil speakers won't know that, the translation is necessary, also because it appears in a quote. WP:SIC states that "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced" which I do not wish to violate. However, I will remove "Santhosham" in the soundtrack section in order to cut short the quote.

The spelling should be consistent, and if you explain what a term means once you don't need to twice really, although if it is quoted I suppose it's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Release

• Why are "[w]ell and [o]verall bizarrely worded like that? Surely the review didn't call it "ell" and "verall". If it was a typo then you don't need to do that.

 Done don't know why Baffle Gab put the brackets anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 4 -publisher?

 Done The site is baradwajrangan.wordpress.com

• Put film years in brackets in footnotes

 Done

Not great to be honest. But I think we can get it through with a bit of effort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, these comments have been resolved. Anymore? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This one is a weak pass I think. The quality of prose and the sources aren't exactly great, but I think it's just about passable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

2001:E68:5437:5AA8:217E:556F:B628:5D1D (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)EDIT RUNTIME FOR SANTOSH SUBRAMANIAAM

What is the "correct" runtime? Where's your source? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

42.190.3.171 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)EDIT RUNNING TIME FOR SANTOSH SUBRAMANIAM

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

42.190.3.171 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

to edit runtime for santosh subramaniam

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Edit running time for Santosh Subramaniam 42.190.63.184 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

I want change some cast names for their relationship 2409:4072:6005:4FD7:781F:D493:B7AB:6A8B (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)