Wikipedia:Peer review/Eega/archive1

Eega

I am aiming to bring Eega to FA status after some great help from Kailash29792, Ssven2, and Miniapolis (copy-editor from the GOCE). This happens to be my first solo FAC, and i look forward for constructive comments to improve the article further. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I may or may not have time for a full review, but a few bits which jumped out at me:

• You seem to refer to a number of the people involved by their first name ("Samantha" is what jumped out at me). While referring to people by mononyms ("Socrates", "Moses") is acceptable, people should typically be referred to by their surname after the first mention in the article.
• File:Naan ee.png is not justified. It's currently used just to decorate the cast section and, to a degree, is redundant to the lead image.
• "Rajamouli and Samantha during the filming of "Konchem Konchem"" What is "Konchem Konchem"?

Hope that's helpful; best of luck with the PR and possible FAC in case I don't end up coming back for a full review. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks for the suggestions. In the case of Samantha Ruth Prabhu, Prabhu is a patronym and not a surname. That was why i referred her to as Samantha. For the rest, wherever required, i've mentioned them with their last names. The remaining two concerns are met by my fellow editors Kailash29792 and Ssven2. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: As for Nani and Sudeep, that's how they are well-known by.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

Lead

• The plot synopsis is a bit too detailed for the lead. A sentence, or two max, should be better.
• "The film, with Naan Ee and its Malayalam-dubbed version Eecha" ==> "The two versions of the film, alongside its Malayalam-dubbed version, entitled Eecha,.."
• "in-between 1,100 and 1,200 screens" maybe just say approximately 1,1000 screens.
• "generally-positive" No hyphen needed.
• "Its Hindi-dubbed version, Makkhi, under-performed at the box office due to poor marketing." Was that released later?

The above suggestions were addressed by Ssven2 in my absence. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• Is the Project 511 NGO something we should know about?
• "Although Bindu loves him too, she has not told him so for two years." ==> "Bindu surreptitiously harbors feelings for him as well"
• "...get rid of him" is slang.
• "..micro art (a locket made out of a pencil)". Too much detail I guess.

I don't think that it is too detailed. Some reviewers may ask what the micro art actually was.

• "He is kidnapped by Sudeep, who kills him and makes it look like an accident. Bindu, unaware of this, proposes to the dying Nani by telephone." Little confused by the sequence of events. So he was helping her finish the artwork, so why did she telephone him?
• "The fly accidentally encounters Sudeep and Bindu (triggering its memory), but it is ignored.". What is ignored? Unclear.
• "...planning to recognise Project 511". Recognise as what?

Fixed.

• Sorry to say this, but the second and third paragraphs of the plot need to be rewritten as I'm unable to understand much of it.

The remaining were addressed by Ssven2 in my absence. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Development and casting

• "...jokingly suggested a housefly seeking revenge on a human during the late 1990s" ==> "suggested an idea about..."
• "revisited Eega's script, since he felt that comedy and romance did not suit him." Why the info about comedy and romance? It doesn't tie up to anything previously mentioned.

Rajamouli's previous film Maryada Ramanna was a comedy-drama. Thus, i felt this statement would make sense.

• "Since the film had no dialogue for at least half its length, the director decided to make Eega a bilingual film in Telugu and Tamil". A bit confused. So he decided to make a bilingual film because the script had less dialogues?

Yes. I've rephrased the sentence.

• Think you should mention who the scriptwriter was before you talk about the script doctor.

Both the scriptwriter (Vijayendra Prasad) and the director (Rajamouli) were mentioned in the first paragraph. So, i though mentioning Prasad again would be an unnecessary repetition.

• "Eega is the fifth collaboration between Rajamouli and Senthil Kumar, who was influenced by A Bug's Life (1998) and Bee Movie (2007)" Which of the two were influenced by those films?

Senthil Kumar. I've rephrased the sentence.

• What's character styling?

I guess it was designing the looks and costumes of the actors/actresses. I've rephrased it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Filming and post-production

• "Rajamouli visited the Sri Sita Ramachandra Swamy Temple in Ammapally, near Shamshabad, as part of filming in early March 2011". You mean a sequence was filmed at the temple?

Yes. I've rephrased the sentence.

• "Almost all shooting was finished in January 2012" ==> "Almost all of the shoot was..."

Rephrased.

• Didn't Ajay Devgan and Kajol dub for the Hindi version? May be interesting to note.

More on that in the Release section.

I'll take a look at the rest later, Pavan. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the comments. I and Ssven2 have fixed them, and i look forward for your comments on the remaining part. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob

Quick read-through. FYI, I'm going away for a week so I won't be able to reply quickly.

• Not sure if production crew such as director of photography, musical score, dialogue writer, editor need to be mentioned in the lead unless they are known to work closely with the director.

Except for the dialogue writers, the remaining are known to collaborate with Rajamouli frequently.

• "Eega is a bedtime story", it's not a bedtime story but a film told in the format of a bedtime story.

Rephrased by Ssven2 in my absence.

• " With generally positive reviews". I do dislike this kind of phrasing in film articles, perhaps comment on what aspects of the film reviewers generally praised and which they didn't as a summary in the lead of its critical reception.

Tried my level best.

• "under-performed at the box office due to poor marketing", this is told as a fact in the lead when it's the opinion of Rajamouli.

Removed.

• Not sure if mentioning screenings at festivals is lead worthy unless it won awards at these festivals.

It won awards at the Toronto, earned nominations at Madrid, and was the only Telugu film of the year to be screened at the Shanghai. I guess, all the three can stay.

• " After he conveys the circumstances of his death to Bindu, Nani joins her and affects Sudeep's professional and personal life. Nani disturbs his mental health and Sudeep's money is burnt to ashes, leaving him almost penniless." This is all really vague. I presume that Nani and Bindu join forces but I don't really know what the rest means.
• Overall the plot summary seems way too detailed. I've not seen the film but the summary seems to include a lot of little details or elaborates on scenes far too much.

I would try to tweak the plot summary to make it more clear. Having said that, this film's plot is intricately detailed and you will understand once if you watch it.

Plot is substantially better now. What is "a contract affecting his professional life"?. Who is the thief? He's only mentioned at the end, is he integral to the plot? It is confusing to the reader. If he is not, he can be removed as plot summaries do not need to include every subplot as it is not supposed to replace watching the film.

Thanks to the adverse affects of the obsession to kill the fly, Sudeep messes up a huge construction contract. After his money is burnt, he is almost left penniless. When the other party plans to file a case, Sudeep kills his partner and the contract is rescinded. He also receives an insurance claim of 7 billion rupees. I'm removing the thief's story.

• Cast section is not sourced

The closing credits aren't mentioning the characters' names. Can you provide me a better solution?

That is difficult. Do the reviews mention characters' names?

The reviews mention only the lead characters' names.

• "English film set in the 1830s (before the abolition of slavery in Africa), in which an African-American boy..". From the source "set against an American backdrop. “Before slavery was abolished in the 1830s and 40s, an Afro-American boy wants to liberate his entire clan". The film was set to be in America.

Reworded.

• " its poor quality made Rajamouli start from scratch". This needs a change in tense as it wasn't independently thought of as poor quality. Rajamouli felt it was and reshot the film.

Reworded.

• "The soundtrack was critically acclaimed and commercially successful". This needs to be sourced. The source given perhaps only supports the latter.

Reworded.

• The critics' opinions need to be more than just a serious of quotes. Same for their opinion in the home media section.

Is it a WP:QUOTEFARM issue?

The examples I'd like to use are: Casino Royale (2006 film), Enthiran . The critical reception independently analyses the reviewer's comments and then uses quotes to back them up or even eschews quotes. Currently for me at least it appears more like "Critic A said "...". Critic B said "..". when it should be more of "Critic A praised X element of the film commenting "....".

Tried to do so. Please do check it once and suggest further changes required if any.

• The screens number is different from the release section and the lead.

Fixed.

• Red carpet doesn't need a hyphen. I'm not sure if you need to mention red carpet as nearly all premieres now have red carpets.

Removed.

• The satellite rights seem to have sold for a record amount according to the source.

Mentioned.

• Need to avoid editorialising in the box office section. "historic".

Removed.

• "By then, Naan Ee had grossed a total of $14,259 in the United States", I presume a typo.

Sorry, i didn't get you.

My mistake.

• Legacy section seems to be overblown which is understandable as it's a film that's only released in 2012. People from film land are likely to praise each other. Some of it is a stretch for a legacy section, the film making a list of films with animals in their titles. Cowlibob (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope the section looks better now.

@Cowlibob: Thanks for the suggestions. I am looking forward for further suggestions, if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten, will try to look at it over the weekend.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: No worries. Take your own time. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Very quick read-through:

• Generally in the lead a director's name appears first, followed by the writer/producer and the likes. Any particular reason that writer's name is first mentioned in the lead?

Agreed thst it is the general format followed. But, if we notice, Prasad mentioned the idea to his son who made it a feature film. Thought mentioning Prasad first would be relevant.

• How about piping bilingual to multilingualism? Might be helpful.

Done.

• "It was shown at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival," - I am generally not a fan of the word "show". How about screened or premiered?

Reworded as screened.

• What's with the one-line paragraph in the plot section? Can't it be included in the second para?

It was a deliberate move, to ensure that it is actually narrated as a bedtime story.

• I think sourcing the cast section might be a good idea, though I know it's not generally practiced.

Wish i can find sources for all the characters. The closing credits too didn't mention their names.

• Get rid of all the links for countries, as they border on overlinking.

Delinked.

• I think some of the quotes on Sudeep's performance from his peers are somehow puffery and need to be trimmed down.

Have removed the quotes, except the one by Rajinikanth.

More if time allows. FrB.TG (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments. I have managed to resolve everything, and am looking forward for further suggestions, if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pavan. Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I don't have any further comments. The reviewers have picked on everything I would have anyway. FrB.TG (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Bede735

I am not familiar with the film, but I can offer the following comments based on WP:GA? criteria and MOS:FILM.

Infobox

• Use the Plainlist template instead of hard breaks for the lists in the starring, producer, and distributor fields, per Template:Infobox film guidance.

Done.

Lead

• In the third paragraph, I would reword the lead sentence to provide context up front: "The idea for the film originated in a 1990s conversation in which Prasad joked with Rajamouli about the idea of a fly seeking revenge against a human."

Rephrased as per your suggestion.

• In the fourth paragraph (and throughout the article), replace the hyphen (used as a dash) with an unspaced em dash per MOS:EMDASH, as in "Eega won two National Film Awards‍—‌Best Feature Film in Telugu and Best Special Effects‍—‌in addition to five Filmfare Awards ..." Alternately, you can use a spaced en dash per MOS:ENDASH, but choose one and make sure you use that consistently throughout the article. Even in quotations, you can standardize, per MOS:PMC (Typographic conformity).

I've tried doing it, despite not being too knowledgeable about the usage of dashes, after going through the MOS. Hope it is better now.

Structure

• The article structure adheres to MOS:FILM guidance. Generally, the critical response section preceeds the box office section because the latter covers the entire length of the theatrical run. Given the impressive opening week performance, however, I can see how it might make sense to start off with box office.

Plot

• The plot is well-written and within the recommended range of 400–700 words, but perhaps some of the detail could be trimmed out. My only comment here is in the last paragraph. "In an epilogue" appears out of place, introducing a commentary beyond the telling of the story. Should this be, "Sometime later, a thief who thought that Bindu loved him is reformed ..."

Rephrased as per your suggestion.

Production

• This section is well-written and provides broad coverage. My one comment has to do with the languages. In the lead you write, "the film was made simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil", and in this section you write, "He decided to make Eega a bilingual film in Telugu and Tamil languages as the script had less dialogue." Were there two different versions of the film made, two different soundtracks, or two languages included in the same film? If two versions were released, was one language dubbed over another version, or was each scene with dialogue filmed twice, one for each language? I would add a sentence to this section to make this explicit.

Each scene with dialogue was filmed twice, one for each language. In the lead, i mentioned Eega as an Indian bilingual film, and then went on to write that it was simultaneously made in Telugu and Tamil.

The first sentence in your response clarifies the ambiguity nicely. Consider adding it to the Development and casting subsection: He decided to make Eega a bilingual film in Telugu and Tamil languages as the script had less dialogue. Each scene with dialogue was filmed twice, one for each language.

Done.

Theme

• It's nice to see a well-developed Theme section in a film article. My one comment is that the themes could be presented clearer. In the first paragraph, for example, I would write, "The film's primary theme is revenge. In the story, the soul of a murdered man is reincarnated as a fly who seeks revenge against his killer." In the third paragraph, perhaps lead with, "The film's secondary theme is love surviving beyond death. According to Rangan, Eega's story loosely resembles those derived from the "ghost template" ..."

Done.

I will provide additional comments later. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bede735: Thanks for the suggestions. I hope to meet all your concerns sooner, and am looking forward for further suggestions if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Music

• In the first paragraph, some of the language could be improved. Suggested minor rewording: The soundtracks of Eega and Naan Ee were composed by M. M. Keeravani, each consisting of five songs—one of which is a remixed version of the film's title song.[63][e] Since the film's theme (revenge) and the protagonist (a housefly) were universal concepts, Keeravani ensured that the tunes did not have "distinct ethnic or regional flavour" and "appeal", describing this as his "only challenge".[64] He incorporated the buzzing sound generated by flies in the score and used it according to a scene's emotional nature, exaggerating it at times and toning it down.

Reworded as per your suggestion.

Release

• In the first paragraph, remove the single quotes in "gave the film a 'U/A' certificate", and perhaps link U/A certificate to Central Board of Film Certification (U/A certificate).

Done.

Reception > Box office

• In the second paragraph, it might be helpful to use the Template:INRConvert template to convert to US dollar for context, since you are providing the US box office numbers. For example, "Its final global gross is estimated at more than ₹1.25 billion (US$16 million)." If you think this is a good idea, you could add the same template to the lead, where you write, "Eega was one of the highest-grossing Telugu films of the year and earned a total of more than ₹1.25 billion (US$16 million)." (template included)

Reception > Critical response

• In the lead sentence of the first paragraph, you should summarize the overall critical response. For example, Eega received mostly positive reviews. (if this is correct).

I can, but many have objected such moves by me when i worked on a few GAs.

• There are perhaps too many positive reviews with some overlapping comments. Consider trimming one or two reviews out, combining the first four paragraphs into two or three paragraphs.

Managed to do that. Hope the section looks better now.

• You use quotes effectively throughout the article, but perhaps one or two of the quotes could be trimmed. For example, "It's a Super-housefly that can read, write, hear, fight ... [and] do just about everything!" is probably not necessary. Just use the "Let's celebrate the figment ..." part of that quote.

Removed.

• The last paragraph is reserved for the negative reviews. I would start the last paragraph with, "The film received some negative reviews. Kruthi Grover of The New Indian Express wrote, ... This presents the overall section in a more balanced way.

I agree. But, as said earlier, many are opposing such moves, esp. from Indian Cinema Task force.

You did a nice job on this article. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bede735: Thanks for the valuable suggestions. I've managed to solve all the concerns, and if i could not do it properly now, i am sure i would do it before starting the FAC. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

Sorry for coming late to this, as a result my comments may not be as sophisticated as the others above:

• "Eega is told in the form of a bedtime story" - link bedtime story
• "He is, however, murdered by the wealthy businessman Sudeep, who lusts for Bindu and considered Nani a rival" - how about However, he is murdered by the wealthy businessman Sudeep, who lusts for Bindu and considers Nani a rival, but feel free to ignore/change this suggestion
• "The idea for the film originated in a 1990s conversation in which Prasad joked with Rajamouli about the idea" - try The idea for the film originated in from a conversation in the 1990s, in which Prasad joked with Rajamouli about the idea...
• "Unable to sleep, a young girl asks her father to tell her a bedtime story" - link bedtime story here too
• "a micro artist who runs an NGO named Project 511" - what is an NGO? And rephrase the latter half to NGO titled Project 511
• "S. S. Rajamouli's father, K. V. Vijayendra Prasad, jokingly suggested a housefly seeking revenge on a human during the late 1990s" - during a conversation in the late 1990s
• "Principal photography began on 22 February 2011 in Hyderabad. Ninety percent of the film was shot in Ramanaidu Studios in Hyderabad" - you could merge this into one sentence to create a better flow. How about Principal photography began on 22 February 2011 in Hyderabad; ninety percent of the film was shot in Ramanaidu Studios, located within the city
• "A training programme on acting theory and insect formats" - theories?
• "Inzi was released in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and the Congo" - there are two Congos, write this out fully as Republic of the Congo
• "Weeks after Eega's release police arrested two men" - this is a run-on; try Weeks after Eega's release, police arrested two men; (semi-colon at the end)

Sorry for coming to this late. Those were the things I could find during my initial search. Nice work on the article! JAGUAR  10:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: It's okay. Thanks for leaving your suggestions here. I and Kailash29792 have solved them, except for the last one. I don't think so that a semicolon would really help. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them so quickly! You're right, the semi-colon wasn't a good idea. I look forward to commenting on its FAC. JAGUAR  10:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This looks in excellent shape. Not in the critical frame of mind so difficult concentrating but the only thing which I picked up on is that Themes section seems to have a lot of quotes, some of which might be better paraphrased.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the suggestion, Doctor. Will surely work on it tomorrow, as the weather in my city is very unstable at the moment and i am likely to face a brief internet and/or power loss tonight. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I've tried paraphrasing few quotes in the Themes section. Hope it looks better now. I look forward for further comments on the article, if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

This looks very good to me, just a few comments

• I'd link ₹ and housefly

Linked in the first instance.

• digital intermediate process, respectively.—Is the comma correct?

Removed.

• fly much difficult to execute as''—presumably missing "more"

Added.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Thanks for leaving your suggestions here. I look forward for further comments, if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• What's the real translation of Eega? Is it simply Fly or The Fly? I'm saying this because generally we use 'the' before names of establishments, where a part of the noun denotes its kind.

Eega means particularly a fly. Plain fly may lead the non-Telugu readers assume that Eega means flying, as a housefly can fly as well. Thus, using The may not actually affect.

• Produced by Korrapati Ranganatha Sai's Varahi Chalana Chitram on an estimated budget of ₹260 to 400 million, the film was made simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil (as Naan Ee; I Am a Fly). Need "languages" after "Telugu and Tamil".

How about we start the lead as Eega is a 2012 Indian Telugu-language fantasy film [...] It was simultaneously filmed in Tamil language as Naan Ee? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose, Kailash. A bilingual is a bilingual and should be referred to as a bilingual in the first place despite having different titles for both the languages. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nani is reincarnated as a housefly and tries to protect Bindu while avenging his death. It would read better as "Nani reincarnates as a housefly.."

Done.

• The idea for the film originated in from a conversation in the 1990s, in which Prasad joked with Rajamouli about the idea of a fly seeking revenge against a human. The "in" is redundant before "originated".

Removed.

• The latter revisited the idea.. You mean the human or the fly? I'd suggest you to use "Rajamouli revisited the idea.." instead.

Done.

• Eega was one of the highest-grossing Telugu films of the year and earned a total of more than ₹1.25 billion. --> "Eega was one of the highest-grossing Telugu film of the year earning a total of more than ₹1.25 billion."

Done.

• The 'Running time' of the film should be sourced.

Done.

• The opening sentence of the 'Production' section is quite vague. Prasad suggest who? Please mention that.

Mentioned concept there.

• After completing Maryada Ramanna (2010), he planned to make a film which could be completed in four or five months before he began Baahubali: The Beginning (2015). How Baahubali is important here?

The source quotes Rajamouli saying "After doing Maryada Ramanna, I wanted to make a small film that could be completed in 4-5 months. I wanted to relax before starting a big movie with Prabhas". I thought mentioning Baahubali in the sentence would be justifiable as it is the end of the interim period in the discussion.

• Rajamouli revisited Eega's script, since he felt that comedy and romance did not suit him. What is it trying to suggest? MR had its share of comedy and romance, Baahubali doesn't border these genres.

Tweaked the sentence as per the source.

• Rediff --> Rediff.com

Specified

• "..David and Goliath and India's victory in the 1983 Cricket World Cup; victories by underdogs are significant. Is the 'significant' bit sourced? If its a direct quote, it should be under inverted comma's.

Reworded.

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thanks for the suggestions, Yash. I've addressed them, and am looking forward for your comments at the FAC. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I think you should initiate its FAC real soon. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)