Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:30, 9 July 2014 [1].

Gemini (2002 Tamil film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sriram speak up 06:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has been fine tuned since a previous review stalled and have also gone through a copyedit. Sriram speak up 06:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Resolved comments from Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Make sure only the main characters – the hero, heroine, villain, and (optional) a major supporting character – are listed in the infobox.
Taare Zameen Par lists Sachet Engineer and Taney Chheda within the infobox. I don't mind removing Manorama but I'm just asking for universality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • The lead section does not need sources as per WP:LEAD, unless the same content is sourced in the body of the article.
I think you meant it the other way round. It has already been taken care of during the GA review. There are references only when the claims aren't in the article body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Still, to make it look clean without bumps, the ref's can be removed. But make sure the same content is in the body.
Done -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opposite Kiran Rathod of Yaadein fame cast" - is Yaadein really necessary here?
Accepted; removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "A cameo appearance by veteran Gemini Ganesan was his last film appearance before his death in March 2005" - move the statement and it's source to "Casting" section.
Statement moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "its success was attributed to the popularity of the song "O Podu" " - if this statement also appears in the body of the article with a source, then it does not need one in the lead.
Done -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saran remade the film in Telugu—his only non-Tamil film—under the same title" - you can consider it the same title, but the remake is spelled "Gemeni", with only one minor spelling change. So how about it be as "Saran remade the film in Telugu—his only non-Tamil film—as Gemeni"?
Done. I had mentioned so earlier but changed it later when the 'Requested move' was questioned.
  • "the remake starred Venkatesh and Bhairavi (Namitha) in the lead" - I don't think the name Bhairavi is really necessary here, even if that was Namitha's name at that time.
Moved to main text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Plot
  • "Teja (Kalabhavan Mani), a big-shot don" - doesn't big-shot don sound too colloquial?
I don't think so. If it had been so, the GOCE member would have rephrased it while copy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Well then, we'll wait for another FAC reviewer to see this. But "criminal", "mobster" and "gangster" sound more formal than "don".
Have re-written. Does that help?
Yes, and thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • The cast members may be billed according to their appearance in the credits.
It has been so for a long time now. Pls check the comments within the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • The quote box can be shifted to the "casting" section, while the image of the cast can be here instead.
Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
She was credited so in the film. You might argue the same with 'Chiyaan' Vikram. But she isn't as famous as Vikram to be recognized easily. Isn't it the same as saying Jayam Ravi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Reply: Please read WP:Honorific for more info. It says "honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article" and adds, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included". Actors Ajith and Vijay are popularly known as "Thala" and "Thalapathy" respectively, but still you cannot use those "titles" in Wiki as they are still best known by their normal names. Also, Rani's article is Rani (Tamil actress), which may mean she is not yet so commonly known as "O Podu Rani".
FYI, I created that article. When I did, I came to know that she has acted in a few Kannada films under the name Raksha. Since I wasn't sure which one of them is her real name, I just used Rani.
Removed honorific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
@Kailash29792: The prefix "O Podu" isn't an honorific. If she is well-known by that name, it should be the common name and her article should be moved to that title. I see no harm in including that especially if she was credited like that in the movie. —Vensatry (ping) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
Production
No claims from the source has been added to the article. I have added it only for further reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "Speculations that Sneha play the heroine were untrue" - the source does not state that she was confirmed to act in the film. So I think you can write, "Despite speculation that Sneha would play the heroine," as the next line reads that Kiran was confirmed.
Have rephrased the sentence. Is it okay now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Yup. Because Kiran was cast, it is obvious that Sneha was not cast.
  • "When asked about casting them" - mention Mani and Murali if true.
Moved text to avoid repetition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "The film's release was brought forward by two days, apparently to capitalise on weekend collections." - please provide source.
Added reference.
Soundtrack
  • " "Naattu Katta" is another track whose lyrics are based on a folk song." - which song? if source does not mention the song, and if you yourself are not sure, then write, "whose lyrics are based on folk music".
But how can lyrics be based on music?
In the source, Vairamuthu says, "Nattu Kattai... " is based on a folk song. He did not state which song. If that is the only source where he made such a claim, how abt adding a footnote explaining the absence of the song name? Eg: In Pather Panchali, a footnote reads, "The comment by Basil Wright appears in James Chapman's 2003 book Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present. The year of the comment is not mentioned." Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added note. Is it okay? -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you very much. Seems the article will certainly pass this time. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "Mammootty's Junior Senior released on 19 April" - is it really necessary? because it is stated as having released on 19 April.
To give the reader the idea of the films that released alongside, I have added it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Still it looks irrelevant, because this is not an article about Tamil New Year releases of 2002.
Well, I haven't mentioned every film that released in 2002. Is it irrelevant to inform the reader of the films that were running simultaneously in cinemas?
It is only relevant to mention those that released on the same date. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gemini was a commercial success at the box office and was the biggest hit of the year." - I would prefer "Gemini was a box office success and became the biggest hit of the year."
  • Mention the years for Aaru, Vattaram and Muni in brackets.
Done.
  • "The film was screened as part of a six-day workshop conducted jointly by the Department of Journalism and Communication, and the Mass Communication Alumni Association, of the University of Madras; it focussed on the impact of cinema on society." - I don't think this will fit in the sub section "Critical reception", but will do in "Release and reception".
I have moved it but it doesn't look that good.
Nor will it look good in a section that talks about reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about the pop culture section? BollyJeff | talk 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Lemme try it. -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remakes
  • There is some bad sourcing/proofing in this section. I have no time to fix this, so please rewrite everything here according to the supporting sources.
Will take a look.
Has this been dealt with yet? I would like to know if the remake performed well too. BollyJeff | talk 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's wrong. There are no claims contradicting with the supporting sources and all claims have been sourced then and there. Can you be more specific on what's the issue? -- Sriram speak up 06:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My only remaining comments in the entire article are:
  • "while Kalabhavan Mani and Murali reprised their roles from the Tamil version. Most of the crew members were retained." - the supporting source does not support the claim (it does not even mention the terms "Mani", "Murali" and "Telugu"). Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not mentioned when the Telugu remake released, or how well it was received. You can add this review and this as they contain the information I suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* The lead can mention something about the multiple award wins. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have all your concerns been addressed? -- Sriram speak up 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Congratulations Sriram, this FAC has my support, as all my comments have been addressed. However, do remember that I too contributed significantly to the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Doctor[edit]

Lede
  • What is Malayalam meant to link to? Malayalam cinema?
Either Malayalam or Malayalam cinema. Both works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
Done: I have linked it to Malayalam cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's narrative is loosely based on the true stories of real-life criminals 'Vellai' Ravi and Chera, and is about gang wars in Chennai." -would be better worded as "The film, about gang conflict in Chennai, is loosely based on the true stories of real-life criminals 'Vellai' Ravi and Chera".
Rephrased. Does that suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • "When an outlaw and aspiring don falls in love, he decides" -who??
Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • AVM Studios -in Mumbai?
No. It is in Chennai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
As Chennai has now been mentioned in the article as the city where AVM lies, we can consider this Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the remake starred Venkatesh and Namitha in the lead, Kalabhavan Mani and Murali reprised their roles. Gemini was also dubbed into Hindi as Angaar: The Deadly One." -I'm not sure this is really relevant in the lede, looks a bit trivial there to me.
Half Done as asked, because the dubbed version is interesting to include. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that it could be included later, just that it's not important enough to be in the lede section. Also, I don't think you are supposed to strike other editor's comments, only your own. BollyJeff | talk 12:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is now Fully Done, as I have removed mention of the dubbed version in the lead (you know, Hindi dubbed versions of South Indian films are not so notable outside television runs). I hope Sriram Vikram has no problem with this. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come next week. I'd rather not continue, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok. But once these comments have been addressed, it may be taken as a "support" then. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

Resolved comments from KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • The film released two days prior to the Tamil New Year. Is this notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? If not, I suggest you mention just the release date.
Already mentioned 12 April. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...yes. Not quite what I said. I meant mention only the release date. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done written as "Gemini was released on 12 April 2002—two days before the date of the Tamil New Year." Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the film was highly successful and was the biggest hit of the year". Biggest hit in Tamil cinema, I presume?
Obviously the biggest Tamil hit only. Is it fine to write "the most commercially successful Tamil film of the year"? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done written as "Despite receiving mixed critical reviews, the film became the most commercially successful Tamil film of the year". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "Big-shot" is not encyclopedic. Please reword. Also wikilink "don".
Any other formal name for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)
  • Why isn't Murali wikilinked in the plot section?
Done wikilinked him. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...is promoted to become the Director General of Police (DGP)" ==> "...is promoted to the position of Director..."
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Keen on wiping out rowdy behaviour". Again, not enclyopedic enough. How about "Keen on eradicating crime"?
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The arrests are made "off the record" because they both Teja and Gemini have political influence. " Grammatically incorrect sentence.
Done written as "The arrests are made "off the record" because both Teja and Gemini have political influence." Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain consistency in referring to Singaperumal by his name or by his designation to avoid confusion.
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and a corrupt officer (Vinu Chakravarthy) is promoted to DGP." ==> Simpler to say "...a corrupt officer (Vinu Chakravarthy) takes his place".
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the fight Gemini, beats up Teja and swaps their clothes, leaving Teja bound and gagged." The commas are not in the right places.
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "after the successful films Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999), both which had Ajith in the lead roles." You mean "both of which had Ajith..."?
Done I've taken care of this. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ajith or Ajit? I find two different spellings in this section.
The only time when "Ajit" appears is in a quote from this source and we maintain WP:SIC and WP:Quotation. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put "Ajit" in sic, so it can be considered done. 04:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, now it has been paraphrased with his normal spelling. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released for Diwali"? "On" Diwali.
Rephrased. Please see now. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of this section suddenly changes the tense. Why?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet done. The sentence is very jarring. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Changed present tense to past tense. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Gemini Studios in italics?
Done de-italicised. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..sent his blessings.." Too much unnecessary trivia, don't you think?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)

More to come later. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Any reason why the nominator is not active in this FAC? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I have mailed him, and I should be expecting a reply soon. Though I am not a co-nominator, I still feel I can be considered one, just like how Bollyjeff and Blofeld jointly worked on Mughal-e-Azam. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about that too. Although you made comments here, you are also doing most of the work. BollyJeff | talk 18:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am back. Had some issues with my broadband. Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram Vikram (talk • contribs)


I am sorry for playing spoilsport here, but I see several obvious issues with the text. Yes, the article is good, and is most definitely of GA-standard, but in my opinion needs much more polishing to achieve FA-status. Anyway, here are some more comments:

Casting
  • Kiran Rathod who made her debut with Yaadein. Why the fame with association here?
Done: removed Yaadein. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article's body, she hasn't been mentioned beforehand. Doesn't she need to be introduced to the readers before discussing about her? -- Sriram speak up 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reportedly, actress Raveena Tandon's manager suggested Gemini to Rathod, who is Tandon's cousin." Reported by whom?
Krimuk90, currently the text reads "Kiran Rathod is a native of Jaipur.[19][20] Reportedly, actress Raveena Tandon's manager suggested Gemini to Rathod, who is Tandon's cousin.[21]" How about "Actress Raveena Tandon's manager suggested Gemini to Tandon's cousin Kiran Rathod,[21] a native of Japiur[19][20]"? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have rephrased it? Is it clear now? -- Sriram speak up 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I have written, "Actress Raveena Tandon's manager gave Tandon's cousin Kiran Rathod (a native of Jaipur, Rajasthan from where the Marwari's originate[18][19]) the offer to act in Gemini." I don't think it can get better than this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saran cast Rathod after seeing a photograph of her, making Gemini her Tamil debut." Can be phrased better.
How about "Saran cast Rathod after seeing a photograph of her. Gemini thus became her debut Tamil film"? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Sriram speak up 19:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saran said, "I like the dedication of Malayalee artistes towards their work. People like Kalabhavan Mani and Murali are in it because of their love for cinema and not for money". A quote like this adds nothing new to the article.
Done: I too find neither much significance of the quote, nor the distinct reason why Mani and Murali were cast. I've removed this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the 'Casting' section supposed to explain why those people were chose for their roles? And doesn't that quote serve that exact purpose? -- Sriram speak up 15:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the technical team mentioned in the casting section?
Krimuk90, where should they fit then? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the development section. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because procurement of cast and crew members should go together. Changed the section heading from 'Casting' to 'Cast and crew'. -- Sriram speak up 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Filming
  • "Since Mani was a mimicry artist, Saran asked him to exhibit his talents and chose which among them were added to the film". Not clear who was asked to chose what. Please rephrase.
I think it means that because Mani was a mimicry artist, Saran wanted to showcase his mimicry talent in the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Done:" Written as "Since Mani was a mimicry artist, Saran asked him to exhibit his talents; Mani aped the behaviour of a few animals and Saran chose among them, which were added to the film". Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in the scenic locales". Too much fluff.
Done: written as "Part of the song sequence was filmed on a sledge in Switzerland". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film's release was brought forward by two days, apparently to capitalise on weekend collections". Shouldn't this information be in the release section?
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006, Saran revealed in a conversation with director S. P. Jananathan that his nervousness rendered him sleepless for four days until the film was released". Not the kind of information you would see in a FA.
But will it fit in the release section? It seems useful. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inspiration
  • Another sudden change in tense in the first sentence.
Done: By Sriram. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ravi sometimes referred to as 'Vellai' Ravi and sometimes just Vellai Ravi.
Done: written "Vellai" Ravi to maintain consistency. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the Goondas Act, and why is wikilinked to goonda?
Because the page reads, "Goonda is a term in Indian English, Pakistani English, and Bangladeshi English for a hired thug. It is both a colloquial term and defined and used in laws, generally referred to as Goonda Acts." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article at 'Goonda' has a sub-section called 'India' which explains the Goondas Act. -- Sriram speak up 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word rowdy was not in quotes before, why is it in quotes now all of a sudden?
Because it sounds colloquial, and it needs to be in quotes whenever it appears as a quoted material, which I think it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack
  • "..in Saran's directorial debut Kadhal Mannan" ==> "..with Saran's..."
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is "O Podu" the title track?
Krimuk90, this source explains how the song originated: "Sharan was keen to have a song that will be catchy and Vairamuthu said that we have to use a common expression and build on it. Then Sharan wanted it to be mixed with the title song and we incorporated "O Podu" into it. And all of us are happy that it worked." Also, the song repeatedly says "Gemini Gemini" at times, making it look like the title track. So how would you suggest rewriting this? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sify is a web source, so should not be in italics.
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for Rediff.
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Thairadapam a WP:RS. It looks like IMDB, which is not used as a source on FAs.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""O Podu" was mentioned in a discussion on viral hits of South Indian cinema following the internet phenomenon of "Why This Kolaveri Di" in 2011." And that's important, because?
I think it was a viral hit in TN in 2002, as compared to Kolaveri and Gangnam Style today, despite the lack of YouTube then. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, the song was a hit. Agreed. Why mention viral? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written as "O Podu" belongs to only a small collection of South Indian songs that are considered a "national rage" in India, such as "Appadi Podu", "Naaka Mukka", "Why This Kolaveri Di" and "Ringa Ringa". Please check this source for proofing. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • The same comment on Sify and Rediff.
Done: I've removed the italics here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rajnikanth predicted the film would be a hit. Why is that an important information?
I too do not find it so important, considering that his quotation does not appear in the source. Let Sriram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rajinikanth is a contemporary in the sense that he belongs to the film industry and his views qualifies as 'Contemporary review'. But since there isn't a lot of reviews by neither critics nor contemporaries, they don't have a separate section. -- Sriram speak up 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in an obvious reference to Gemini" So he did not mention the film at all in his article?
He actually did, when he stated in that article, "Nowadays the Geminis and Nandas of Tamil cinema indulge in crime for the heck of it." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he mentioned it, then why say "obvious reference" to the film? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: written as "film journalist Sreedhar Pillai wrote in a reference to Gemini". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the films released on Diwali and Pongal were not successful, Gemini helped the industry recover." Poor prose. Please rephrase.
Krimuk90, I have rewritten it as "Because most films that released on Diwali and Pongal were unsuccessful, Gemini helped the industry recover" How is that? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Ref No. 6 is not a reliable source, and has no publisher information.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for ref no. 7.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IndiaGlitz does not satisfy the WP:RS criteria.
Done: All IndiaGlitz ref's have been removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said earlier, Thiraipadam.com does not seem reliable to me.
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 88 and 89 are not reliable, and have no publisher information.
I agree that ref 88 is not reliable, and that shall be removed. But ref 89 is The Times of India! So that will stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the ref number changed after I posted my comments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IndiaGlitz or 88db.com (or both) must have been ref 88 and 89, but both have been replaced with more reliable sources (MSN and Ayngaran International), so I can consider this done. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 93 does not seem reliable.
Eh? Ref 93 is MSN! That will stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref. no. 82 now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 99 does not seem reliable.
Eh? Ref 99 is The Hindustan Times! I do agree that ref 98 is not reliable though. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref. no. 85 now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the ref number changed after I posted the comments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 101 uses a blog source. Unreliable.
I agree, it shall be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ref no. 97 now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No publisher information for ref. 103.
There is no ref 103 at the moment. But the last two refs ([2] and [3]) have publisher information now. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I am not going to oppose this, because I know a lot of hard work has been put into it. But I really feel that it needs a lot of more polishing before it can be "one of the best articles in Wikipedia". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, my comments have been addressed, and the article has improved considerably. But I do feel that it needs much more work on the prose to be considered one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Hence, I won't be specifically supporting or objecting to the nomination. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

Support - All of my comments below have been addressed now (I made a couple tweaks myself). There are no dead links, and most citations are of high quality. BollyJeff | talk 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your comments :) Kailash29792 (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Despite receiving mixed critical reviews upon release, the film was highly successful and was the biggest hit of the year in Tamil; its success was attributed to the popularity of the song "O Podu"." 'Upon release' is not needed. Its success was 'partly' or 'mostly' attributed, not completely, right?
I believe it was mostly attributed to only, let Sriram check it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "largely attributed" works. Sources supporting the claim does not say the extent to which the song impacted the film's success.
  • "and Vikram was cast in the lead role opposite Kiran Rathod." Duplicate info; already mentioned in first paragraph. Maybe say 'cast the new leads'.
Done check it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need there names again, either. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done removed as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously scheduled release date does not matter for the lead.
Done written as "The film was released on 12 April 2002—two days before the date of the Tamil New Year". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say a little less about the remakes (espacially the stars), and include more about song popularity from the pop culture section.
Removed the remake's actors. Check it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but add more about the song. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "would mark his third collaboration with Ajith after the successful films Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999), both of which had Ajith in the lead roles." can be shortened to "would mark his third collaboration with Ajith as the lead, after the successful films Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999).
Done as suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't read well. How about "During the making of the film Alli Arjuna (2002) in early 2001, its director Saran announced his next. The film would mark his third collaboration with Ajith following the success of Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999)"?
  • "it was the production house's 162nd film.[14] It was AVM's first film after a gap of five years; their last production before the hiatus was the 1997 hit Minsara Kanavu, the release of which marked fifty years since its first production Naam Iruvar in 1947.[b] By producing Gemini, AVM became one of the four film studios that had been producing films for over fifty years." Is all of this relevant?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do accept that it doesn't fit in the 'Development' section. But it got to be said somewhere.
Casting
  • "Saran had known of Murali through his role in Dumm Dumm Dumm, a performance which he felt was dignified and persuaded him to cast Murali as the DGP." Confusing; Who persuaded who? Also, no year on DDD.
I think Saran persuaded Murali to join Gemini as a DGP. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the wording makes it seem as though the 'performance' persuaded him. Needs tweaking. BollyJeff | talk 17:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was his "dignified" performance which convinced Saran into casting Murali. Can be rewritten if it is misleading as such.
Filming
  • "Vikram shot for the film alongside Samurai" could be "Vikram was shooting for this film and Samurai (2002) simultaneously" Added year and changed wording a bit because 'shot alongside' usually means two actors.
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack
  • "virat hits" Is this supposed to be viral?
Let Sriram Vikram handle this. I don't think YouTube existed in 2002 (excuse 3 Idiots) then there is no way "O Podu" could have been an internet/viral phenomenon. Maybe it was played often on TV and radio... But "virat" was a typo that I fixed to "viral". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay as is now. BollyJeff | talk
  • Overwhelmed by the response" Small 'o' please. Also sounds like a comma is needed after response.
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the audience were not satisfied with the short footage provided and forced the theatre owners to rewind the song and replay it, the song was later re-recorded to match with the original length." Confusing grammar.
How about "Dissatisfied with the small footage provided initially, the audience resorted to violence, forcing theatre owners to rewind the song and play it again. After receiving calls from distributors and theatre owners, the makers eventually sent the entire song."?
Critical Response
  • "the Department of Journalism and Communication, the University of Madras and the Mass Communication Alumni Association, University of Madras (MCAUM)" has some duplication. Can you put: "the Department of Journalism and Communication, and the Mass Communication Alumni Association, of the University of Madras"?
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...met Vikram and praised his performance, and predicted that the film would be a big hit." May be better as two sentences? "He predicted..."
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office
  • Source 3 should be used as well as source 2 at the end of second sentence for gross, since 3 was used in the infobox for gross.
Done.
  • It should say biggest hit in Tamil (not whole of India), as in the infobox.
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is USP?
Unique Selling Proposition. "USP" appears in a quote without the expansion, and we faithfully reproduce quotes, regardless of mistakes in the source. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "Since "O Podu" was a hit—especially among children—AVM invited them to write reviews and gave away prizes." Invited who, children? The structure of the sentence makes it not clear. Try: Since "O Podu" was such a hit among children, AVM invited young children to write reviews, and gave away prizes.
Done written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remakes
  • Were either of the remakes successful?
There was only one remake, and I don't think it was as successful as the original. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Popular culture
  • Who is Gerald? Not in source given.
Done removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted source to support claim.

Comments from AB01[edit]

Lead
  • It should be "its narrative". Remove the apostrophe.
Done: although I hope this does not concern differences in English dialects. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was experiencing difficulties after a string of projects failed at the box office". It might sound better as "...after a string of box office failures"
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to also list South Filmfare awards first in your ordering, as they are the most prominent
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "The project was planned to be a Diwali release". Change to "planned for a Diwali release"
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "with 104 prints, the most to date for a Vikram film". Do you mean at the time of release? Or does the record still hold? From this statement, it sounds like Gemini is still Vikram's all-time biggest release
I don't know. The nominator Sriram Vikram may know, being a fan of Vikram. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, it isn't his biggest release anymore. So you might wanna change it to "at the time of release"
Done: written, "the most for a Vikram film at the time of release". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
  • "positive to mixed reviews". Wouldn't it be better to write mixed reviews alone? It already says that in the lead anyway
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remakes
  • You could add whether the remakes were as successful
Working. However, there does not appear to be any reviews on the Hindi-dubbed version Angaar: The Deadly One. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the Hindi version, since it's only a dubbed version. Try and find whether the Telugu remake was successful in terms of box office results/critical reception. It's ok if you can't find anything though..

Regardless of whether you find information on the Telugu remake or not, I give my support for this article. It's well-written and comprehensive. Good luck, guys! :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 10:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much AB01 :) Kailash29792 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kailash are you a reviewer or co author of this? Looking across it it seems you're basically functioning as a co author. It just looks odd that's all, you have also reviewed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blofeld, I now prefer to be called an inactive contributor. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask the same. You've already made around 130 edits to the article and shouldn't be reviewing this at all. Kindly refrain from doing that. —Vensatry (ping) 06:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Editor 2050[edit]

  • Well-researched, well deserved FA candidate.
Lead
  • Maybe a quick article for the work of Thennavan if notable, seems out of place warranting a mention in the lead, but no link.
Well, he doesn't have an article at the moment ("Thennavan" currently leads to a 2003 film, and not the actor, who is credited as "Kai" Thennavan in the film.) Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating an article on him, and linking him here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • As with Thyagu - done enough notable work.
I don't know what you mean. And "Thyagu" currently leads to Thozhar Thiyagu, who is not an actor, hence no wikilink for him here. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating an article on the actor and linking him here. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manorama is in the infobox, but last in the credits - is this consistent? should she be removed from the infobox?
Done: Replaced her with Vinu Chakravarthy, who comes fourth in the intro credits. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • In paragraph 3 of cast and crew, some names are linked/some are not?
Do any of the unlinked members there have articles at the moment? If they have, we will add them. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems you took care of this, and thank you. However, some of the crew members are still not linked, though I don't think they may be that popular enough to have their own articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • Order of links again, Anu Sriram linked on second instance rather than first?

Editor 2050 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: She is now linked in the first instance (in the Filmfare part). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done - excited to see this reach FA status! Editor 2050 (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Image review:
  • File:Gemini DVD Cover.jpg - For such a recent film I'm very surprised you don't have the theatrical poster (which are preferred for film articles). Are you sure there's no copy available?
I'm afraid it may not be easily available online. I'll try contacting AVM Productions for the same. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gemini (2002 Tamil film) promotion.jpg - Fails NFCC#8, as we don't have to see the individuals to understand the text. We have free images of individual actors as well, so one or two of those could be used instead (thus this fails NFCC#1). I've nominated for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay, though here's hoping they'll send a copy of the poster. A DVD cover is a good interim measure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Request the delegates to not consider Kailash29792's support for this nomination as he certainly looks like a co-author of the article. (Though I perfectly understand that we run on consensus and not individual votes.) —Vensatry (ping) 02:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept my mistake, and my comments need not be accepted. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it was my mistake and apologies for that. Good luck with the nomination! —Vensatry (ping) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gemini_(2002_Tamil_film)/archive2&oldid=1208173133"