Talk:1: Nenokkadine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 February 2016. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014[edit]

plz let me edit their is wrong information provided (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Film Review Link Updated[edit] (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC) [1]

Question: I don't understand your request. That link is already in the article and works correctly. Please clarify. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Review : 1 Nenokkadine ". Gulte. 2014-01-11.

box office[edit]

1st day collections in AP were reported to be around 11.4cr (share).2nd day collections were around 10cr ap share.3rd day around 9 cr AP(share). Total first weekend ap share was around 30cr Vishwanath3939 (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done the box-office sources are very unreliable and hence won't be added to the article. Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle sorties 11:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Video game - section blanking[edit]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: With reference to this revert, your edit summary tells "not a reliable source". The contents in the section cites Either the issue could be brought to talk page or the creator/major contributor (@Raghusri) of the article or if this isn't a reliable source, it may be discussed at WP:RSN. Else {{Refimprove section}} could have been added to that section. Face-smile.svg Thank you --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 04:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

while "ref improve" could be used, removal of improperly sourced materials is also an equally valid option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it could be used. "Ref improve" could have been used and after a certain period of time, if no improvement is seen it could be blanked notifying the creator/major contributor. First you mentioned "not a reliable source" and now "improperly sourced", could you differentiate or educate me on that?
no practical difference - it fails to meet the criteria as outlined in WP:RS. it is not as if the person wishing to re-insert the content is unaware of the issues with the sourcing that they need to meet before restoring challenged content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

reviews- only professional review sites[edit]

We only include reviews from professional review sites, and we do not even need to include every "professional" review that we may find. The bloat with non professional reviews needs to be and stay trimmed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Nice, they are also Professional film news sources because Some times TOI source is using Gulte, Greatandhra as a Reference and 123T, IB and some other Sources also are needed because each Individual site will give their Own Review and Rating regarding any Film. So, we can found a lot of Difference between Reviews and Ratings from Individual sites. So, we can't say that it is Bloating (or) Repetition. So, you're Wrong. If you think that you are not Wrong then please Welcome the Editors you may Know. I am ready to discuss with them. Raghusri (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1: Nenokkadine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have this done today or tomorrow JAGUAR  14:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

  • The lead is perfect. I couldn't find any issues here
  • A couple of paragraphs in the Plot section could easily be merged in order to improve prose flow. I think the last five paragraphs are fairly short and some of them could be merged
  • Belfast is linked twice in the Plot section
  • "According to his doctor, if Gautham can hallucinate a person other than the three men he can be treated" - comma needed in between "men" and "he"
  • "Antonio Rosarios, a Goa-based crime boss who wants to kill her because she tried to expose the presence of hydrogen cyanide in seeds sold by AG1 (his company)" - who's company? Rosarios?
  • "Gautham learns that the aged taxi driver he met previously is really a businessman" - remove 'really', sounds a tad informal
  • "Rathnavelu shifted from chrome to black-and-white to full colour in sync with the story's mood" - synchronisation
  • "The next schedule, which began on 18 June, filmed in London and Belfast for 60 days" - delink London and Belfast here, both are already linked previously in the article
  • "Rathnavelu called the action scene in a London 'parking lot" - car park
  • "1: Nenokkadine received generally-negative reviews from critics" - why is there a hyphen here? I use "generally negative/positive" without the hyphen, it should be fine to lose it
  • No dead links

On hold[edit]

Is this a one I should watch? I remember watching the trailer and I can understand why some of the reviews are negative. The article is great, it is well written, well sourced and I couldn't find one issue with any of the sources. Once all of the minor points above are addressed, I'll be happy to promote this! Good article on hold JAGUAR  21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: 1: Nenokkadine is a case of wasted opportunities. Except for some four or five sequences, nothing actually impress us and it is its inherent issue. But what i loved was its intermission sequence and the fight in the car park. Anyways, thanks for reviewing the article, Jaguar. I've addressed the issues and i hope it is good to go now. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them, Pavan! Without further ado I'll pass this. Another excellent article. I really enjoy Telugu films, and I've started to watch them more than American films in recent months. It's a long story, but I'm slowly ignoring all of the recent commercial films. I'll take your advice and won't watch this film, though it's a shame that they wasted such good opportunities such as great shooting locations such as London. Good article JAGUAR  22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


The bulk of the data in the box office section seems to revolve around distributor share, not gross. Why is that? Am I misinterpreting what "share" means? MOS:FILM focuses on gross and budget, not financial details about distributor shares. Any info would be appreciated before I start trimming. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)