From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

GA onhold.svg This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Article is not appropriately following WP:MOSFILM: plot should be above production, soundtrack infobox is highly inappropriate, and lead is too short and introduces too many new facts. Entire article needs a copy edit, as well, as there are a lot of prose issues. Much of the article is cluttered with excessive references to other films that are not really relevant to the topic, other excessive tibits/factoids. The plot is too interpretive and does not act as a good summary, rather it reads more like the sort of summary one would see in a review. Production needs to be redone to better incorporate "inspirations" into a tighter part that opens the production, and some of the "gushing" prose needs work.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See above regarding plot. There are some questionable sources being used in the article that do not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, such as,,, deccanherald (dead links),, (blog), IMDB, and (user submitted). Other sources used need to be checked and their formats cleaned up to include missing details like author, date, publisher, and to use consistent formatting per MoS.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Reception section is far too sparse. It only lists awards, but no actual critic commentary/reviews. How did critics respond to the film? What did they praise? What did they criticize? Etc. See the MoS and some other GA/FA articles for formatting/content tips, but for a film that has won so many awards, there should certainly be such content out there. Its also lacking a distribution/release section.
  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):
    There are an excessive number of non-free images in an article this short. The soundtrack cover is completely unnecessary. The film scene File:Ananthabhadram Riya.jpg is not discussed critically and does not provide an essential or necessary image as what it depicts is easily described in words. The comparison of the scene and the painting, however, is a well used non-free image, but the FUR needs clean up/improvement and it should have the cite at the end of the caption.
  7. Overall:
    This article no longer meets the Good Article criteria. Please feel free to respond to or ask questions about the points noted below this check list (please do not put comments within it). This page will be on my watchlist until the GAR is completed. If the article is not improved or significant effort is being made to improve it, it will be delisted on June 6, 2009. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Working on the issues, especially the most serious one - reliability of sources. But, you have to understand that the soundtrack sidebar isn't irrelevant at all. Music is the heart of Indian cinema, and that really can't be irrelevant. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the infobox is irrelevant and it goes against the Wikipedia manual of style. It should only be used in an article about the soundtrack, not in an article about the film. A brief soundtrack section, written in prose as noted in the MoS, would be much more appropriate, but the infobox has to go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to take a closer look at the soundtrack issue. Almost all the articles listed with Category:GA-Class Indian cinema articles have the soundtrack sidebar, and for pretty good reason too. The music isn't as irrelevant in Indian films as in western films. I don't think this is an issue at all, rather this is a misunderstanding of the subject at hand. Aditya(talkcontribs) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all ones who passed in 2007 and early 2008 under less stringent GA guidelines and before the crackdown on non-free images began, and have subsequently failed attempts at FA or A and several are now under GAR as well. Those that passed more recently also do not have it, nor do those have who have passed FA and A. This is not a misunderstanding of the subject at hand, it is purely an issue of inappropriate non-free image use and inappropriate infobox use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you please note what you mean by gushing text? With a better understanding this should be easy to address. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Excessive and unnecessary adjectives. "Kavya Madhavan replaced Meera as the female lead and gave a performance that established her as the top heroine of the Malayalam Film Industry that year, aided by both commercial success and critical acclaim" - not only is it overly flowery, but the source does not support this sentence as it is written. The source notes that she was the top heroine of the year, but it does attribute it to this film, only noting it is one of five that she did. Nor does it mention anything about "commercial success and critical acclaim". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Which too many new facts do the lead introduce? This should be easy to address. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much all of them. The lead should be a summary of the article. There are six statements cited in the lead, however those are all facts that should be (and in some case already are) sourced within the actual article itself. Cited statements should be included in full in the article, while the lead should be a summation of the main points of the article. See the MoS and WP:LEAD.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Which films or factoids are not relevant to the topic? I should be able to remove them easily. Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Almost any place there are lists of them. One example: "In a year when most Malayalam films failed to recover costs, Anandabhadram was one of the few commercial successes, along with Rajamanickam, Chanthupottu, Naran, Thommanum Makkalum and Udayananu Tharam". The list of "along withs" is unnecessary. Focus on this film, not other stuff "Despite being a year when most Malayalam films were financial failures, Anandabhadram was considered a commercial success by grossing enough to cover the cost of making the film." Another, "It also inspired director KJ Bose's Tanthra (2006) featuring actors Siddique and Shweta Menon." (which is also unsourced". Just say "It inspired director KJ Bose's work on the 2006 film Tanthra." (and which IT? the film or the song?). And another "following the footsteps of Kalari-based movies like Palattu Koman (1962), Thacholi Othenan (1964), Kannappanunni (1977) and Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha (1989),[25] as well as famous martial art film actor Jackie Chan's The Myth." - the list is too excessive, just note one or two at most, if at all. Additionally, its lacking sources, including a source for the claim that this film follows those other film's footsteps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you be a little more specific about the plot? Which part of it doesn't work? Why? Aditya(talkcontribs) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire first paragraph is production information, not plot. Statements like "The real story begins when Ananthan" are not well written. "The film moves forward to the present when Ananthan..." would be more appropriate. There are also several places where characters are called "evil", "sinister", etc which are interprative. The plot should be a straight telling of what happened. This sentence "Digambaran lures Chemban's sister and his lover Bhama (Riya Sen) a series of sensuous and evil magical rites that feature a wide paraphernalia of the exotic, including Kathakali movements, traditional magic spells, special effects, and make-up artist Pattanam Rasheed's black-and-red face paints." is completely unclear, and seems to go from plot to production information again?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As per my original note, the article has been delisted as a Good Article. While there was discussion here, no actual work was done to address the issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You have delisted the article as soon as work began. Not a very pretty scene. Right? Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You had a week to start actually working on fixing the issues. You only started doing any actual work after it was delisted. Had work actually been underway, I would have considered extending the hold, but nothing had been done at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a seven day deadline and there is a real life. Neither seem to matter. Sigh. Aditya(talkcontribs) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)