Talk:Chandramukhi/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Easy to follow. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Kailash and Ssven addressed all concerns. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) It contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Yes. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Yes, it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Yes, it stays focused. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Yes Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Yes Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) non-free images have fair use rationales. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Yes, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Clears all GA criteria, Congrats!

Discussion[edit]

No cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need to dramatically reduce the resolution of: [[File:Chandramukhi_Blu_Ray_cover.jpg]] for use! --AmritasyaPutraT 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done reduced as per WP:NFCC. Ssven2 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the titular character" ... I am not sure 'the' is appropriate there because the character is not explained or referred to before. Perhaps 'a' is just fine?
  • Can you reword/clarify "honorary Kalaimamani Award"... the intent of honorary is not clear to me, unless you think it is appropriate, I may be lacking in this area.
  • "All the film's language versions were box-office successes." is "All these dubs" any better?
  • Perhaps a better/common word for Unbeknownst?
  • The plot has no inline reference at all, I am sure you have references going by the neat reference section, can you add references to this section? --AmritasyaPutraT 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) As per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: thanks, I didn't know that! --AmritasyaPutraT 15:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed 'honorary'. Regarding the titular character bit, the titular character refers to the dancer, Chandramukhi, which is portrayed by Jyothika, that's why it was written as 'the titular character' but I have changed that part as well . I have changed 'All the film's language versions were box-office successes' to 'The other language versions of the film were also successful' and 'Unbeknownst' to 'Unknown'. Ssven2 (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further inputs:

  • To me, in "Coincidentally, another film", coincidentally sounds like editorializing and may be avoided.
  • Sidney Sladen can be wiki-linked.
  • "He sported a wig and exercised for his role." That 'exercised' part feels a bit like hanging in the middle without context.
  • Can you fix if possible (or tag) the reference "Tamil cinema: the cultural politics of India's other film industry (info)"?
  • What is the meaning of "and gave the film 40 marks"?
  • In the Box office subsection of India and Overseas there are too many "equivalent to" which hamper the readability, we are not going to update it every year, so we might as well just leave it (from the entire article). Is there an established practice for such case? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed 'Coincidentally'. Created an article for Sidney Sladen. Removed 'exercised'. Fixed the references like you said, but I kept the Dhananjayan reference as it is extensively used as compared to the other three. Changed 'Bibliography' to 'Further reading'. '40 marks' changed to '40 out of 100 marks'. Changed the equivalent to for 'Box Office' section. Ssven2 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Only MoS and citation to reliable sources left, I will check the citations individually, I am holding back on MoS for the currency equivalent in the article, I feel they are too many and does not add so much to the article subject, except for the infobox USD others can be purged IMHO. I am okay if you feel they are needed. Best is if we have an equivalent FA article where we can compare what is better to do, or if any guidelines for such usage. Let me know your views on this. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssven2, I think there is a mistake: the lead states that Chandramukhi is the longest running South Indian film (890 days), but this source states that Magadheera (2009) completed 1000 days. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kailash29792, I didn't know Magadheera completed 1000 days. Thanks again, bro. Ssven2 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmritasyaPutra: Thanks a ton, bro ! My first GA success! I can't believe it! Ssven2 (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chandramukhi/GA1&oldid=1038140033"