Talk:Don 2

Don 2 was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 13 November 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Archives

1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 04:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starting the Review. Will post comments and problem soon. ASHU^IND 04:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failing the GA Due to absurd behavior from the contributors of the article and their wish to Fail the GA Review. Wishing good faith luck for next time nomination.

Problems

Remove all the links regarding Don (character) since they are simply redirecting to the original Don film. ASHU^IND 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

Please mention the two Filmfares won by the film. Its necessary. ASHU^IND 11:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added Filmfare best sound design and best action to the lead.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links found and tagged.ASHU^IND 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

concerning this edit. I have no idea why IndiaToday.com links give a soft 404 in the Checklinks Tool. However, if you would check them yourself, they're working just fine.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

The sound track is too small to be called as a section. Just two lines are not sufficient to make readers aware of the soundtrack info. Add more info regarding reception and some background too.ASHU^IND 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Gross

When you are saying in the article everything about overseas even about reception, then you should find the correct amount regarding total gross worldwide.ASHU^IND 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem regarding the worldwide gross is not in the overseas numbers, it's in the domestic one. Since the film is dubbed and box office India doesn't keep track of the Tamil/Telugu versions. So unless an other 3rd source reports the worldwide gross (as the case for Ra.One), we only obtain the Hindi version's worldwide gross.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is regarding the statement (Hindi Version Only). One cant write that when the film is globally released. You'll have to remove this statement. Box Office India is a reliable resource so just stick with that unless BOM updates their database. Else keep the figure as it is and remove the statement regarding Hindi Version. ASHU^IND 10:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi version only doesn't refer to domestic gross only or India gross only...It means that the version spoken in Hindi has grossed this amount of money...but I see your concern there. I suppose safest road to take is to remove (Hindi Version Only) but that will make the info sort of inaccurate. However, I will remove it since not many would understand the difference and state a full explanation in the box office section. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't understand why that is being done. "Hindi Version" (no need for only) can be put up in small font next to the gross to make it accurate. 210 is only that value and it includes the overseas collections. There is no issue if worldwide gross is not available, that does not make the article go against any of the GA criteria. If I overlooked any point, please let me know. X.One ^SOS 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First there is no mention that the film was dubbed in English. So we have to consider the worldwide (oversease included) income with Hindi language. This simply eliminates the necessity of saying (Hindi Gross) in the grossing . ASHU^IND 12:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbed in English? I didn't get you. X.One ^SOS 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the foreign language films are dubbed in Hindi when release in India, no such thing is done for Don 2's international release. So my point is its pointless to say Hindi Version Gross since its released worldwide in Hindi only. Any ways I guess Meryam90 has already solved that part and stated it in the box office section. ASHU^IND 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that means that we are neglecting the Tamil and Telugu versions, however paltry their combined gross may be. In the lead and BO section, one version and in the infobox, another one? X.One ^SOS 13:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashu, this has been a very heavily-discussed and often unnecessarily disrupted controversy, but I'll state it flat: we have to write the (Hindi Version) part. You are not getting the point; Don 2 was dubbed in Tamil and Telugu, and those bits also earned revenue. For Hollywood films Box Office Mojo does include dubbed versions; the same must be done here was well. Since dubbed version revenue is unavailable, we must specify the Hindi part, otherwise we are misleading the people who read the article. I see Meryam has already removed the bit, but I strongly object to that. Already there has been too much of dirty fighting and overlong "consensus-making" especially regarding Ra.One and Bodyguard, and in both cases the discussions got inevitably hijacked to fan warring. Please, let's avoid that here. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, removing Hindi version only would be inaccurate of sort. However, since the matter has been going through endless discussions over a long period of time and none of the parties involved managed to come up with a solution. In addition, for a reader not familiar with the whole Tam/Tel dubbing concept, I have removed the expression from the Info Box only and kept it in the Box Office section. I don't suppose it would be a big deal anyway. Oh and Ashu, the Telugu and Tamil version have been released internationally as well.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meryam, that is not a reason to remove the Hindi part; yes, the box office and lead do mention that, but understand that many of our readers look towards the infoboxes for a quick glance summary-type view; if that is incorrect then most people would get the wrong idea. No consensus was obtained simply because consensus-making was purposely disrupted, diverted and man-handled by Scieberking and his gang of trolls, and that's not even a secret (notice that HereToSaveWiki and Seeta Mayya are nowhere here). We can't stop in our tracks and start putting false information just to satisfy an egotist fanatic's wish. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the box office part is a bit complex. We all here are members of Indian Cinema Task Force so its simple to make it a convention just to use the worldwide colection (hindi+other languages). If other language data is not available, then it'll simply be considered negligible to make it to the news. Hence no need to write anything about which we have no data or sources. This issues will always be presented whenever an Indian film article goes for a GA nomination. Simply in the infobox write the total or watever amount is known, dnt write to which language it belongs. Box Office India mostly shows the Indian box office performance is maximum number of cases. ASHU^IND 14:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The lack of availability does not make it negligible of any sort. X.One ^SOS 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? NO. Just because they are not reported does no mean in any way that the collections are negligible. You've got it all wrong. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that it make me feel (I have no words for how it makes me feel) having to go through this? because we have gone through it A LOT! Seriously, it isn't THAT significant! so I'm gonna fix the rest of User:Secret of success suggestions while you boys try to agree on something here. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand LOL. We have been through this often enough. Don't worry, we'll come to something. Sure, carry on. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make one thing very clear. If something doesn't have a source provided for it, it can not exist on wiki. Else simply tags will be placed that article contains uncensored material. I've reviewed so many film article but this kind of situation only arises in case of Bollywood films. Every thing about the article is based on poor resources and presumptions. Many reviewers from other countries ask questions about the sources. Some i simply ignore becoz those websites are primary source in India and they wont get it right. Regarding budget. Let it be like this till you get a proper source which it says about worldwide gross. Else simply leave that thing blank. You cant go on like this assuming that there is some amount which can be added to the gross. Holywoood film article literally ignore income from the countries about which no data is available. You guys have to learn this. And when the clear data regarding the gross is available it can be simply update. All I'm saying is, you cant write gross according to the language. If it was domestic or international you could have specified it but same thing does not work in the favor of languages. Who know in which country its dubbed into what language. ASHU^IND 17:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I beg your pardon? This is now reaching to the point of emotional over-reacting. I absolutely oppose this statement "Every thing about the article is based on poor resources and presumptions." There is nothing that allows you to say this. You may have reviewed thousands of articles but that does not give you freedom to speak anything as you wish. Such comments are not entertained. If you feel so, then cancel this GA review as quick-fail, why are you bothered for reviewing this article? And you are not an authority to state that "Indian websites never get it right". You should learn how to speak properly. And NO, they are not primary sources no matter how much people state; it is clearly stated that BOI estimates based on numbers given by theater distributors. They DO NOT make their own figures. You should just have given suggestions about improvement, who asked you to air such smart claims that you have? We can leave it blank; there is no issue in that.

Clearly, you do not know how to speak in a review process and are clearly far away from proper review process for anything, much less a GA. It would be best if a peer review is taken up before this GA review that is beginning to turn into a pile of nonsense. You have no idea of the amount of trouble we had regarding box office figures, and these issues will remain very touchy, and your totally insensitive and silly way of taking up this matter is infuriating. If you have problems, state them and be quiet. Otherwise, stop this GA right now. This mater should be handled much more competently, and frankly I am totally appalled. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you felt so. It was the nominator who requested me to review. If you think I'am not well versed with the facts then sure go ahead. I'm failing this GA. ASHU^IND 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Link to Don word redirects to Don (1978 film). A misleading redirect. Remove that. ASHU^IND 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add the link to Kunal Kapoor's page. Dont mistreat that actor :) ASHU^IND 10:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalize the Don in the statement ...Sameer was loyal to don and giving his information ... ASHU^IND
Spacing problems after braces () and fulstops.

...and Don is captured.Don threatens Sameer...
...Sameer (Kunal Kapoor)calls the police...
...assassins Jabbar(Nawab Shah) instead....
...papers and surrenders the disc(containing the information about his associates) and ...
..that kills Diwan.It is also revealed that Sameer...

All done. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casting And Filming

Six pack problem. Didn't SRK had six packs in Om Shanti Om and Ra.One already? ASHU^IND 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. he lost the Om Shanti Om six packs for the filming of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi (2008) and he was asked to gain the muscles for the lean body of Don before he started his training for the superhero look in Ra.One.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last para. Tense is futuristic. This will be the first of a kind music... and The song is a special promotional video that will not appear in the film itself... ASHU^IND 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception (India)

Make the zoOm normal as it is titled it its own article. (i.e. Zoom). ASHU^IND 12:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is an unofficial review. I have obtained the GA1 reviewer's prior permission to cross-check the article once. I'll be posting comments below. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

Replace "movie" with "film" wherever possible. X.One ^SOS 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References need assiduous formatting. There is a erratic mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd in the date and accessdates. Authors are missing in almost all references. Please see WP:CITEHOW for further information. X.One ^SOS 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first one is a good suggestion, so I've done it, as for the links, most links in this article are formatted using reflinks which is very acceptable for a criteria of a GA.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but use only one. All the references must be in one format. A mixture of reflinks and manual formatting is not acceptable. X.One ^SOS 14:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not been done yet. All references using cite web and cite news must have these six fields : Title, url, publisher, author, date and accessdate. X.One ^SOS 05:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CW: If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.

Since I am the main content contributor, the format that should best suit the article (and the most frequent as it is) is : url, title, publisher, date and accessdate.--Meryam90 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:CW says no such thing. Where exactly is it and could you quote it as it is? X.One ^SOS 15:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the wrong policy. It is WP:CITE and it falls under the Variation in citation methods section: to change existing citations to make them follow a consistent system and style, if there is currently inconsistency within the article. If there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor or start a discussion on the talk page; It is also found in WQ:CITE in When there is a factual dispute section.--Meryam90 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And simply saying it cannot make it accepted. Please provide a valid rationale for your style. X.One ^SOS 09:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look,Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles. you thinkthe order you have given is best, I disagree and according t wiki if in disagreement, refer to the style most used in the article or the one used by the mane contributor. which is both for the one I have stated.--Meryam90 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors cannot chose whatever they want, that is a statement which arose from a strong misunderstanding of the liberty given by Wikipedia for its editors. Please go through WP:CITEHOW as I have stated above. It says that :

- - "Citations for newspaper articles typically include the name of the newspaper (in italics), the date of publication, the byline (author's name) if any, the title of the article (within quotation marks), and the city of publication if not included in the name of the newspaper."
  - "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include the name of the author(s), the title of the article (within quotation marks), the name of the website, the date of publication (if known), the date you retrieved the page, for example Retrieved 2008-07-15. (this is required if the publication date is unknown)." X.One ^SOS 10:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can chose the style, and if it violates Citehow, then a rationale is needed. X.One ^SOS 10:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, there is no one single style for doing this, in terms of ordering of the information, punctuation, etc

The policy states what should be added, not the style or in what order, which means that edits can choose the order in which to classify the information in the citations. What I want to understand right now,is what is your problem with the existing style the main editor has chosen?--Meryam90 (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no problem with the information to be added, then why do you disagree with it? My problem is, "author" is a necessary feature for references as stated by Citehow. Please give me a reason as to why you feel its unnecessary. X.One ^SOS 12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources do not mention an author; what is supposed to be done then? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be added only to the ones which mention it. X.One ^SOS 13:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And leave it out for the rest? That's also not uniform. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of what Ankit said AND cause according to WP:CITE/ES: webpages, the author is often unknown; you can either omit the author altogether, or substitute something vague like "Open Source Initiative Contributor". Clear enough?! and since most Indian newspapers don't have it, I chose to omit it all together. --Meryam90 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is absent in a few sources does not mean it can be omitted. Even dates are absent in a few references, does it validate the complete elimination of that framework? X.One ^SOS 16:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, who says that authors are absent in most Indian newspaper reports, pray? X.One ^SOS 16:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going any further with this discussion, you're clearly just looking to complicate thing for some reason. the format of the ref in the article are uniform (exp for the Critical reception section which will be done with soon) and do follow a certain specific style according to Wiki rules and as far as I can see, no policy is being broken here (if you feel so, get an admin here). That is all I have to add to this--Meryam90 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I can be, both WP:CITEHOW and WP:CITE/ES, two guidelines, are being violated here without a lucid apprehension. I really do not think that my comments were generic in any manner. X.One ^SOS 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let's just clarify a few things. If we use the author template, then not all references will be filled because some newspapers title the author as a "Special Correspondent" so according to me, placing the author tag will be non-uniform throughout the article. However, there is no real problem if the author-cited references are duly updates. Perhaps Meryam's concrn is that searching through such a large number of references to put author names for almost all of them is a long and time-consuming process that will delay the GAR more than necessary. A GA doesn't require such finely worked-out details IMO, it can be overlooked. However had this been an FAR then matters would have been different. Hopefully, we can get to some sort of conclusion here. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard work is necessary, no one denies that. That includes the bit for references. We cannot just expect that the house will build itself without any work. I'm talking about ALL GA contributors. Just because it is not required, it does not mean that even though it is available, we should not add it. X.One ^SOS 09:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was Meryam's concern; you will have to ask Meryam why she isn't willing to do so. I never stated that hard work isn't necessary, read my statement properly "Perhaps Meryam's concrn is that searching through such a large number of references to put author names for almost all of them is a long and time-consuming process that will delay the GAR more than necessary." I never said that was my concern. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Positive to mixed" for Indian reviews? I see 5 critics panning the film. X.One ^SOS 15:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2.5 stars is "average", not panning. Though I agree that "mixed" will be much more appropriate than "positive to mixed". ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 reviews giving the film positive reviews and a rating of 4 to 3 stars and 4 reviews gave it a 2.5 stars which as User:Ankitbhat said, is considered mixed an not negative. However, 5 reviews gave the film 2 stars or below. So it is reasonable to say that the reviews were positive to mixed.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I calculated the average score, excluding the two non-rated reviews and the average rating is estimatedly 2.5, which is mixed. X.One ^SOS 11:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average score is actually 2.8 but you have excluded one positive review, which created the flaw in your calculation. --Meryam90 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, then. X.One ^SOS 13:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The four images in the film require a WP:ALT. X.One ^SOS 13:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is no longer necessary esp for free images. even recent GA articles such as Dabangg, Ra.One and ZNMD don't have them. Exp maybe for the posters.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the remainder. As you can see, ZNMD does have it and if Ra.One doesn't, it should be added before the next GA reassessment. It applies to the poster in the infobox. X.One ^SOS 05:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZNMD only has it for the posters anyway and not for the free pictures which means that not all 4 images needs it, only the poster. And the fact that over a dozen recent GA articles I have checked were passed while there was no Alt Text proves it is not necessary. Even an FA article such as Preity Zinta doesn't have it. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring WP:OSE cases here. An alt text is, after all two or three lines, and that too only for the poster. A BLP article need not have alt text primarily due to the fact that free-images often exist in the infobox. X.One ^SOS 10:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least now you understand that free images do not need Alt Text. Good. So NOT all four of them need it. And I still stand by the fact that they're not necessary. Shall add one to the poster (only) though. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Information about the producers is required in the lead. X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haphazardly organized lead, this one. Please make sure it is well organized in order of the sections. X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific order to the leads. however, this lead follows the norm for any film and the order of the sections as well: Director, leads, filming locations, summary, release, critical reception, Box office performance and finally awards. Where is the Hazard? --Meryam90 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a followed standard. For example, "It was filmed in Thailand, Germany, Malaysia and Switzerland." is the 3rd sentence? Please make sure it is organized. Basic info, plot, development, casting, filming, marketing, release, reception and accolades. This is the order. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It has been sorted.

No, I'm still not satisfied. Such a large article requires a nicely summarizing lead. Go through WP:FILMLEAD for more instructions. Or follow Ra.One, which has a nicely constructed and properly summarizing structure. The lead normally does not have references, and if the present references are used elsewhere in the article, they can be removed from the lead. X.One ^SOS 16:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

according to WP:FILMLEAD the lead must cover what is considered milestones or major achievements regarding the film. Ra.One is a special case because it had many firsts and was a big film and I alway believed it had a lead which is way too long. You can check any other GA article and most lead you'll find have elements which are present in the lead of this article. No more work will be needed for the lead because it is long enough as it is and covers enough ground regarding the film.--Meryam90 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about stuff like Hrithik Roshan's cameo, which received quite a lot of attention, promotion budget, brand tie-up's, video games, controversies, ~~notable places where it was shot~~, delays in release and ~~some more about the 3d conversion~~ the reports about Don 3? X.One ^SOS 05:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brand tie-ups aren't very notable because they were in the norm of any other Bollywood film (just a couple) not like Ra.One who had a huge number of 52 brand ties ups. promotional budget is again in the norm, just like the money for distribution. Cameos are sure not gonna be mentioned in the lead esp such a small cameo which was denied till the time of release and therefor was not part of the promotional drive and wasn't given an importance by the makers of the film. It is already mentioned in the lead that the film was released in both 2D and 3D. Don 3 is speculations, we can only mention a sequel if it has been officially announced, which is not the case for this film. Like I said before, Please don't state Ra.One as a ref point or example because that was a really huge and special film.--Meryam90 (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you say that the 3d conversion was so special, if the brand tie-up's are not? If not anything, they, by all means deserve a mention in the lead, irrespective of their stance compared to Ra.One, because 22 crore was a record marketing budget, and I think, the highest after Ra.One till date. I don't see what problem you have with that. AND, if DON 3 is speculation, then it should not at all be in the article. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation and rumors. Thanks for pointing that out. What about the other points which I said deserve a place in the lead? X.One ^SOS 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? odd enough that ZNMD has a sequel section (of 3 sentences) talking about a sequel that will never happen and is absolute speculations. However, the reason why the sequel section in this article exists is that there was that scene at the end which hinted to its existence and that all of the team of the film insist that a sequel is in the cards but do not comment on the "when", but it can not be added to the lead unless it is OFFICIALLY announced. Like I said, the lead will remain as it is. something being second or third highest isn't an achievement, Bodyguard had a similar promotion budget, so it is nothing special. and the film was never delayed in release, when it was announced in Feb 2010, it had a xmas 2011 release all along.

I wont be filing the lead with unnotable informations just so it can look big. Sorry, but "size does not matter"--Meryam90 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section should mention Roshan's cameo; its very important in the film's story-line. The marketing budget is not really necessary, a ₹22 crore cost isn't eye-popping and similar marketing costs are borne by most major Bollywood films. Don 3 speculations are just that - speculations; they certainly have no place in the lead. We should ideally mention that the film was 3D converted. There were no delays in release at all. Controversies must get a mention, just a sentence like "The film faced controversies regarding ... ". ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I did some re-working of the lead and added necessary info. Hopefully its alright. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was filmed in Thailand, Germany, Malaysia and Switzerland." - Wasn't it filmed in India? Goa? Others? X.One ^SOS 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added India even though it was only for a promotional music video not included in the film.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"criticism has been generated regarding its pace and music." Have they been the only major aspects criticized? X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would check the source provided and most of the reviews, the slow pace and mediocre music have indeed been the only consistent problems critics had with the film. So the answer is yes. :)--Meryam90 (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see many criticisms for the script and storyline as well, including in the mixed and some of the positive reviews. Please add that. X.One ^SOS 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The script has never been a major issue (not the same way Rock star or Ra.One).Stated in the lead are only teh aspects which were heavily criticized. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent your posts properly and the script has been criticized. Even Taran Adarsh, in his review says "But the film could've done with a tighter script" and "There's no denying that a cohesive script would've made a world of a difference to the film." X.One ^SOS 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one critic's review, there is a difference between something having mixed reviews (liked by some, hated by others) and being over-ally panned. The elements stated in the lead are the latter. Some reviewers (esp overseas) loved the Storyline/script. The Pace and the Music, however, were almost universally not liked by critics.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, as far as I can see the plot wasn't universally criticized, just a few did. But music was not appreciated that much (however, in the film, critics praised it as it flowed well with the movie). ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been criticized by a significant percentage of the reviews (even if not universally), it should be added. X.One ^SOS 06:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What has been criticized by critics is the pace in which the action flowed,most said the film was slow, they didn't criticize the technicality or the writing itself. So the script or screenplay has not been criticized in itself nor did it have major problems for critics to be added to the lead.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, then. I looked at the reviews, and around half of them criticize the story and screenplay, but nevertheless. X.One ^SOS 10:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Don 2 has been widely appreciated for its action, direction and cinematography with Shahrukh Khan receiving accolades for his performance" - Shahrukh is the lead actor, and connecting the statements of him winning accolades and critics praising something he was not involved sounds quite absurd. Please reword it. X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well normally I wouldn't mention his name, but reading the reviews, most critics used expressions like "the film belongs to Khan or watch it for Khan or see it if you are a fan of him...so he has been praised heavily for his performance.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question of accolades here then? The prose must be clear and concise, according to GA criteria. The lead needs a lot of work. X.One ^SOS 15:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question of accolades here then? because he has won over 4 major awards for best actor for his performance as Don.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you mix the accolades and the critical reception? X.One ^SOS 15:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)ù[reply]

There is no mix, in order to know an actor has been receiving accolades for his performance, you read praise of his performance in reviews by critics and you notice he has won many awards for it. Which was the case for SRK in Don 2. Pretty simple.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI think this is sorted as well major-ally favorable critical reception + many awards won for best actor justify the presence of that sentence in the lead.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Box Office India declared the film a "hit" in India, and a week later" - Change it to "in the second week" for easier understanding. X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"popular award ceremonies" - "popular ceremonies"? X.One ^SOS 12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"popular award ceremonies" will be the best option as far as my concern. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I share the same view as User:Karthikndr--Meryam90 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development

The second para has a loonngg quotation which is totally unnecessary. It should be removed and re-written with minimal quotes. X.One ^SOS 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneShortened it a bit, as for the second quote, I see no use of removing it...it has valuable informations.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sidhwani revealed that he had the idea of converting the film into 3D after seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2." - This sentence speaking about the inspiration is not really necessary as Hindi films are increasingly being converted to 3D, as of late. X.One ^SOS 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this has been only the second film ever to be converted (Hunted-3D was shot in that format) so it is quit significant to state that.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if conversion and direct shooting is different, no issues. X.One ^SOS 11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The first paragraph of the "Casting and filming" section could be moved to "Development" and the section can be renamed as "Filming". Two sentences do not merit a section. X.One ^SOS 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

"According to Khan, the city was chosen because it demanded a more realistic backdrop, unlike some of his other films shot in more fairy-tale-like environments of countries like Switzerland." - Eh? Either add quotes if it is present in the source, or re-word it. X.One ^SOS 14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneRemoved it all together, it didn't add much to the article anyway.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link "unkempt hair" and "stubble" if those entries exist. X.One ^SOS 14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI actually found a Wiki page for stubble, beats me, but I added it :P--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Chopra prepared her body for at least two months" - Specify how many months or use "more than" or "around". X.One ^SOS 14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Though I still don't see the difference between more than and at least.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"specially shipped from Korea" - Remove it. Or explain how it is so special. X.One ^SOS 14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, the fact that it is shipped from Korea makes it special. It's one of those things that explains itself.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is subjective in the first place and what is so special about something being imported from another country? That too cars? Like I said, you need to explain it in the article or remove it. X.One ^SOS 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove it, its really not something worth mentioning. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you both think so then fine by me.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"47 points out of 60" - What does that mean? The quote does not explain. The second quote from Sidhwani in the para is absolutely not needed. It should be removed. X.One ^SOS 14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI've removed it. It's pretty vague indeed.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"they have opted to visualize the song as an action sequence." - Who has opted? And is the first time. What about Raaftarein from Ra.One. That was also action sequence and a song. X.One ^SOS 14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Well contrarily to Raaftarein which simply showed SRK standing there just singing or making his typical moves in addition to some sequences of the making and behind the scene, professional choreographer has been invited to create the entire scene/sequence of the song. Have you watched the song? then it shall be very clear to you the difference between the two songs.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

"The film's original score and soundtrack has been composed by Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, who composed the music for the first installment of the series, with lyrics penned by Javed Akhtar." - Even Javed Akhtar was part of the original, ain't it? Please re-phrase the sentence. X.One ^SOS 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add a sentence about the reviews received by the soundtrack, whether they were positive or negative or whatever. X.One ^SOS 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-release revenues

Overlinking of Euro has been found. X.One ^SOS 15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done removed.

"The distributors, Reliance Entertainment have bought the rights of the film from Excel Entertainment for 85 crore (US$18.7 million) and spent another 22 crore (US$4.84 million) in prints and marketing." - Better in promotion as it describes the amount spent on marketing? Or better, the sentence can be separated into two parts, the first part in this section and the next part in promotion. X.One ^SOS 15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the highest satellite amount as compared to other films released by Reliance Entertainment in the same year." - Does it really deserve a mention? It accounts only for a single year and a single company. X.One ^SOS 15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done However, the the 2nd point, promotion sections is mostly for the promotional activities/deals. So the money spent on the film by the distributors is better kept at the Pre-release revenues section.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Money spent on promotion is like a summarizing point of the promotional activities. It needs to be mentioned as the first or second sentence of the section "Promotion". X.One ^SOS 15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make much difference since the info is included in the Marketing section overall plus the money has been used for the video games as well. so keeping it in the per-revunues section wont create a sort of confusion regarding the other 2.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you remove it? X.One ^SOS 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's valuable informations to the article. How can we remove the promotion budget?!!--Meryam90 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC

You just said its already mentioned elsewhere. X.One ^SOS 15:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it has been mentioned elsewhere :P I said the money for print and marketing has been used on both the promotion AND video games (both which have separate sections) and thats why I can't put the 22 crore figure in only the promotion section because part of that 22 crore has been also used for video games . --Meryam90 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneI think this one has been sorted as well, unless it is still not clear enough for the editor and further explanation is needed.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. X.One ^SOS 12:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

"The first theatrical trailer of the film and its poster were released along with Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara" - Uh, how were they released? Were they incorporated into the prints of ZNMD or released in a separate function? X.One ^SOS 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done As for every film. Through the prints of course. It's common info anyway.--Meryam90 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Using technology to innovate film marketing has gone unabashedly high with Don 2" -subjective. X.One ^SOS 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sourced, not an editor's words. can be found in the newspaper article itself.--Meryam90 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the source and its a clean copyright violation. It needs to re-written in own words. I suspect similar problems linger all over the article. X.One ^SOS 06:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the duplicate director on this article (I have before). and there is minimum matches between any source and the text in this article exp for obvious quotes. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, newspapers don't adhere to NPOV, we have to convert it. Copy-pasting is not right, I'm afraid. X.One ^SOS 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tweaked.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"meet Khan himself - Remove that as it is a clearly biased word. X.One ^SOS 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"quite popular worldwide" - Remove the "quite" as it unnecessarily confuses the reader. X.One ^SOS 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Meryam90 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"various non-metropolitan centers" - Indian English spelling "centres" and what is "non-metropolitan"? X.One ^SOS 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All last three issues sorted. --Meryam90 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comic and video game

Well written section, I must say. X.One ^SOS

Only issue I could find = "Sidhwani while speaking about the game, said "This is the first time a game is based on an Indian film that will be launched on four platforms. When I saw the creative of the game, I was very excited because the visuals were as real as the characters in the film. For an iconic character like Don, I think this was the best way to keep the hysteria going amongst his fans."" - Again, a long quote. Please convert only the relevant info to indirect speech. X.One ^SOS 16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - I shall check the other sections in the remaining part of the article, at most by the next 48 hours. If I do not do so by that time, I request Ashu to find out whatever issues possible, and if fixed, to take appropriate action. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Shortened it, it looks very decent now. I am unfortunately off as well. :D --Meryam90 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release

"Don 2 released worldwide on 23 December 2011, in 3,105 screens in the domestic market, including 500 prints in 3D and 650 screens in 40 countries overseas.[50][51]" — Synthesis. The first source says 3105 screens and the second 2850. However, only the second gives the overseas data. Screen count may not be accurate, but I suggest that you look out for a source which gives both in the same report. Ah....I got one, this can be substituted for 51. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"The second phase of international release is scheduled to begin on 11 February 2012 when Don 2 will be showcased at Berlinale in Germany." — The bold info is not verified by given source. All it says is that the film will be screened at the film festival, but nothing about a second phase release is mentioned. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the second phase was suppose to begin in January according to this but it was postponed to Feb (there are sources to confirm that, but unfortunately, they're not RS-according to Wiki)...There is no reliable source to verify that because it was only announced on Twitter and no newspaper picked up on it. However, I will keep it because it's very much true and it is not a vital info that necessarily needs a source.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, all subjective claims, regardless of their level of subjectiveness need a reliable source for verification. If you cannot find a source, please remove that. Its just a part of the sentence anyway. X.One ^SOS 12:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed--Meryam90 (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

No issues. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India

No issues. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas

Rearrange rated reviews before un-rated reviews. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Domestic

"By the end of its eighth week, the film has grossed 106.03 crore (US$23.33 million) from it's Hindi version.[105]" — Not verified by source. Plus, I think its "nett", not "gross". X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was verified last week when Don 2 was still on that table :P. The archives give an error when I want to get back to previous dates. I'll try later, I guess.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done It has been removed. X.One ^SOS 09:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International

User {{INRConvert}} for "Rs." and link "$" once for US$, Australian $ and New Zealand $. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The film became the highest grossing Bollywood film overseas of 2011 and was declared a blockbuster by Box Office India after collections reached around 63.18 crore (US$13.9 million)" — Not verified completely by source. A blockbuster, yes, but the report says that $12 million is "expected". X.One ^SOS 11:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Can't link New Zealand cause it's mentioned in a combined gross with Fiji and others but linked all else.

As for the second point, I've removed it since I still stand by the fact that if inbfo are not available at all, it's better ignored. --Meryam90 (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can retain the blockbuster part. X.One ^SOS 12:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I didn't delete that.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, then. X.One ^SOS 13:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

Needs uniform formatting. Put all the wins from one ceremony together and similar vice versa. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove stuff like "Also for ...". They won the award for this film right? Then its good enough. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Even tho "Also for ..." would make the information accurate. but since it can be found in the respective section of the other films, it doesn't really matter then.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

Two long quotes present. Please remove it, and explain it in indirect speech, as short as possible. X.One ^SOS 11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

So, what source claims that the sequel is not happening? Browsingman (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide gross

I am making this section because when I am gonna file an other GA nomination, I don't want an other childish and absurd discussion filled with illogical reason to fill the review. We're going to AGREE on what will be put in the article regarding the worldwide gross and if the parties involved ('you know who you are) start an other stupid discussion like the ones in Bodyguard and Ra.One's talk pages, I should kindly request you to step away from the next GA review because your presence shall be pointless. Thank you.

Now, I understand that we have all been through this before, but something Ashu has pointed out has made a lot of sense to me, we're not gonna be picky, if things are unknown they should be ignored till further informations are available hence it is pointless to state Hindi version only or not. So it would be best to keep the 210 cr ONLY in Info box and then we can agree of what to clarify in the Box Office section in the article. I hope you can manage to keep this SHOT. --Meryam90 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to next GA nomination

I suggest that the main editors of this article work in the issues listed above in the "comments" section before nominating the article for the next GA process. If you find any objection, please leave a note in my talk page. Thanks and regards. X.One ^SOS 05:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues addressed have been worked upon, those who were not significant enough or has been agreed to not be changed has been kept in their current state. Thanks for your contribution.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure not. Let me tell you, if the needful for a concern has been done, place {{done}} template below my comment and sign. In that way, we'll know which has and which has not been worked upon. X.One ^SOS 11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have eyes? It's pretty possible for you to see words such as DONE written bollow suggestions without the need of a lil green symbol. However, I am ought to remind you that as a regular editor (and not a GA reviewer) not all of your suggestions will be taken in consideration if they're found not to be valuable to the improvement of the article. Thank you. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Some of my major concerns like the reference formatting has not even been addressed at all. The article is unfit for GA otherwise X.One ^SOS 11:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look like I am nominating it now? and does it look like that concern has been tagged as done? if no then it will be addressed.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you completely misunderstood me. I said that if you have done it, please add the template. If you haven't, please take your time. X.One ^SOS 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see so many done templates and pardon me, what is the duplicate detector? A tool? X.One ^SOS 12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a tool that shows how many matches there is between the content of two web pages. It's normal to find words or one or two sentences. When it surpasses an entire paragraph then it's a Copy vio. Like I have said, I've already checked the article. It's all good.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People! I loved reading this GA Review and comments more than the article itself. Please take it as a compliment to the efforts put by all. Good work going on! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed out all possible flaws I could find in the article. If these are fixed, I believe that it can be nominated and soon, promoted. X.One ^SOS 11:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Animesh, the "comments" were not a part of the GA review. It was just an unofficial feedback. :P X.One ^SOS 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA can wait

Seriously, the BO section has so many peacock words like "It posted an extraordinary second day of etc." I mean, what? The article needs quite some work before we can even think of going for a GA. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary a peacock word? Maybe. I still doubt it, though. X.One ^SOS 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If its in a quote, then no. But in a plain sentence, yes. How would you feel if you saw something like this : "Don 2 had simply extraordinary action scenes. The locations were extraordinarily breath-taking"? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last hurdle

The article looks absolutely fit for a GA review now. Except for one thing: the overseas critical reception section. I would like to point it out that the section seems to be indulging in WP:CHERRY and is inaccurate, not to mention incomplete. The overseas general reception was not "praise", Don 2 received a mixed critical reception overseas as well. This is also evident in the Metacritic score for the film (49), which is missing from the section. Some reviews have been placed with only positive-sounding portions to make them look like positive reviews; in reality, they are negative/mixed (LA Times). These are serious issues and I'd be happy if we can collaborate to remove these errors. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Tried to correct some misquotes. --Iateyourgranny (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only problem. The issue with references still persists, and most of them are not formatted properly. I have no problem with omission of author, but the other five fields must exist in each and every one of them, news media should be italicized, not overlinked and uniformity must be maintained. Some questionably reliable ones include 31, 50 and 118. Their reliability must be proved, or they must be replaced with better ones or must be removed along with their content. If that is looked into, I would say that GA's not far off, but otherwise, it is a fail. Secret of success 10:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not done with the article in term of expansion...There are much more info I'm going to add to various sections...So, it's not gonne be put up for GA anytime soon. I just want to point out that if and when I will put it up, I will actually ask for it to fail if M.Secret of success decides to deem himself as the GA reviewer. Iv' noticed teh trend going on in Indian projects there days of passing an article for a GA when it has lil to minimum coverage for the topic, and I'd like this article to actually be FIT for a GA in an actually real terme. So, mind you, Don 2 has a while before going for a GA review. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Meryam, we can understand :P I just pointed out that there is one obvious hurdle to a GA. Of course, you can carry out any expansions. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citations actually do not have to be perfect for GA; that is for FA. See Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#.282.29_Factually_accurate_and_verifiable. It says not to require "consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" BollyJeff || talk 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The article has sufficient content. In fact, a bit more would make it eligible for FA status. As for my status as reviewer, I thought of being so because I'm quite familiar with the article despite not being a major contributor. And Bollyjeff, the references must be even because a bit more content would make the article eligible for FA status, if the major contributors are interested, not because of the GA review. That's a completely different issue. Secret of success 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images included in the article

A discussion regarding the images included in the Filming section of this article is going on at Wikipedia_talk:INCINE#Images_in_the_film_articles. Please give you views there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SRK jump.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SRK jump.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SRK jump.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be deleted. See commons:File:SRK jump.jpg. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er...are you aware that the above comment was made by a bot? Secret of success (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box office of don 2 film

Don 2 was made in a budget of Rs 70 crs It collected a net profit of Rs 113 crs from India in Hindi , Tamil and Telugu versions ( this information is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2#Domestic URL ) Then it made a profit of $11700000 ( Rs 58.5 crs ) from the overseas market ( this information is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_highest-grossing_films_in_overseas_markets URL ) So don 2 made a profit of Rs 171.5 crs over the budget of Rs 70 crs So don 2 grossed Rs 241.5 crs in India and overseas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashlalwani1993 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office disputes

With all the constant changes to the Box Office figures here, it may be time to go the same route as Enthiran and Ra.One with a statement like this:
"Do NOT add budget and gross figures here. It is being left out due to a dispute. All estimates of the data are present in the .... section below." Comments please. BollyJeff | talk 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. There is a dispute regarding the box-office, not the budget. So it can be like this:

"Do NOT add gross figures here. It is being left out due to a dispute. All estimates of the data are present in the box-office section below." ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to create separate article for boxoffice section.Please suggest me the source from where i would take worldwide gross(or better say whole gross of other versions) figures.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the infobox gross getting changed nearly every single day? BollyJeff | talk 13:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don 2 is not a highest grossing bollywood film of all time.

Ram nareshji (talk) Don 2 is not a highest grossing bollywood film of all time. Chennai Express is the highest grossing bollywood film of all time. pls correct it. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram nareshji (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Don 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Don 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5303&nCat=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Don 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]