Talk:Gundamma Katha

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Will review later if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• "The film was partially inspired by William Shakespeare's comedy The Taming of the Shrew and is the official remake of B. Vittalacharya's Kannada film Mane Thumbida Hennu (1958), and the first remake by Vijaya Vauhini Studios." -setnence is too long

Tweaked. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• "achieved cult status." -in southern India?

In Telugu cinema. Mentioned the same :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• "After studying the situations " -reword?

Changed to "observing". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Production

• Remove the dash from body-language

Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• "A house set was erected in Vijaya Vauhini Studios," -what city is this again for people unfamiliar with the industry? You can delink Hyderabad further down in release then if it's Hyderabad.

It was Madras, not Hyderabad. Mentioned the same. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Music

• Lechindi Nidra", "Kolu Koloyanna", "Aligina Velane Choodali", and "Prema Yatralaku" achieved cult status, -in southern India?

Mentioned Telugu cinema. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Nothing more from the critics on reception? Makes a change, the reviews are often excessive in Indian film articles!

Tried real hard to find since August 2015. The success of Pelli Chesi Choodu, also reviewed by you, made me go ahead despite the shortcomings. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sequel

• "The remasterd" -typo for remastered?

Done Fixed typo. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

• What is Deepavali? I mean I know but some non Indian editors might not be familar with it

Added a detailed note about the same. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

As there is some criticism at the end of legacy perhaps you might add a line to the lede mentioning how it is regarded?

Done Kindly tweak it if you feel necessary to do so. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Your writing Pavan and those who helped copyedit and write it is very good and surely improving. Makes reviewing it much easier when people have taken the time to read and copyedit. Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this article, Dr. Blofeld! This film always left a smile on my face, thanks to Rama Rao's portrayal of Anji. Very happy to see it become a GA! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)