Talk:Hichki/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: VickKiang (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will start reviewing the article (this is only my second review so please correct my mistakes if there are any). Many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is decent but unexceptional, though sufficiently readable and grammatically correct for GA standards.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with the basic five MoS policies well.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Definitely complies.
	2b. 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).	Some sources are not high-quality but most are generally reliable, the lesser ones only support more rudimentary, unexceptional claims and passes for GA.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research, article is pertinently sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector reveals no plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Adheres well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Relevantly summarises style for all sections and
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	After substantial improvement the article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Excellent stability, no edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Copyright statuses are adequate.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Tolerable images, captions not outstanding but decent.
	7. Overall assessment.

Lead

- Change commercial gross from ₹2.1 billion (US$28 million) to ₹2.15 billion (US$29 million) as per data from refs 3 and 76 in the 'Box Office' section. Also, change the infobox for consistency.

- IMO the film did not receive 'moderately good' reviews. With an average rating of 5.4/10 and a Rotten Tomatoes rating of around 50%, I suggest change is it to 'mixed' or 'generally average'.

- Add criticism for the plot or predictability etc... after mentioning since in the Receptions section there is significant information on the criticism- VickKiang (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

- Is the plot section for this source (http://www.bollypedia.in/movies/Hichki/10704/Story), a circular one copied from Wikipedia (see this revision link: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hichki&oldid=854789441)? If not, then there are several lines that the article is closely paraphrased just in the first paragraph.

The website plagiarized Wikipedia. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Apologies for me changing in this to North American English. Should the spellings be changed to British English instead- VickKiang (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India has its own version of the English language (Indian English). —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apologies for my mistake. I will add a tag in the talk page that shows that Indian English is utilised. Thanks- VickKiang (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production

- Add ref for the inflation-adjusted cost (there's nothing supporting it in ref 2).

No, it is automatically provided by the template so a reference is not needed. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for your reply- VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Adjust the inflation to the latest 2021 data if available.

The template has not been updated to provided the adjusted inflation of 2021 yet. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. VickKiang (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

- For the second song, the fifteenth source and the sixteenth source reveal some notable discrepancies. The first outlines the singers similarly to what the article described, but the later source seems to only outline two singers: Benny Dayal and David Klyton. Which one of those are correct, and if the first is generally the consensus, could another source be added and the sixteenth be replaced?

Both sources are reliable. I think the Yash Raj Films source mentions only two of the singers because they are the ones who got the most lines to sing. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- IMO if the sixteenth source remains to be in use, then it should be cited for this section: Hichki (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) similarly to the fifteenth source as it is used for the fourth song, in which nothing is backed up by the former.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- How reliable is ref 19. It is written by a freelancer with no biography and no association with the staff nor other associated media companies? The only editorial information page I could find is reasonably poor in quality, from its blog (https://blog.scroll.in/about), quite superficial, with no info provided on its so-called expertise and qualification of the freelancers.

In my opinion, the source is reliable because it was published by Scroll.in, a notable website. So, even if the author is a freelancer, it is almost impossible that his writing was not peer-reviewed before published. Moreover, it is just a music review not an article about controversial topics like 9/11. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

Marketing and release

- Change 'One of the most anticipated film of the year' to 'One of the most anticipated Bollywood film of the year' or etc... This film is by no means internationally notable to be the former comment, as the claim is backed up with merely two sources. The 22nd ref never explicitly states that line directly, and ref 23 is unreliable as per the reasons outlined below. If you consider the RT reviews (12) and no Metacritic score, and scarce mention of the film being especially anticipated with the exception of the Indian press, subsequently in my opinion the first claim is overt.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)

- Remove source 23, an atrocious one that the source states was written by a contributor. WP: Perennial Sources vindicates the discrepancy in reliability among Forbes articles, stating that the articles written by contributors are "with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable". It should not be inducing such a strong claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VickKiang (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)

- Change "The first poster for the film was released by the critic and trade analyst Taran Adarsh on his Twitter account on 27 December" to "The first poster for the film was released by the critic and trade analyst Taran Adarsh on his Twitter account on 26 December" since the source you provided (https://zeenews.india.com/bollywood/hichki-first-poster-rani-mukerji-strikes-an-impressive-pose-2070121.html) and the original Twitter page suggests that the date is 26 Dec 2017 (https://twitter.com/taran_adarsh/status/945612073530146816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E945612073530146816%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fzeenews.india.com%2Fbollywood%2Fhichki-first-poster-rani-mukerji-strikes-an-impressive-pose-2070121.html).

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)

- Arrange those alphabetically: 'Bigg Boss 11,[30] Dance India Dance,[31] and Dadagiri Unlimited.[32]'

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

- Change 'mixed to positive' to 'mixed' or 'generally average' in line 1.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The description for the Bollywood Hungama review stated that 'Mukerji had delivered an effervescent performance and made Hichki a good film, believing she would make the audience empathise with her character and that the actress portrayed it zestfully'. Change this so that it mentions some criticism (since this is a mixed 3/5 review) or mention the score given.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Similarly, the coverage of Times of India review (which is fairly long) did not have any criticism for this film but IMO some should have been incorporated since one entire paragraph is for this, the eventual scores concluded for screenplay and visual appeal were also mediocre.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- IMO ref 57 is poor, its own rating is inconsistent (on the top it lists 3 stars but at the end 3 1/2 stars are listed instead, which is nebulous) and there is a lengthy section on the reactions from social media. Please check this sourced review, and possibly remove or replace it with a better one (by the way it is also noticeably absent from the reviews listed on RT).

That is why I don't include the rating; the social media reviews are not included, only Sify's. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optional suggestion: Could this review be removed and the SCMP one be added? VickKiang (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- There is a reasonably quality review from RS SCMP and is also on RT, I would suggest possibly adding that if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VickKiang (talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think four really long paragraphs of critical reviews are enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Possibly shorten the fourth paragraph slightly as somewhat similar info has already been mentioned on it in the previous ones, furthermore, due to that this film received mixed reviews, from my perspective the positive section should not be so as detailed discussed, since that most of those reviews outlined also have criticism that is not mentioned as extensively- VickKiang (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I am confused on the wording but in my opinion the section has provided an sufficient criticism, so it is neutral enough for me. I have reduced the paragraph. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

- What is the number of screens that released Hichki? Ref 47 and 72 suggests 961 and 975 respectively?

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- I am confused regarding the line that the film had "a strong opening" in India since that on this ref cited (https://www.boxofficeindia.com/movie.php?movieid=3742) it described the opening as "below-average" for box office.

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Should the gross in US be mentioned (i.e., sourced from RT, which states that it is $736.6K, or a better source)? VickKiang (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it made a milestone like its Chinese gross or have big importance like its Indian gross, I would not add it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

- Ref 79 states that the film won the 'DADASAHEB PHALKE EXCELLENCE AWARDS 2018', which is not mentioned. VickKiang (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a copycat of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. Wikipedia also recommends to not include it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also see the previous suggestions- VickKiang (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final suggestions

- Length of the film? RT states 1h 46m, this source suggests 1h 58m and BFI reports 1h 56m, which is what is written in your article.

BFI mentions 1 hour and 56 minutes, as what BBFC does. This must be the right one. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a final check again, and then this article should be passed for GA- VickKiang (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: I have done all the suggestions. Anymore? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Reword "and Zee Cine Awards and won an award", this is repetitive as "and" appears twice.

I have added a comma. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- "Released in more than 900 theatres, the film had a below average opening in India, grossing ₹33 million (US$440,000).[47][72] After earning ₹200 million (US$2.7 million) in only five days, Sharma expressed his appreciation by saying that he was motivated to produce more films with "universally-appealing" themes.[73] Hichki collected ₹591.3 million (US$7.9 million) over its theatrical run in India.[74]" Overall, the film is a commercial success, so maybe add "however" or "nevertheless" before "After earning".

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Nicholas Michael Halim: I would suggest a better ref for ref 36, which is from Generally Unreliable source Amazon and does not even correctly mention the runtime (it says 2h 20m). VickKiang (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Amazon is mostly acceptable as long as it is for the release date of a product. Regarding the duration issue, here I used BBFC instead of Amazon, and the latter source actually talks about the film's DVD release. So, probably, the duration decreased when the film was converted from its cinema format. I don't know honestly; I am not the one who worked for Amazon. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I would personally recommend a more reliable source, but I believe it might be okay by GA standards. VickKiang (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- "The shooting finished on 6 June 2017", ref 14 stated it was updated on 6 June 2017 but "The shooting for Rani Mukerji’s comeback film - Hichki - was wrapped up on Monday." However, this date is Tuesday. VickKiang (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing remarks

@Nicholas Michael Halim: Thanks for your work. In my opinion, the article is a decent one that is sufficient by GA standards. Many thanks for your work and support- VickKiang (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]