Talk:Jeans (film)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeans film.jpg

Image:Jeans film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments before GA review

Not that I will be conducting the GA review, but I'd like to point out that the article presently carries 5 non-free fair use images. That is way too high these days IMO. I would suggest you cutting down on the screenshots from the film and retain utmost 2 of them. My two cents. Great work on this. Mspraveen (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've kept two screenshots, one poster, and one production still. Gettin rid of another, will make it less "complete" for a GA, considering getting more infomation is hard on a 1998 Tamil film. Thanx. Universal Hero (talk)

I still see four images :O Mspraveen (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another point for the soundtrack section: song titles go in quotes (rather than italics) and album titles go in italics. Nikki311 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanx. Universal Hero (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeans (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article, but as I am always a little low on time on weekdays, I'll spread the review over a few days. This has worked out well in previous GA reviews, and also gives you more time to fix any issues that come up. If this is your first GAN, please bear in mind that criticism helps to improve the article according to wikipedia rules, and should not be interpreted as criticism of the (hard) work that has already gone into this article.

• One thing I can say in advance is that Image:Prashanthfilm.jpg and Image:Aishwarya rai jeans.jpg are not valid fair use images, as they do not pass WP:NFCC#8 (they are not essential to understanding the film) and WP:NFCC#1 (free images of the actors are likely to exist or to be created). They need to be removed so that the article can pass Wikipedia:Good article criteria#6. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

. Thanks for the start. Please may you also take into account that all the possible reliable sources on the internet have been used fort the film, considering it is super hard to get hold of online information for a 1998 Tamil film. Thanks Universal Hero (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that not all of my advice is gold, so please take everything I say below with a grain of salt. Not every of my points needs to be addressed (if you have a good reason; you don't need to elaborate then), but the majority of points should be. Let's get started (more to come in the following days):

• Lead:
  • Please mention the characters' names
  • The "plot summary" is too detailed and confusing (partly because of missing names).
    • "wants his sons to be married to twin daughters." -> "wants his sons to marry twins."
    • The grandmother does not seem important for the premise and could be removed.
    • This section begins by saying the film revolves around the father, and ends by saying the film revolves around the couple trying to change the father's decision - what is it?
      • This section now begins and ends by saying the same (redundance; I should have made that clearer before) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not entirely clear if "America" really refers to the US (unless one clicks it).
  • "The film opened to Indian audiences after several delays, on 24 April 1998 just after the Tamil New Year, and in the process, becoming the most expensive film to be made in India at the time" -> "The film opened to Indian audiences on 24 April 1998 after several delays. It was the most expensive film to be made in India at the time."
  • "Despite receiving mixed reviews on the actors' performances and the basic storyline, the film went on to become a major hit at the South Indian box office." -> "Despite mixed reviews on the actors' performances and the basic storyline, the film became a major hit at the South Indian box office and was later dubbed into the Hindi and Telugu language."
  • Try to make the following sentence work without the "Furthermore" (maybe just remove it)
• Plot:
  • "Rajamani (Nassar) is a restaurateur in an Los Angeles, USA." - grammar
  • "Vishwanathan and Ramamoorthy (both played by Prashanth, are both medical students" - missing bracket
  • "whom help him out"
  • is it important that the sons "help him out in the evenings and on weekends alongside with the restaurant's chief cook, Gino (Senthil)"? - if not, remove
  • rest of the paragraph can be trimmed to e.g. "One evening, Vishwanathan goes to the airport to check on the family's supply concession and sees that some fellow Indians – Madhumitha (Aishwarya Rai), her brother Madhesh (Raju Sundaram and their grandmother Krishnaveny (Lakshmi) – have difficulty with an address. He pitches in to help and learns that they just flew in from India so that Krishnaveny can undergo a crucial surgery to remove her brain tumour."
  • ", sees that there has been a mix-up and that she has been operated on the wrong side" -> " and notices she has been operated on the wrong side"
  • "Vishwanathan raises the dust" - must be an informal phrase (too informal for wikipedia)
  • "the hospital gives in preference to having a messy court case" -> "the hospital gives in preference to avoid a messy court case"
  • "Eventually, Vishwanathan and Madhumitha fall in love, the benign grandmother, realising it, extends the family's stay in the United States. With the lovers thus getting time to themselves, Krishnaveny takes a liking to Vishwanathan's good nature the family's stay in the United States" -> "When the grandmother realises that Vishwanathan and Madhumitha have fallen in love, she extends the family's stay in the United States and takes a liking to Vishwanathan's good nature."
  • "The love between the pair hits the inevitable speed breaker in the form of Vishwanathan's dad, Rajamani, who objects to the budding romance. He states that he wants his sons to marry identical twins. Rajamani feels he has a valid reason for his objection: he himself is one of a pair of identical twins. In their youth, they had married for love. The twin brothers are now estranged because of the tyrannical behaviour of his twin's wife towards his own, in which his wife, Sundaramba (Raadhika) had perished." -> "However, Rajamani objects to the budding romance and wants his sons to marry identical twins because he himself has an identical twin brother. They both had married for love in their youth, but are now estranged because the wife of Rajamani's brother showed such tyrannical behaviour towards Rajamani's wife (Sundaramba, played by Raadhika) that Sundaramba perished.
  • "Krishnaveny solves the problem by telling Nasser" - who is Nasser?
  • "they ring in ... Ramanathan, falls for the act ... The bluff finally explodes. " - too informal
  • The last paragraph needs a lot more massaging to get the point across.
• General advice (not essential to this GAN): I think your writing style would benefit if you read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy and User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises; I know mine did. Plot summaries also sometimes work better if you pull plot knowledge to the front instead of explaining it when it is revealed in the film. An example from this article would be how the Lead addresses the father's twin in the first sentence, while the Plot summary only mentions it in the third paragraph.

– sgeureka ^t•c 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

. Thanks for the detailed feedback. I have adjusted the text as it should be and have worked on it in other ways. Thanks Universal Hero (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue with the review:

• Cast:
  • "The cast featured three actors, who were played multiple roles." - spot the grammar mistake.
  • "As per other Shankar films" - I could be wrong, but other Shankar films are inanimate and aren't the source of information, so "as per" seems wrong. Try "Like in other..." or "Similar to other..." or "In keeping with other..."
  • "As per other Shankar films, the supporting cast was elaborate with several guest appearances by prominent artistes." - spot the typo. (Hint: it is "artistes"->"artists") Who are (some of) the prominent artists (who hopefully are prominent enough to have wiki articles)?
  • "A loving and an optimistic young woman" - strike the "an" as it sounds she was two women at once
  • "Insists on his twin sons getting married" - use full sentences for everything after the first incomplete sentence description (do this also for other characters).
  • "An energetic brother to Madhumitha" -> "Madhumitha's energetic brother", likewise the grandmother
  • I remember an English class where it was said that a comma only comes before a "who" when the previous information was unambiguous enough. E.g. "A/The man who loved Juliet died" and "Romeo, who loved Juliet, died". Check the article for such situations.
• Production:
  • (not reviewed yet)
• Reception:
  • "Despite missing the original release date of 14 January 1998,[7] Jeans was released worldwide on 24 April 1998 soon after Tamil New Year's Day with 240 prints, the record for a Tamil film in 1998.[8]" -> "Jeans was released worldwide on 24 April 1998 soon after Tamil New Year's Day, over three months after its original release date of 14 January 1998. With 240 prints, the films holds the 1998 record for a Tamil film.[8]"
  • "Upon release the film was subsequently later dubbed into two languages, Telugu and Hindi. Owing to the success of the film, the number of reels grew,it was The film is estimated that the film to have garnered about Rs. 5 crores (50 million) in India [can this be calculated into US dollar to get an impression?]."
  • "The film completed 100 days of screening in the theaters in the state of Tamil Nadu.[9] In local parlance, this which is considered to be one of the measures for a film's a measure of success in local parlance."
  • "The reception in Malaysia was equally successful and was released in six major metropolises for up to 9 weeks, the film collected 114,883 (then approximately Rs. 5 million) within its 50 day run." - A reception cannot be successful. No Malaysian currency mentioned. Bad grammar mistake.
    • Neither can a reception be celebrated. The film however can. The remaining issues are still there. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In Singapore, $ 125,000 on its opening day setting a nine year record, before the figure for the biggest Tamil film opening was surpassed by Sivaji.[10]" - bad grammar mistake, what kind of dollar?
  • "Owing to its success, it was later dubbed into the Hindi and Telugu language and released with the same name." - already mentioned above

. Thanks for your co-operation so far.

Comment/Question: According to your userpage, you are a native Brit, but I come across so many spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes in this article that I am unsure whether you didn't polish the article enough for a GAN, whether these are just oversight mistakes (they happen to everyone), or whether your age or non-English background are to be called into account. I'd like to see this article become a GA just like you, and I'd also like to help wherever possible in a non-jackass way (really!), but I am here as a reviewer, not to do the work that should have been done before the GAN was started. I'll take a few days off (till next Monday, as two family birthdays are coming up for me) to allow more progress on the article. If the rest of the article turns out to be just as not-good then as what I have already reviewed, I see no other option but to fail this GAN per Wikipedia:Good article criteria #1a. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments til date. The errors are primarily down to the the blatant fact that Tamil films released in 1998, rarely evoke any interest from reviewers. I've gone through the article several times, but I have failed to notice the errors. I would like you to take a well deserved break, and when you return, hopefully the article will be "spick and span". :) Universal Hero (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still see too many grammar/other mistakes or poor prose to reconsider. (Five examples from seven consecutive sentences: "In Singapore, $ 125,000 on its opening day setting a nine year record,...", "Rediff praised the lead characters Prashanth, Aishwarya Rai and Nassar" [they are actors, not characters], "whom she describes that " with her startling cameo, sweeps the acting honours"", "Shankar's directorial attributes were described to be to a "perfect flow of narrative ..."".) Plus, many issues I mentioned above are still outstanding, so I am failing this article for GA for WP:GA?#1a. Please don't feel discouraged: you can still use the review comments above to improve the article, ask other editors to help with the prose, and renominate once you feel it is ready. (You may also use Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if you believe this article to be inappropriately failed.) All the best. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeans (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   a (citations to reliable sources):

   a(OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Hold for now.

   Pass/Fail:

   Comments:

• Some residual issues from the first GA review:

• Grammar mistakes in lead. The plot section is duplicated more than I'd expect in the lead. A general plot summary should be in the lead, at best. Check over WP:LEAD.

• The plot section is obviously going to be very narrative, however I believe it needs some tightening up. Overall, give it a read through and ensure someone can follow its prose.

• Just a note that there's no need to use a wikilink everytime a word comes up, eg United States. Use it on first instance.

• As for refs, check over to ensure that the facts being cited are contained within the ref itself.

Overall I'll check back in a week to see if these minor issues are considered and fixed. If so we should be able to pass the article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Review closed. No notable edits made over the past twelve days to remedy outstanding issues. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious budget figure

This article gives the budget for the film as $4 million (19 crore rupees then at exchange rate of $1 = 40 rupees) based on a singular interview given by the director. I believe this figure is nonsensical considering that this was the fourth film for the director and his biggest hit until then was Indian released in 1996 which grossed about $6 million. Also, Rajinikanth's Padayappa released in 1999 grossing $7 million and was widely reported in the vernacular media as the biggest hit in Tamil film industry in the 20th century. I however agree that this film was the biggest hit in Prashanth's career.

Anwar (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, I suppose we listen to sources and let it be as its is believed in popular belief. Universal Hero (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that an excuse? I am not saying the film is a flop. I am saying the scope was limited than you think. If the film grossed more than 30 - 40 crores as you think, Prashanth would be crowned as superstar in 1998. Just think before beginning a revert war again. Anwar (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The values by Dinakaran (your usual source) are speculated. Furthermore they often chnage varying to their likes and dislikes. Moreover, some avlues only count Chennai or Tamil Nadu and ignore the Indian and verseas values. I'm sure that Jeans's market stretched to the USA and the Far East. Universal Hero (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jeans (film)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Very poor prose throughout. Please get assistance to copy-edit and rewrite the article in good, clear English, paying attention to to grammar, spelling, style, clarity and readability.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I fixed four disambiguation links, please check that the correct targets were found.[1]

   I tagged one dead link

   BB reviews at [[2] is not a reliable source

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article seems a little thin, but perhaps there is no ore to be said about this film.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article needs completely rewriting to comply with the criteria of "reasonably good prose" which it is a long way away from at present. THere are outstanding dead links and one dubious source. Thus, I will not not be listing it at this time. Please read and understand the criteria at WP:GA?.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Jeans 2 (flim)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeans 2 (flim). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation 24 & 25

Citation 24 and 25 are repeated.😷 Great standard of wikipedia editing. 😂😂😂 The idea of editing is getting worsened as the days progress. Kpbolumbu (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)