Talk:Minsara Kanavu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nicholas. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be your reviewer for this nomination. ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

wedding alliance - How is this different from just a normal marriage?
when finds out - "when he finds out"
Deva realises that he is also falling in love with Priya - "Deva soon realises..."
he meets with a serious accident - I'm unfamiliar with the wording "meet with an accident". Is this common parlance? I'd rewrite this as "gets into a serious accident"
while James redistributes his wealth to everyone - I'm not sure how this follows from the previous sentence. Also, whose wealth; James' or Guru's? "His" could refer to multiple people here.

Cast

The citations here link to a film called Sapnay. Is this another name for the movie? If so, you should add this to the lead.

Production

Development

their golden jubilee - You should just write 50th anniversary here to keep the language precise.
In the note here, it mentions The banner. Is this another word for "company"? If so, you should just write that instead, as that would be familiar to more readers.
and this was his directorial debut - I think this could be written better as "and so this became his directorial debut".

Casting

he replaced Menon to play the lead role in the 1992 film Roja. - This sentence reads a bit awkwardly coming from the previous one. My suggestion for a rewrite: "he had earlier been Menon's replacement for the lead role in the 1992 film Roja"
she starred in the latter filmmaker's Iruvar (1997), which was her acting debut - Suggestion: "she would instead star in Ratnam's Irruvar (1997), her acting debut.
Another female actor - "female" isn't necessary here, as the reader already knows their gender. You could also just write "actress" in general, though considering you haven't done it thus far, I'd recommend against it.
it as a "bubbly character" - What is "it" here?
noting it was interesting to see him acting - "noting that it was interesting..."

Filming

could not make him - This sounds awkard. I'd suggest "could make him not"
The song "Thanga Thamarai" was filmed at an artificial waterfall; "Poo Pookkum Osai" was filmed at AVM's studios - These two sentences could be connected with more than just a semicolon, e.g. "was filmed at an artificial waterfall, while the filming for the "Poo Pookkum Osai" took place as AVM's studios"
Filming also took place - This might be better to put before the songs, as this seems like where the principal filming took place, while the other locations seem secondary.
in preparation, Menon interacted with several Christian priests - This seems rather vague. What does "interacting with" actually entail?

Soundtrack

with lyrics by Vairamuthu - I cannot find this in the source. He does seem to be credited, but I cannot verify that it is the lyrics.
For the film's choral music, Rahman used Sankarabharanam raga.[35] The song "Anbendra Mazhayile" is based on Anandabhairavi raga - For a reader unfamiliar with these terms, it might be better to introduce them better, e.g. "The film used different ragas melodic modes) throughout the soundtrack, with the choral music being written in Sankarabharanam, and the song "Anbendra Mazhayile", for instance, using Anandabhairavi." I'm unsure if "written in" is the correct verb to use with these, but you get the point.
S. P. Balasubrahmanyam said of the recording session of "Thanga Thamarai" in an interview to Frontline - This is an odd phrasing for quotes. I'd suggest: "In an interview with Frontline, S. P. Balausbrahmanyam commented on the recording session of "Thanga Thamarai"". Also, use a colon instead of a semicolon.
Also, S. P. Balasubrahmanyam is introduced earlier in the article. Link him there in the "casting section" instead of here
which ran in Europe and North America from 2002 to 2004 - This isn't verified in the source. I'd suggest finding one.
The soundtrack album was launched on 25 December 1996 - released
at SPI Cinemas - I can't find this in the source. Also, is "at" really the right preposition to use here?
Initial responses to the soundtrack were unfavourable; The Indian Express said Rahman "fails miserably to come up with catchy numbers",[41] but reception improved in the 21st century. The songs "Mana Madurai",[42][43] "Strawberry",[44] "Thanga Thamarai",[45] and "Vennilave" became popular.[46] A critic from Behindwoods stated Rahman's work is "an electrifying effort", noting it as one of the rarest albums in which all of the songs were chartbusters.[ - This should be in the reception section, not here.
Shouldn't the Telugu name "Merupu Kalalu" be given in the lead?

Release

and competed with Ratnam's Iruvar - I'd rewrite that as "released at the same time as Ratnam's Iruvar, with which it competed.
asked to change the film's ending - How did they change the ending? Should this not be noted in the plot section?
The actor Rajinikanth expressed his appreciation of the film - This doesn't seem relevant, as he isn't mentioned either before or after this, so just remove it.
The magazine added this - "The magazine also thought that this"

Critical reception

Indolink seems to provide self-publishing of reviews, which is not reliable. Neither is Srikakshmi Sitaraman an accredited music critic. Remove this review.
On 26 January 1997 - You don't need to specify the date of the review's publication.
who reviewed the film for the New Straits Times three days later - You don't need the date here. My suggestion for rewrite: "reviewing the film for the New Straits Times"
a "good entertainment - Allowing for "entertainment" to be countable is nonstandard. Remove "a"
adding Kajol was - "adding that she was"
on 4 May - Remove this

Accolades

Best Lyricist - The category was actually called "Best Lyrics Writer"
The 44th National Film Awards PDF is dead. Tag it as such in the citation template. Also, please add the page(s) that you are citing this information from, as it has 157 pages, which I'm not reading through.
The Screen Awards list Rahman as "Best music", not "Best Music Director"
You do not list the work in the Screen Awards citation

Overall assessment

The article has some issues with prose, but it does comply with the MOS. All the information is verifiable, and cited to reliable sources, except for one which I have pointed out in the reception section. There are no copyright violations in the text, and the one image used has a valid fair-use rationale. The article is mostly broad enough in its coverage, but I'd like to see more reviews than the ones you list here (if they exist in reliable sources, of course). It stays focused on the topic of the article, is written neutrally, and it is stable. I'd like to see more images, however, like the actors and producers.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The article is pretty close to passing if you fix the issues listed above, so I'll give you the standard 7 days to finish it up. I'll look forward to hearing from you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcticSeeress: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've looked through the article again, and the source you added seems to be reliable, so this is a pass. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]