Talk:Chandralekha (1948 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted soon. --1ST7 (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

Well-written
- Can you please edit the lead so as not to include so many parentheses? For example, you could change the phrase "tells the story of two royal brothers (Veersimhan and Sasankan, rivals for the throne) and a country maiden and dancer, Chandralekha" to "tells the story of two royal brothers and rivals, Veersimhan and Sasankan, and a country maiden and dancer, Chandralekha".
Done. That edit was made by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, so I thought there's nothing wrong. But I've fixed it now. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence is a little confusing: "However, when he launched an advertising campaign for the film all he had was the name of the heroine (from a storyline he had rejected about a tough woman)." You could probably just edit out the part in parentheses, which is the main source of confusion.
Done ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was the most expensive film made in India to date." Should that be "is the most expensive film"?
Done It is no longer the most expensive Indian film. It's budget was surpassed by Mother India afterwards. So I wrote "till then". ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "₹3 million." Can you please provide the dollar equivalent for this so non-Indian readers can understand how much this is? The same applies to other references to currency in the text.
Comment: Already in the Filming section, it is listed as ₹3 million (about $600,000 in 1948). ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please use the {{INRConvert|3|m}} template for all references to currency? I believe it would be more convenient for readers. --1ST7 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This phrasing from the "Plot" section is a little strange: "To avenge his father, Sasankan leaves the palace and forms a gang of thieves who embark on a crime spree." It implies that Sasankan is trying to get revenge against someone else for a wrong committed against his father, but the context implies otherwise. Can you please rephrase to something like "to get revenge against his father"?
Done. He wanted to take revenge on his father for not making him the king. Either way, I have fixed it. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Further information" tag under the "Cast" section is unnecessary, as it directs to a section in the same article.
Done. I've removed it. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "K. J. Mahadevan was chosen by Vasan to play the younger prince, and T. G. Raghavachari agreed to direct the film; however, after the first few scenes, Mahadevan was dismissed. He was also a scriptwriter and an assistant director." Mahadevan was also a scriptwriter and assistant director?
Done. He was dismissed because the director was dissatisfied with his performance. He did however serve as one of the film's scriptwriters, and was an assistant director as well. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence (from "Casting") is not very clear: "He called on Veppathur Kittoo several times asking for a break, even an also-ran role." Please rephrase.
Comment: I don't know how to rephrase it. But it comes from this source. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did the rephrasing. I hope that's alright with you. --1ST7 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Film critics V. A. K. Ranga Rao and Shoma A Chatterji have noted that the music is influenced by Carnatic and Hindustani music..." Wikipedia:Words to watch discourages using the word "note" or any of its variants as synonyms for "said".
Done. I've taken out the term "noted" ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable with no original research:
Broad in its coverage:
- Is there any information available about why Mahadevan was dismissed?
Done. Because his performance was deemed "too soft". ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:
Stable:
- No edit wars, etc.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:

I'm going to put this on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like u to check whether everything is written according to the sources, which I believe is true. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments on my talk page: Thanks for the message. I still think it would be better to use the INR convert in the article, as I believe most readers are aware that the exchange rate would be different from the 1940s, but the article does appear to meet the GA criteria as it is. Therefore, I'm going to pass it now. Congratulations, and thanks for the work you've put into this! --1ST7 (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]