Talk:Guru Sishyan (1988 film)

Guru Sishyan (1988 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 7, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guru Sishyan (1988 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Tamil Nadu / Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guru Sishyan (1988 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Veera Narayana (talk · contribs) 16:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this nomination, please be available. Thank you. Veera Narayana 16:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Sishyan actually translates to "Master and Disciple". But if any source actually says "Teacher and Student" then i am fine with it.

Done went with "Master and Disciple". Because the actual Tamil word for teacher is Vaathiyar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too many names in the lead about supporting roles. Almost makes it good to call an ensemble cast.

Removed two names as they were barely cameos. Now better? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Geetha a police inspector?

Yes, written. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Raja realises he is Kandhasamy's first son who went missing years ago" – How?

During a school picnic. Watch around 1:43:38 and tell me if I missed something. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

main hero, other hero... No. Two leads, and that's how it should be.

See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This was the first film in which the two actors, who were leading stars of Tamil cinema, were seen together onscreen" – The leading stars claim is a bit unencyclopaedic. Can't we simply say that it was their first onscreen appearance together?

See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs with Tamil sources need translated titles. For example, ref no. 49.

Concluding here. I really think two different people worked in this article. Like two disoriented halves of a film, each having their own narrative. Still, minor reworks could do. Let me know once the comments are addressed Kailash. Regards, Veera Narayana 09:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the plot, either watch the Telugu-dubbed version or the English subtitled version. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't ask the reviewers to do that. Remember Fowler? It gives bad impression about your writing skills. Veera Narayana 04:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

Its a pass. Congratulations. Having said that, the article would be benefited with some copy-editing in the future for a more tight prose. Still, good enough for a GA. Veera Narayana 04:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]