Talk:Kal Ho Naa Ho/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bollyjeff (talk · contribs) 14:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to review this article. Bollyjeff | talk 14:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are errors in citation numbers: 46, 47, 48, 58, 59. It seems like the books are missing from bibliography section.~~
Origin: K3G named twice in first sentence. Why is note b there? Why not include it in full, maybe at the end of the section? It is also confusing with so any pronouns. Try not to end the sentence with K3G; too many periods. 'deemed it too be' -> 'deemed it to be'

Costume design: "keeps just a day before scenes featuring them were filmed" confusing grammar and not in the source

Principal photography: "In an interview with Jha," use full name since its two full sections prior to this. "pass of" please do not quote grammatical errors unless unavoidable. Some uses of "itself" here are not common to non-Indian English speakers. "The introduction sequence of Rohit in his office was shot on 2 August." why is this important? "At one point, the cast and crew members bereft of food and water supplies." missing a word or two here. It says filming took 52 days, then two sentences later it says 50 days, quoting same source. Source says 52 in NY and 50 in Mumbai. Not very clear from the text here.

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Bollyjeff. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a couple days to work my way down through the whole article. Bollyjeff | talk 13:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Bollyjeff. Do take your time. It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to have you review the article.

— Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic analysis: Gayatri Gopinath could be blue-linked. Please reword "Gopinath states her statement". This section is a bit long. Not necessary, but I would suggest combining the first two paragraphs and shortening the first; also shortening the last paragraph. The whole Ajay Gehlawat thesis sounds ridiculous to me.
Music: "Unlike previous Bollywood films" are you implying that this is the first ever? Need proof or say "Unlike many previous Bollywood films". Provide a link to Sony Music India somewhere. "another reviewer, writing for the same website," but sify is referenced, not BH.

The reference says it is carried by Sify from Indiafm, which is BH. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations: ~~IIFA Best Film, not Best Movie. Look at the redirect.~~

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Bollyjeff. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother to guys but I don't think this film is prolific enough to have a legacy section. Don't get me wrong but I see alegacy section in most of the recent GA articles, which is kind of laughable. Part from that, the content in these sections are mostly frivolous stuff like some said this and that and blah blah blah. I am not against these things but I think Indian film articles are getting ridiculous in these departments. I am not criticising you Ssven2, but it's my observation and just an opinion. The American film articles are great examples on how to build Indian articles. Hollywood has produced numerous all time classics in the last 10 years but I don't see "legacy" section in them. I think it's too soon for Indian films, considering the paid articles churned out on daily basis. Even mediocre films are regarded as classic in Indian publications. Kal Ho Na Ho is a very good film but it's too soon to add something like that. Just saying. BTW, great work on this article.Krish | Talk 11:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about that. I haven't gotten to this part yet, but maybe the good stuff should come under Release, and the fluff jettisoned. Is that your thinking? Bollyjeff | talk 01:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jeff! I am talking about those very things. That section is mostly filled with frivolous stuff and can be easily moved to release and other reactions.Krish | Talk 07:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Krish here. "landmark film in the film careers of .. Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan..."? I don't think so. This and that scene was popular. So? Twitter post? Top ten outfits by Malhotra? 13 Lehengas? There is not much of real value here.

I have done so as suggested, Bollyjeff and Krish. Please do check again. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Ssven2! Now it looks perfect.Krish | Talk 11:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssven2. I know its a pain to remove stuff, but we have to be realistic about what deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bollyjeff | talk 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release: ~~The whole second paragraph does not fit here. Better at the end of Principal photography.~~

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box office: Rather than putting footnote 'a' after every figure, since their is no conversion on them, how about putting a manual conversion on the main numbers, the 581 and 860, with footnote 'a' after only those? Footnote 'd' will not be needed at all. Now I see though that in the second paragraph, you are using the footnote and converting other currencies back to rupees. I have not seen this method used before. It is clever, but makes it harder to verify the info from the source. Perhaps you should use both currencies in this paragraph while using the footnote more here. Does this make sense?

Done as per how you have done for DDLJ, Bollyjeff. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but you need to check the numbers; there are some math errors now. For example, in the second paragraph, $644,000 in the source became $460,000. Please check them ALL for accuracy.

That's because it is calculated based on today's exchange, not 2003's, Bollyjeff. They are all accurate. I've made some changes. Do check if they are okay. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Gehlawat bibliography entry not needed now.~~

Removed. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Should touch on all the major sections and could be expanded a bit. Now there is nothing from Thematic analysis and Music, and very little from the Release section.

Expanded a bit as you have suggested, Bollyjeff. Hope its alright. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is still something pending from Costume design above, and if you could have another editor check the grammar I would feel better about it. Bollyjeff | talk 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added about costume design. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant from up above, not struck through, where it says "keeps just a day before scenes featuring them were filmed" confusing grammar and not found by me in the source Bollyjeff | talk 18:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the doll thing myself. Thank you to User:Numerounovedant for the nice copy-edit. This is going to pass now. Bollyjeff | talk 01:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: