Jump to content

Talk:Magadheera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copy-edit

[edit]

Hello! As I copy-edit the article (as requested by @Pavanjandhyala:), I will leave suggestions and clarifying questions here. Please let me know of any issues. karatalk 20:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says, "a valiant warrior, a princess who loves him, her cousin who lusts after her and an emperor who wants to invade their kingdom. All of them die with the warrior's love left unrequited...". If the princess loves the warrior, the warrior's love is not left unrequited. Is it supposed to be, "the princess's love left unrequited"?
  • Also in the lead: "Both versions were successful". Successful in what way? I added "commercially" successful, but I don't know if that's accurate.
  • In the plot, the sentence "she paints on the rock using the sacred items and makes a stamp on it with her own blood which depicts Bhairava leaving his true love for his duty" is confusing. Can you explain more clearly what happens (what rock is this, for example?) so that I can help phrase it better?
  • "On seeing Bhairava's painting, Indu's memories are revived..." Isn't this supposed to be Mithra's painting (as described in the sentence above)?
  • "Rajamouli was criticised for selecting him considering his previous film Krishnarjuna (2008) but..." In this sentence, whose film is Krisnarjuna (Rajamouli or Gill's)? It would also be helpful to say "why" critics referenced the previous film.
  • In Visual Effects: "At that time, Kamalakannan was in Iran finalizing the CG stadium and City with Adel." At what time? At the time of the announcement (but he was already working on the film then?)?
  • Frequently, the prose will introduce a person by their full name and then subsequently refer to them by their first name. For example, Rinki Bhattacharya is introduced and then referred to as "Rinki" instead of "Bhattacharya". Per WP:SURNAME, subsequent mentions of a person should refer to them by their surname. I think I've caught most of these, but keep an eye out for any I've missed!
  • Kajal Aggarwal appears to be an exception to this. Does she go by just "Kajal" professionally as a mononym? If so, she should be referred to as "Kajal", not "Aggarwal".
  • "Apart from that, it was released in 21 screens in 21 locations of North America making Magadheera the first Telugu film to do so." To do what? Be released in North America? To be released in 21 screens in North America?
  • "It released in New Jersey with three prints and three screens and collected a record share of more than 150,000 dollars, which was held by Jalsa which collected more than 100,000 dollars. It grossed 102,000 dollars in its first two days in New Jersey and a share of 95,000 dollars in Virginia with two prints as of mid August 2009. It collected a share of 78,000 dollars in Bay Area with a single print. It managed to sell 2300 tickets in Minneapolis; the previous highest number of tickets sold there was 1200." I don't understand this sentence; what is Jalsa? Also, I don't believe that 1200 tickets is the highest number of tickets sold in Minneapolis—is this meant to be "the highest number of tickets for an Indian movie" or maybe "a Telugu language movie"?

@Satkara: Thanks for your suggestions. Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are observed and changes are made as per your suggestions. Well at Point 3, situation is, there is a big rectangular, vertical slab like rock adjacent the idol of the deity. Warrior does not reply when the princess asked him to confess his love. She, in a fit of rage, throws all the sacred items kept near the idol meant for a pooja on that slab like rock. She is shown to have an interest in painting in the film and she, by wiping hands on it, manages to paint a picture which shows the warrior killing a pigeon (symbol of love in this film) thus expressing her displeasure before the war sequence starts in the film. So, what was written in the plot there may not be simplified. But after reading this, if you can, you are welcomed to do so. Thank you, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavajandhyala: So the painting is done with only her blood (not using the sacred items, like kumkum or whatever else they brought?) If so, I think I'm done! My only remaining suggestion is that you specify what record is broken in this quote (highest amount raised overseas by a Telugu film? highest amount raised by an Indian film?):

"It released in New Jersey with three prints and three screens and collected a record share of more than 150,000 dollars; the previous record holder was Trivikram Srinivas' directorial Jalsa (2008), which collected more than 100,000 dollars."

I've marked the copy-edit as done on the GOCE page. Very good article, I'll be watching this film with my Telugu mother soon! karatalk 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Satkara: I edited those lines based on your remaining suggestion. Thanks for your valuable help. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Magadheera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Even though it has been through the c/e process, I feel this article could do with another light pass by a different editor. Some of the writing is still awkward, e.g. the sentence about the two deaths by electrocution in the "Release" subsection "Mishaps". There are still a few other places like this throughout the article. I would go through and make the corrections, but since I'm doing the review, it should be done by a different editor. If you have trouble getting someone to do it, I'll be more than happy to finish going through the article. UPDATE - awkward sections have been corrected, now feel prose is clear and concise.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The layout is very well done, as is the table in the "Accolades" section. The organization is good, with the sections flowing in a nice order. This is a very long article, so the lead cannot reflect on every subject (imho), but it hits on all the high points.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    Can't find any items which need a reference which doesn't have one. And nice job of not OVER-referencing (which can be annoying).
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Very extensive coverage, which goes over every aspect of the film. Nicely done.
    B. Focused:
    Within the individual sections, the article remains focused, with very little fluff. One issue I had is in the "plagiarism" section. None of the issues written about have the results of the disputes. But on the whole, I'm very impressed how the sections lead into one another, and the entire flow of the article.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
    The 3 non-free images have valid Fair Use rationales attached to them.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Appropriate captions, highly relevant to the sections in which they appear. The pics that are included definitely add to the quality of the article, nicely done. Would like to see more photos, but I'm a visual sort of guy, and can understand if more are not available; this is a want, not a need.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    By the slimmest of margins. I feel that the prose issues need to be addressed prior to GA passage. Other than that, the article is great shape. Once those issue are resolved I'll be happy to change my vote.
(talk page stalker) Pavan, just one thing you can do: can you mention something about Ghora's final fate (if any) in the plot? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ghora is accidentally killed by Raghuveer in the pre climax and the same is added in the plot. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

@Reo kwon Filmyfocus doesn't seem like a reliable source. Their About us page is just an empty page. Seems like yet another filmy blog to me — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a Telugu film news portal. The other box office figures in the article tally with reliable sources and so I added it. There is also this article from Mint, a reliable source which gives the budget as Rs. 42 crore. And, I remember Rajamouli mentioned in a video interview that the movie went over budget and cost Rs. 45-50 crore. It's hard to remember which interview it was and the exact timestamp. But the Mint figure can be added as it is a reliable source. And there are numerous articles from film news portals about it going over budget to Rs. 45 crore and more. Even sources like TOI get their figures based on hearsay from the industry sources and don't have any insider information. That is to say, they are not any more reliable than the film news portals on these matters. Reo kwon (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. There are not many reliable sources for figures like budget and grossings. We'll just have to stick to the ones that're available. If someone objects to some figure we'll just investigate it and decide. Re the Mint source, please add it if you believe it is reliable. I don't have anything against it. I wouldn't be of much help in terms of digging for further links :/ — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mint is a reliable source, so adding that. Thanks. Reo kwon (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]