Jump to content

Talk:Ponnar Shankar (film)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "Ponnar Shankar is a 2011 Indian epic film adapted from a novel of the same name by M. Karunanidhi , a fictionalized retelling of the Ponnar Shankar epic. The film is directed by Thiagarajan and features his son Prashanth in lead dual roles as warrior princes, portraying the titular characters, with actresses Pooja Chopra and Divya Parameshwaran making their film debuts as princesses. "

Needs a copyedit. Would read better as "Ponnar Shankar is a 2011 Indian epic film, directed by Thiagarajan. It is a fictionalized account of the Ponnar Shankar epic, adapted by M. Karunanidhi from the novel of the same name. It features Thiagarajan's son Prashanth in lead dual roles as warrior princes, portraying the titular characters, with actresses Pooja Chopra and Divya Parameshwaran making their film debuts as princesses.

  • "Discussions for the production of Ponnar Shankar had been going on since 2007 and filming started in August 2009. The film progressed through filming slowly due to the difficulty of fixing schedules to feature all the supporting cast together, although post-production works were carried out simultaneously to the filming process. "
  • "Difficulty of fixing schedules" and "although post-production works were carried out simultaneously to the filming process" are awkward. I don't think this is relevant the the intro, in fact you've missed more important points mentioned in the production below.
  • "four days before Karunanidhi contested in the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly election of 2011." Most certainly irrelevant to the intro.
  • Intro should really be a more effective summary. I think you should mention filming location in the intro.
Plot
  • "The movie begins with the wedding of Thamarai (Kushboo), the daughter of King Periyamalaikozhundhu Gounder (Vijayakumar) arranged with Mandhiyappan (Prakashraj), king of a neighbouring country. Nellaiyankondan (Jayaram), Thamarai's lover enters, and walks away with her."
  • Confusing. I gather Nellaiyankondan is the actual lover of Thamarai but she is being forced to marry Mandhiyappan? You should mentioned Nella first, it would make better sense that way. Even more so as below it would appear her parents disowned her simply for walking with a man.
  • "While leaving she throws a challenge at her brother Chinna Malaikozhundhu (Ponvannan) that he would come to their doors one day seeking to marry her two sons to his two daughters." "he would come to their doors one day" Whose doors? Why would her brother wish to marry her two sons? Sorry this is again confusing.
  • "Good at heart, Ponnar and Sankar are valorous and they speak for the sufferings of poor." Awkward, maybe something like "Ponnar and Sankar are kind-hearted and active in helping the poor".
  • It gets even more confusing. "Impressed with Ponnar and Sankar's valour, the sisters' parents agree to their marriage with the brothers. A flashback reveals that Ponnar and Sankar are Thamarai's sons". What? The sister. Who is the sister, and who are the parents you've lost me?
  • "Mandhiyappan hatches a conspiracy and ensures that Kali Mannan (Nepolean) and Thamarai's father help him to kill them." Awkkard. Maybe something like Mandhiyappan, with the assistance of Kali Mannan (Nepolean) and Thamarai's father, hatches a conspiracy to kill them.
  • Overall this plot section is very weak and I frown against one line paragraphs.
Production
  • "thirty six prominent actors". should be written as 36.
  • "the female lead roles were initially offered to leading actresses; Aishwarya Rai and Deepika Padukone, were approached unsuccessfully". Awkward, you mean Aishwarya Rai and Deepika Padukone were offered the lead roles but declined?
  • "Sathyaraj was also rumoured to be part of the film, however, he was replaced by Prabhu". Rumours should be avoided and should be sourced anyway.
  • "he opted not to sign on" again, "declined the offer" would be better.
  • "with sources reporting that Thiagarajan sold the film to Santiago Martin to revive the project" Were these credible sources or gossip columns? If they were credible sources mention who reported this and if Santiago Martin is credible himself to revive the project why is there no article or wikilink on his name?
  • "the difficulty of creating contemporary sets" What are contemporary sets? Contemporary means current, don't you mean historical sets?
  • "the first schedule of the venture". Clumsy expression. Filming commenced on July 12, 2009 will simply do.
  • Confused now. "Scenes containing Napolean as historical figure, Thalaiyoor Kaali, were shot there first.". So the "Nepolean" character mention earlier in the plot is actually Napolean. If so why is he called Thalaiyoor Kaali? Do you mean that the character of Thalaiyoor Kaali is based upon Napolean Bonaparte?
Release

"the film supposedly helping the campaign of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party who are led by the film's writer, M. Karunanidhi". Supposedly? Either the film promoted politics or it didn't. You have to be very careful with implying things like this.

This section needs a complete rewrite. Reception should ideally be organized into two paragraph balancing the negative and the positive. All you've done is reel off reviews of this film whether they are negative or positive. The way you've written it is also at odds with the tense written in some of the quotes. This needs a complete rewrite and reorganization.

→Reorganised the section. morelMWilliam 07:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't external link websites like Nowrunning and Chennai Online. What makes them reliable sources or respectable ones for critique?
  • →I have removed the external links. Regarding the reliability of the sources, I have posted a message on the talk page of the editor who introduced them, asking to come up with a justification. morelMWilliam 07:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian Rupee symbol.svg39 Lakhs, this should be converted into US dollars or UK pounds as it makes sense to the average western reader/
  • Controversy section should be written into the reception section/
Soundtrack

A little vague. This section could use a little more.

The soundtrack, despite being composed by Ilaiyaraaja, had a very low profile launch and was hardly noticed. The only professional music review I found was this from milliblog.com (which you will have probably found too). Yes, he maintains a blog, but is a very known music critic. Otherwise, critics have written some few lines about the music in their film reviews only. I would suggest to rename the section "music" and move the lines from the reception section that refer to the film's music into this section. Johannes003 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few reviews in Tamil newspapers, one in Kannagi and Tamil Guardian. There were others, but my Tamil is pathetic at best. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Kannagi's publication was discontinued in 1977. How could they have reviewed a 2011 movie? And there doesn't seem to be a review in Tamil Guardian. They don't have a proper archiving system. I would check milliblog. morelMWilliam 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is something called Ponnar Shankar in the music section of Kannagi, I saw it with my own eyes in my library's archives. Whether it is of the same publication or the same film, I don't know. My Tamil is pathetic to decipher stuff properly. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a newspaper by the name Kannagi? You could very well have seen something on the legend the movie is based on if you had indeed got your hands on an old Kannagi newspaper. morelMWilliam 13:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

What makes India Glitz, India News Reel, Kolly Talk, Behind Woods, Gethu etc Wikipedia:Reliable sources? PLease replace with credible sources.

Initial conclusion: my initial thoughts are that in every section this article needs a great deal of work if it is to pass GA. Many would fail this right off but I am willing to keep this open for a week or two to see if improvements can be made. I strongly urge the writer to find a copyeditor and experienced editor of Indian film writing and another fluent English speaking editor who has seen this film and can write a decent plot to try to help you make these improvements. Putting on hold until August 7th and will readdress this then checking against the GA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sources - Indiaglitz, India News Reel and Behindwoods are indeed reliable sources for the present usage in the article. Other unnotable sites like Kollytalk and Gethu are not the same and have to be removed. Please learn one thing. All external sites are not unreliable or lacking critical experience. Nowrunning and Chennai Online are very much notable and under no circumstances should they be removed. If you want, the link alone can be removed without removing the content from the site. Secret of success (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Indiaglitz and Behindwoods are as reliable as my own published blog. Two websites run by two never-before-heard editor and no third party appearance in media can hardly be deemed reliable and the same can be said about Nowrunning. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands this article is still a fail as the sources overall look shoddy. The glossy gossip sites should be replaced with more credible sources like The Times of India and the Hindu and Tamil newspapers. As planned I will formally review this on Aug 7. If changes have not been made then and the plot improved it will fail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gethu and Bombay News need changing. What makes Ottran a RS? Thinkaran ref is a dead link. Plot needs considerable work still♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay News says it is a part of an international news network. How does it become a questionable source? morelMWilliam 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could do the review late in the night as I might have time in the day to improve the article, tomorrow being a Sunday. morelMWilliam 18:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have until tomorrow evening. Again, I must emphasize that the plot seriously needs work if this is to pass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on your concerns with the plot? I think I addressed all the points raised by you on it earlier. morelMWilliam 19:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better and clearer. See the difference now? Can you just elaborate on the good vs evil and what happens in the final battle, e.g one of the twins killing their grandfather or something?

  • →I think the twins kill the kings they fight against. Wouldn't it be a spoiler if we write it right in the plot? It is already there in the historical inaccuracies section. There is no info on if he kills his grandfather, but in one there is a mention that Napoleon's character commits suicide when he learns that he was tricked. Yes, too many suicides, and it is weird they get deitified for this. morelMWilliam 02:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Historical background belongs underneath plot so I've moved it. Can you please find some historical sources to back up those early claims?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • →The only source that supports it is that article in The Hindu which supports the statements that follow. In fact, the whole section depends on that source. There are no historical sources available, as even the content in the hindu article was backed by old nomadic songs which is how the legend managed to stay alive for this many years. morelMWilliam 02:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have significantly reworded the background section. Is it fine now? And, the Madurai king acting as a mentor for the brothers is not supported by the source. They can only be taken as contemporaries who were friendly to our subjects. morelMWilliam 03:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The invitation cards for the launch had 3D holographic designs which the Sappi awards of the year 2009." Doesn't make sense.

What makes milliblog a RS?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it still a blog though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like a blog run by a renowned music critic. Moreover, I have used it only to state the genre of a track. morelMWilliam 09:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove it, its a blog. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed it. I am done with what I can do. Am open with your doing the review now as that would give me directions on what else could be tweaked. I can then work on your suggestions. morelMWilliam 10:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article has greatly improved in the last 24 hours. Even up until the 5th Aug I had this passed off as a fail given its sources and lack of quality of prose. Thanks to the hard work of the main editor he has shown that it is worth putting such articles on hold to allow it to be improved. This in my opinion now meets all of the GA criteria, fairly well written and the sources are generally reasonable now, given that its on a contemporary Tamil movie. In future though I would ask you to try to produce more concise reception sections for your articles, you did repeat what had already been said a lot. Above all it needs to flow. It is way off an FA though, and think is unlikely to ever pass FA unless in the future a wealth of book material and better material became available for it. Good job, you've surprised me with your improvements to this article. I'm promoting this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should thank you for the time you gave for me to work on it and for being very considerate throughout the review process. You did a great job in cleaning up the mess I had left in the reception section. I don't think this can ever go to FAC given the way Indian journos review movies. I could find no content that could be added for Themes section. Thanks again. This is my first GAN! :)

Hope it has been a learning curve for you and I wish to see many more articles from you at GA. The more GA articles you write, the better the writer you become and the more your knowledge of what is expected increases. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep what I learnt in mind and try to be at the least better than how I have been with this GAN. Thanks again. morelMWilliam 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ponnar_Shankar_(film)/GA1&oldid=1136241185"