Talk:Raman Raghav 2.0/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 16:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this. VedantTalk 16:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The second paragraph could begin with "Kashyap initially wanted to make a period film about" as that's pretty production and the music, cinematography, and editing could follow.
You could also incorporate the writing in this paragraph and remove "and written by Kashyap and Vasan Bala" from the opening line to make it less wordy.
"premiere" is usually used only for the first screening/performance. I'd suggest you rephrase accordingly.

Plot

I'll try and make minor edits myself.

Reading through the rest. VedantTalk 17:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Production

"Raman Raghav 2.0 is inspired by " - i think it should be was.
"Director Anurag Kashyap first became interested in his story" - you'll have to use the name instead of his.
"He initially wanted to make a trilogy of films based on Mumbai" - based in? Also, write "a trilogy of period film's based..." as you refer to how the idea fell out because of the "period" bit. It'll give it better context.
You might have to split the sentence and say that Nanavati project never materialised.
"He then shelved the idea and set it in contemporary time." - what is the it here? Raman Raghav? You might have to say so.
The "few years earlier" is not required.
"honest cop in today's time." - is very WP: CURRENT.
"Kashyap said that Nawazuddin Siddiqui his first casting choice" - was.
"Kashyap modeled that character on Raghubir Yadav, who had portrayed Raman Raghav in Sriram Raghavan's 1991 film." - that?
"The principal photography began in late September 2015" - The late isn't required either.
"It helped in making the film look bigger as the locations kept changing." - bigger?
"During shoot, Siddique had to deliver a ten-minute monologue in the film" - You can't use both during the shoot and in the film. You could rephrase as Siddique had a ten-minute monologue in the film.
you could say quasi-cocaine power instead of "cocaine like looking powder".
"the crew had made a powder out of Glucon-D and Corn Starch." - the crew used Glucon... to avoid repetition.
"Siddique"? or "Siddiqui"?
"The diagnosis showed dengue initially, but he recovered quickly." - Start with an although maybe, for better transition.
You might want to add the distribution studios on the section.

Will go through the rest soon. VedantTalk 17:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant, I have resolved the above comments. Have a look. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the rest of this by the end of the week if that's not a problem Yash? VedantTalk 21:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack and marketing

"She called unplugged version of Mohapatra's "Qatl-E-Aam" as "cleaner, more powerful rendition of the same vocals"." - not sure what same vocals are being referred to.
"For the song "Behooda", he called Bhatkal's voice "lends the song a very gangster-like feel with the " - both For the song and called need to rephrased.
Also, try varying sentence structure as all the sentences seem to use the called phrasing.
"Writing for Rediff.com, Aelina Kapoor cited the soundtrack as "unconventional score that" - cite might not be the best choice, how about described.
"has "poetic touch" with "dark undertones"" - has as poetic... and no quotes needed.
"Manish Gaekwad wrote in his review that "Raghav's Theme" as a "hybrid" - You'll have to rephrase this too as wrote in a review ... as is just wrong.
"two teaser poster's" - posters'?
which showed Siddiqui staring in front with his red eyes makes little sense.
"featured the half faces of both" - is the half faces really required?
The opening paragraph overuses the words poster and released. It reads a little monotonously and could use some variation.
"Nawazuddin Siddiqui received a standing ovation post the screening" - why use the full name now?
Since bit are a little too wordy like received a theatrical release and Before the release of the film in India. Shorter version would suffice.

Will go through the last section soon. VedantTalk 18:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done as suggested. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The Sweta Kaushal quite is huge and should be paraphrased.
So is the one from Deborah Young.
"Contrary to the positive responses" - Isn't the most encyclopediac.
The Maitland McDonagh quite adds nothing to the Reception section as it's a mere observation and such comments could be included in an themes and analysis section but have little value in the reception section. They do not say anything about he film's value.
- Other instances include 1."He further added, "Anurag Kashyap riffs on a grisly episode of Mumbai history in his luridly absorbing serial killer thriller."" 2. "In true Anurag Kashyap style, there is no violence onscreen. You don't see anyone killing, you see it all in your head and that's what scares you the most – you own capacity to imagine evil" - so, is that a good thing or not? You really cannot tell. 3. "It’s a propulsive and bloodthirsty thriller with a brash use of music and a jangling, adrenalised energy which rarely flags." - same.
"Guy Lodge from Variety labelled Siddiqui's performance "[has] literally unblinking intensity"." - Grammar. labelled Siddiqui's performance "has"?

This section might need some work, I've made some changes. Let me know if I missed/messed up something or if you have queries regarding my comments. VedantTalk 14:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant I have made some changes and the section looks fine to me now. Please have a look. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Firstpost needs italicising, so does Scoopwhoop and IB Times and Film Journal International.
Wiki-link websites like BH, The Indian Express and so on.
No Caps: "RELIANCE ENTERTAINMENT, PHANTOM FILMS AND KEV ADAMS LAUNCH UNIQUE INDO-FRENCH PARTNERSHIP FOR TWO MOVIES".
Scroll should be Scroll.in.

That should be it. There are a couple of green links, but they can be fixed easily. A couple of stray sentences may break the glwo in places like the mention of the title being decided among others, but those are minor issues and the prose is fairly concise here. I should be able to pass after the sources are fixed. VedantTalk 13:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant Done. I'll fix the green links once the tool starts working. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pass. VedantTalk 15:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]