Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sholay/1

Sholay

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep A relatively thorough review was conducted and all points addressed AIRcorn (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can this article be listed as a good article? This article has multiple issues !

Hmm. It was reviewed by two editors, and passed about a year ago. It has not really digressed since then that I can see. If you would list your concerns, I could try and take care of them. BollyJeff || talk 20:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – does anybody know what a "golden jubilee" is in this context? It apparently received 60 of them over a 50 week period. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure it means that the film played for 50 weeks (golden jubilee) in 60 different theaters. That statement is sourced in the box office section. BollyJeff || talk 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you list what issues it has with regards to the good article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"He terrorized the local police. Any policeman captured by the real Gabbar Singh had his ears and nose cut off, and was then released as an object lesson to other policemen."
"Even to this day, a visit to the "Sholay rocks" (where the film was shot) is offered to tourists traveling through Ramanagara (on the road between Bangalore and Mysore), and plans are being made to build a resort in the area."

How is it relevant to the topic (criteria 3b)? This is not an article about the real dacoit or about Sholay rocks. The statements seem extraneous. "Terrorized" sounds subjective. X.One ^SOS 14:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first shows the inspiration for the story. You are free to re-word it, if its too strong. The second one would perhaps be better in the Legacy section. I will move it. This is hardly grounds for delisting. BollyJeff || talk 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I put up these comments just for improving the stuff here and ~~its utterly not worth delisting as~~ the main editors have done a commendable job in getting so much info for a 1975 Hindi film. And "plans are being made to build a resort in the area." is not fit even in the legacy section. X.One ^SOS 15:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film's "Running time" in the infobox states 204 minutes, seemingly a case of cherry picking from the "Alternate versions" section of the film which gives 3 different stats. Any specific reason for that? X.One ^SOS 15:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reason. Do you think 188 would be better since it was the original? BollyJeff || talk 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either that one, or all the three (if clumsiness does not matter). X.One ^SOS 06:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went with the original. BollyJeff || talk 13:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IBOS Network used as a source? Isn't BOI data available? There has been a consensus on the talk page of the List of highest-grossing Bollywood films that IBOS is not a preferable site for BO data. A source from BOI states that the distributor's share of the film was ₹22 crore, meaning that the gross was much more. X.One ^SOS 07:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBOS was only intended for the budget, not the gross; it should be clearer now. The BOI sourced already used says 15, this new can be used to back up another claim of earning more over time; I will add that. BollyJeff || talk 13:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid. The source used to state 15 crore (BOI) includes only the Indian gross. Check 2000's, MNIK's collections are reported to be only 96 crore, which are the Indian earnings. And the source I gave has not been used to quote distributor's share of ₹22 crore. Not compulsory, though its just an extra addendum. X.One ^SOS 13:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source for Sholay's worldwide earnings, please add it. BollyJeff || talk 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per GA criteria, if it is broad in its coverage, there is no issue. X.One ^SOS 15:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are references 23, 40, 45 and 48 as of the latest version reliable? X.One ^SOS 13:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the best, but for what they are claiming, they may be acceptable. I will look for better sources, but as you stated above, finding good info on a 37 year old Hindi film is not an easy task. BollyJeff || talk 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

"It is revered as one of the best Hindi soundtracks." - According to?

This statement is already sourced.

Yes, but an attribution is required. X.One ^SOS 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done BollyJeff || talk 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This song was remixed in the 2010 Malayalam film Four Friends." - Unsourced

Source added.

"Asha Bhosle also sings in this version." - Which version?

Re-worded for clarity.

The bulleted points on the soundtrack section be moved to prose? It doesn't look dandy now.

Done.

"The stars of the film appeared in other films; they did not seem to be limited by their roles in Sholay." - A rewording perhaps? To make it clear.

Deleted, its not needed.

"Comedian Jagdeep, who played Soorma Bhopali in the film, also attempted to capitalize on his Sholay success; he directed and played the lead role in the 1988 film Soorma Bhopali; Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan also played cameos." - Unsourced. Could "attempted to capitalize" be neutralized?

Done.

"The last attempt to trade on Sholay" - Last? From that date till today, no other attempt has taken place. I didn't understand that. Perhaps it could be re-worded.

Done.

"streets were virtually empty during the show" - Virtually empty? Sorry, what does that mean?

Haha, re-worded.

Lead does not adequately summarize the article. Info about "Alternate versions" and "Soundtrack" need to be added.

Will do shortly.

Done. BollyJeff || talk 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A small copy-edit in the plot section to make it clear and concise.

Suggestions?

"a twisted version of Russian roulette" - elaboration
"The toss, as usual, is in Jai's favor" - No other mention of toss in the plot.
"The thakur"? - I removed that. Not sure.

X.One ^SOS 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I don't know about "The" either. Perhaps it is a title and not his actual name. BollyJeff || talk 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. If these are addressed, the article is good for GA, according to me. Regards. X.One ^SOS 15:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. Glancing at the previous versions (before GAR), I must say that the editor who rolled this into the GAR process was perfectly right about the article not being upto GA standard. Hope its cool. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one minor issue. "Box office" in the infobox needs to updated with the distributor's share of 22c with the source. X.One ^SOS 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be highly irregular compared to other Indian film articles? BollyJeff || talk 16:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. If only the share is available, no harm in putting it. Not a WP:OSE case, but look at Manichitrathazhu. A similar pattern is followed. And kindly sign your posts after the comments below mine. X.One ^SOS 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BollyJeff || talk 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The article looks nice now. I am opting to keep it. X.One ^SOS 04:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A list of issues were raised, but all of them have been fixed, if not perfectly, at least nicely enough for a GA status. X.One ^SOS 04:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]