Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Kom (film)/archive1

Mary Kom (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel this article has potential of an FA. Plus, the subject of the film is very inspiring. Based on Mary Kom, this Priyanka Chopra starrer biographical sports drama deserves to be a featured article. Looking forward to a lots of comments, so that the article can be improved.

Thanks, Krish | Talk 16:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yashthepunisher

There are many dead links and redirects that needs to be fixed.

It's not fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sources like "blogspot.in", "thew14.com", "manipur times", "notch-mag" (unless its Top-Notch Magazine), "bollywood life" and "business of cinema" needs to be replaced.

These websites are by notable critics. However,I will definitely look for alternatives and will replace all the links by archives before the nomination.Krish | Talk 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are "Onler Kom" and "M. Narjit Singh" notable enough to mention them in the lead?
Only Ningbo will suffice in the 4th sentence, per article's name.
In the film, Chopra makes her first appearance as a playback singer in Bollywood for a lullaby called "Chaoro". I think it can be rephrased by something like: "Chopra made her first appearance as a playback singer with the lullaby called "Chaoro" in the film."
Saiwyn Quadras is the writer, so you need to mention that in the opening sentence of the 2nd para.
.."gain" her permission sounds stretched. Replace gain with "take" or something.
Do you think the followup sentence is neutral? Even if not, it shouldn't be in the lead.
"Chopra underwent extensive training..". "physical" is missing in between.
Remove "movie" from the plot section as it's not really encyclopedic.
"During his work on Saawariya (2007)," what work??
Replace "the script" with "which", goes better with the flow. In the development section.
"..manager in the year that he started writing the script." Remove "that".
"Research for the film was done through sources, online information and newspaper archives. Online videos played a key role in the research." Why not merge the "online video" sentence with the former one.!
"However, Bhansali.." However, "he" sounds better.
There are two "however's" in the last para.
I think you need to mention his works on Black and Sawaariya in the opening sentence of the "development" section.
Delink Chopra in the "casting" section, for the sake of WP:OVERLINK.
"media reports suggested that Priyanka Chopra was in talks for the lead role, something that Chopra initially denied." It should be "media reports suggested that Chopra was in talks for the lead role, which she had initially denied."

Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Chopra" from the following sentence, as its being repetitive.

Still not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In an interview with Daily News and Analysis, Mary Kom said". Again. Please replace her name with "she", its already mentioned.
"Chopra, who always prepares for her role in films by understanding the nuance of her character, prepared for three months." It's quite POVish. Only "Chopra prepared for three months for her role" will suffice.
"Chopra, at that time, was very busy with her other works". Remove "very". Same reason.
There are too many quotes in the Casting and characters section. Remove one of them atleast.
She said "Being our own project, we had both freedom and responsibility." Is this quote necessary?
Publisher is missing in ref 46.
"NDTV noted that "her fans and her peers commented on the poster and tweets kept flowing in through the night." Again. So many quotes might be a violation of copyright. Please refrain from using them when they aren't necessary.
The whole KBC, IIM ahmedabad, JDJ and comedy nights bit seems unnecessary. Almost every film is promoted on such tv shows and elsewhere, do we need to mention all of them?

Only comedy nights is removed. partially done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.Krish | Talk 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes with the special screening bit, unless the audience is notable.

Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the next line, which says "20 minutes of raw footage from the film was screened"? Is it normal to screen raw footage in Bollywood?Krish | Talk 16:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place ref 62, 63 and 64 near the claims. It helps in accessibility.
Mention the critics name in ref 100.
Bollywood Hungama shouldn't be italised.
date and reviewers name are missing on various occasion in the "reception" section.

Still missing in ref 98, 101 and 105. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Krish | Talk 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher's name should be linked at there first appearance, and delinked elsewhere.
Where is Anupama Chopra and Raja Sen's review?

There is Anupama Chopra's review in the article, Raja Sen did not review that week.Krish | Talk 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New issue, ref 94 doesn't say it's a review by Subhash K Jha. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Added the same review which has Jha's name, he is also the writer for IANS. I have added his review from his official website.Krish | Talk 17:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the comments. I too felt your points were all correct.Krish | Talk 17:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yash!

It is good to see another Yash the pedia' first of all! XD

Actually my real name is Yash, and the suffix is a result of my childhood fascination for this. :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"produced by Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Viacom 18 Motion Pictures" - remove "Viacom 18 Motion Pictures" from the first sentence. It sounds wrongly placed alongside names of the directer and the producer.
It will look slightly better if ever paragraph in the lead did not start with "Mary Kom".
"at the time when" -> "when".
"much before the 2012 Olympics win" -> "much before her victory at the 2012 Summer Olympics".
Do mention when the filming commenced.
If possible, incorporate why the plans to shoot at Manipur were dropped. Also, try to mention that Manipur was her hometown.
"of the film festival" -> "of the festival".
Link curfew.
We don't really know (I didn't!) that Mary Kom's full name is "Mangte Chungeijang Kom" unless we open the article on Mary Kom. So, writing "Mangte Chungeijang Kom" without prior clarifications might confuse the readers. So, include something in the beginning introduces "Mangte Chungeijang Kom" as her full name.
"The coach of the gym, Narjit Singh (Sunil Thapa) is the coach of the Asian Champion Dingko Singh" -> avoid using "coach" twice. A suggestion: "Narjit Singh (Sunil Thapa), coach of the gym, and of the Asian Champion Dingko Singh".
"telling" -> "informing".
Is "C" supposed to be capitalized in "Coach"?
"hiding about the sport from him" -> "keeping about her involvement in the sport from him".
Mention that she won the 2002 Championship.
"leave boxing" -> "quit boxing"
"his unhappiness towards Kom's marriage decision" -> "his unhappiness towards the decision".
"After her marriage, Kom becomes pregnant. She does not participate and gives up her career to look after her family." -> "After her marriage, Kom gets pregnant and gives up her career to look after her family."
"when offered the position of a constable she refuses" -> "she refuses the position of a police constable".
"she is above that position" -> "she is above that".
"the babies" -> "the twins".
"She later makes a written apology" -> "She later writes an apology letter".
"hole in their heart" - did that really happen? If yes, link it to the actual medical condition.

Yes, that is true. Though it didnt happen same night or year. The hole was detected during the Asian Championships in 2011 (film shows in 2008). Kom wanted to skip the championship, but played on at her husband’s insistence. She went on to win gold and caught the flight home the same night. However, she reached just in time for the surgery.Krish | Talk 08:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a art" -> "an art".
Period should not be included in the "" if the quote is partially used. Entire article needs to be checked for this.
"felt ashamed" -> "ashamed" is an odd word to be used. Try using something from the source in "".
No need to use the full name of "Saiwyn Quadras" again.
"is not" -> "was not".
"his Kumar plans" -> should be phrased better.
"enthusiastic for it to be made" -> "enthusiastic towards the project".
"industry colleagues" -> "colleagues".
"2012 Olympics" -> "2012 Summer Olympics".
Link "won a bronze medal" to the article with the information about the Women's boxing competitions.
"However, the same month" -> "Later in that month".
"Chopra had to train vigorously to attain a boxer's physique, which she found very difficult" -> "Chopra found it hard to train vigorously to attain a boxer's physique".
Also, check for the capitalization of initial letters in quotes. Only capitalize if it is so in the quote.
If she got a fifteen day break, how did she train for a month? Remove fifteen day break if there isn't any explanation.
Manipur has been overlinked.
"on a set in Filmistan studios" -> "on a set in the studios".
"The Boxing sequences took 20 days to complete" - remove this as it has already been stated before.
"over two years" -> "over the course of two years".
"soundtrack album of the film" -> "soundtrack of the film".
"makes her" -> "made her".
No need to mention "from 19 September to 4 October".

I will look into the sections after "Soundtrack" later tomorrow. Best, Ya sh ! 20:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments.Krish | Talk 08:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Twitter".
Hindustan Times is linked for the first time in "Critical reception". Unlink it there and link it where it is used for the first time - in "Filming". Also, check this for other links too.
"and many other" is a vague term. I suggest you remove "many" or use "worldwide" or some other suitable term.
"positive buzz" - something more formal than "buzz" would be better.
"shifted Daawat-e-Ishq release date by two weeks" - did they postpone or prepone the release?
How many phases? And, details of only the first phase is mentioned.
The article is about the film and not on Chopra so it would be much better if the opening line gave an overview about the reception that the film received rather than what Chopra did. You can obviously mention Chopra's reception in the opening line but do write about the film first. I would suggest "mixed to positive".
There are a few deadlinks
Make sure all the parameters of the refs are used up. I am not familiar with the FA process but you should use the "publisher" criteria along with "work" wherever possible. And, others such as "author".

That concludes my run. I hope this was helpful and good luck with the nomination! Ya sh ! 14:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yash, your comments have definitely made it a better article. I will replace all the deadlinks with archives before the nomination.Krish | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – My apologies if any of the comments repeat those already mentioned above. I tried to filter out some of the ones the previous reviewer spotted; they got several of the things I noticed while reading.

I don't understand what "Kumar met Kom to take her permission for the film" means. I presume that this should be "ask" or "request" her permission to create the film instead?
This part should be edited to reflect that Kom's win was a bronze medal. I thought it was a gold the way it's worded now, and think that other readers will be confused later on when they read the body.
Even if the "much before the 2012 Olympics win" bit is adjusted as recommended above, I don't think it works grammatically. Maybe try "even before..."?
Plot: The second word of "Asian Champion" shouldn't be capitalized unless it is a proper title. I don't know enough about women's boxing to know whether it should be or not, but I'm sure it would be easy to research.
Add "the" before "next thirty days".
Cast: Shishir Sharma's role isn't given here. It says in his article that he played a national team coach, for what that's worth.
Development: Not sure if any of World Boxing Champion should be capitalized.
Also, Kom probably shouldn't be linked here since we have links in the lead and body already.
Comma needed before "who was interested in sports".
"which permitted to depict Kom's life up to 2008." Permitted who? The filmmakers?
Casting and characters: The em dash here should be unspaced per the MoS.
Pre-production: Drop the first word of "an extensive research was done...".
"Visual effects" should also be decapitalized.
Filming: "Chopra started the filming few days after the death of her father." Add "a" before "few".
"had planned to use actors and teaching them boxing to film the boxing scenes." "teaching" → "teach".
Add "a" before "more natural feel and convincing look."
If we have articles for the sports films mentioned here (we probably do, knowing this site), linking them would be nice if we haven't done so by now.

More later, if time permits. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable time and comments.Krish | Talk 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and release: Add "The" before "Mary Kom Blu-Ray is the first Blu-ray title...".
Also, should Ray be capitalized or not? There's an inconsistency in the previous sentence.

Done.Krish | Talk 18:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box office: Is "nett" part of Indian English? I see it a few times here.

Well, actually "nett" collections differ from "gross" box-office collections. It has been used in other FAs as well.Krish | Talk 18:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 109 to 115 are all dead links. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I will archive every source before nominating the article for FA and dead links will be replaced before same.Krish | Talk 18:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]