![]() | Ponnar Shankar (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The epic of Ponnar Shankar is three millenia old. The documented version itself is six hundred years old. It is totally misleading to put the movie part in the name of Ponnar shankar as it is a work of art susceptible to changes in depiction of the original epic. The gist of the epic is provided in a seperate wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
"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.
A little vague. This section could use a little more.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
What makes milliblog a RS?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it still a blog though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please remove it, its a blog. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
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)
![]() | Ponnar Shankar (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The epic of Ponnar Shankar is three millenia old. The documented version itself is six hundred years old. It is totally misleading to put the movie part in the name of Ponnar shankar as it is a work of art susceptible to changes in depiction of the original epic. The gist of the epic is provided in a seperate wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Starting first read-through. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
"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.
A little vague. This section could use a little more.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
What makes milliblog a RS?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it still a blog though? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Please remove it, its a blog. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
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)