GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.
JAG
UAR 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just some nitpicking, but other than that this is a well designed article. It's clear overall and the sources all check out fine. I couldn't find any dead links or copyvios. Excellent work. I'll keep this on hold until all of the above are out of the way.
JAG
UAR 14:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This needs more work to reach the well-written criterion for Good Articles. For example, these two phrases in the lead's second paragraph that are problematic:
after losing his daughter befriends a wheelchair-bound chess player and the events that follow.
the script was re-written with several changes according to the Indian audience.
I was also wondering why "dialogues" was used twice at the end of the first paragraph, unless this is a feature of Indian English; in American or British English, it would be "dialogue" without the "s". And, in the final sentence of the third paragraph, I can't see any reason for a "however" unless it's editorializing, which isn't appropriate.
There is more, but I don't have time at the moment for a complete survey. Look for further odd sentences, typos (there's a "tow" that should be "two"), inappropriate capitalizations, and so on. Thank you. Jaguar, I hope you will hold off on giving GA status, given the issues found; I had an edit conflict trying to post this. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yashthepunisher, there are still issues, and it looks like I'm going to have to do a complete review to mention them all. This may take a few days to finish; I'll be as quick as I can.
The music of the film was composed by several artists including Shantanu Moitra, Ankit Tiwari, Advaita, Prashant Pillai, Rochak Kohli and Gaurav Godkhindi for each song.Did all those artists really collaborate together on all those songs?
However, its producer died and the script was re-written with several changes.This is misleading in that the producer died and the project was shelved for about eight years. When it was revived, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was completely rewritten in a new language for a different audience altogether. I'm not looking for a major expansion, just the basic facts.
opened to mixed to positive reviews: this seems to be more accurate than the body of the article, which just says positive reviews, but the two should not disagree.
he started writing it in English with Joshi between 2000 and 2004: either give the actual year it was started rather than a range, or give the range and just say that it was written during that period. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There are a few points that aren't clear, and some minor grammatical issues:
daughter of a welfare minister: are there lots of welfare ministers? I would have expected one only (at a particular level of government). Does it even matter what Qureshi's ministerial portfolio is? All that's needed here is to establish that he's a government minister (which gives him a certain level of authority and official protection), assuming that's what he is.
Nina mysteriously slipped down the stairs at Qureshi's house and died.The word "slipped" is an odd choice with "down"; a more likely possibility is "fell".
Rakesh Maria and Viswanathan Anand playing chessis taken directly from the source, and should be quoted.
more operatic than the English one.later in the sentence, but the real problem here is that there is no context. When I read the source, I'm not sure what is meant by "English one". I suppose it might be the prior English version of the script, but that hasn't yet been introduced in this paragraph. I'd suggest dropping this phrase, or moving it much later in this section.
The title of the film had gone through several changes including Fifth Move, 64 Squares and Chess being some of them.The implication by placing this here is that these titles were created and discarded at this point in time, prior to the writing of the script between 2000 and 2004. However, Fifth Move is the title associated with the English version of the script intended for Hoffman, which wasn't even finished until 2004 (according to thehindu.com). So if the many English titles are relevant, this is in the wrong place.
The script of Wazir took five years to complete.is problematic where it's placed. First, four plus two is six, not five, and Chopra actually calls it "six" elsewhere in the DNA source. But more important, at this point in the narrative, there is no Wazir, there is only a shelved Fifth Move.
we worked for two more yearsin the quote refers back to Joshi, not Nambiar (as appears to be the case to the reader). Plus there are unnecessary details about the almirah/cupboard; what matters is that Chopra had a cache of unfilmed scripts, and Nambiar selected this one from it, after which Chopra and Joshi spent two years writing a Hindi version.
The wheelchair on which he sits throughout the film was chosen among 40 to 50 wheelchairs.It sounds like they brought in 40 to 50 wheelchairs and chose one from among them, rather than what the source says, which is that they went through that many to find one that would fit him perfectly.
The film’s scale kept growing by time when it was being written: this has grammatical problems, and also is unclear as to its referent: is this the English version, or the Hindi rewrite? This matters, especially with regard to the protagonist (presumably Daanish), and because according to the article thus far, it was going to be English and Hoffman until the Hollywood producer died in 2005. At what point did they switch from an American protagonist to an Indian one? It would be interesting if they were writing the Hindi script but with an American protagonist initially, but that seems odd—this needs to be clear, and if it can't be clarified sufficiently, it cannot be included.
Bachchan had also read the original script 12 years ago, but remembered it when Chopra mentioned.This is not a complete sentence. I'm wondering about the usage of "had also"; do we know that Akhtar had read the script previously? I'm also not sure why "but" is used here, and twelve years prior would have been in 2002, two years before the original script was completed.
John Abraham and Neil Nitin Mukesh make extended cameo appearances in the film.The source for this is an article commenting on a trailer; there is no evidence in this source of the extent of the appearances. A better source is needed, and I'm not entirely sure why "cameo" is used here, because cameo indicates a short appearance; if it's extended, or a significant role, then I don't see how it can be called a cameo.
Few scenes in the film were improvised on the set: this means that not many scenes were improvised, which is not what the source says. Indeed, there isn't a sense of just how much was improvised. Chopra does say, "Some of the best lines in Wazir are improvised", and the Russian joke is given as an example.
I'm going to pass this. It appears that the prose has been improved enough to meet the GA criteria. BlueMoonset raised a few points which I had already acknowledged during my first read through of this article but chose not to raise them here as I considered them too minor. I assumed the hyphenated box-office was Indian English for example, as well as the use of "dialogues". I've reviewed dozens of Telugu, Tamil and general Indian films over the years and there is a certain quality I always expect from them—this is one no exception. If anything I would recommend paraphrasing some parts of the reception section so it relies less on bare quotes, but that can be saved for FA if Yash were to peruse that. I've made some minor tweaks. If there are still any problems outstanding then I would encourage that they be worked outside of the GA review; for now I concur that it meets the criteria and there's not enough reason to strip it of that. JAG UAR 09:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Amitabh Bachchan’s legs were removed from visual effects to show him handicapped.This sentence needs work. It might be helpful to note, as one of the sources does, that he wore long black socks and black shoes because it would make the (computerized?) special effects to remove the legs below the tied-off pants easier to do. Even so, the original version was not good enough; I can't recall whether the release delays were entirely due to the additional effects work needed, but it's in the source material, so I think it would be a useful addition if so.
Chopra was not happy initially with the virtual effects work, so he wanted changes.The word "initially" is in the wrong place; he was not happy with the initial virtual effects work. Did he just want changes, or did he have it completely redone?
earlier set to release in the mid-2015: "initially set to be released in the middle of 2015" (or "originally" rather then "initially")
both of which were not finalised: this is not necessary if you put the actual release date next, as should be done. In any event, the actual release date should be in this section, not relegated to Critical reception. It should also be made clear that this was not merely the India release, but a worldwide release (otherwise there wouldn't be box office results from "overseas" for the same weekend as the domestic release).
The writer and producer of the film,from the sentence, and possibly all but Chopra's last name.
Nambiar later apologised for hurting any sentiments.doesn't convey what it ought, at least to this American—that he apologized for hurting anyone's feelings. I realize "sentiments" is the word used by him; if you want to use it, then put it in quotes. Perhaps the revised paragraph could read something like
In pre-release publicity, director Bejoy Nambiar said, "Casting Mr. Bachchan, who has got such a strong persona, and limiting him in a wheelchair, was a big task for us to get used to". This remark was condemned as "disparaging and extremely condescending" by Javed Abidi, the founder of the Disability Rights Group. Nambiar subsequently apologised for hurting anyone's feelings.
Still working on Critical reception and Box office, after which I'll go back through the above sections and check the various changes in case further adjustments need to be made. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: do you have time to finish this review? JAG UAR 13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
In the overseaswas a not-clear shorthand; I've replaced it with "Among overseas reviewers", and edited the rest of the paragraph.
This completes the first pass. I'll try to go through the article in the next day or two for a second pass, making further edits where practical and asking for edits where not. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: if your review is finished, I'd like to close and promote this now. JAG UAR 11:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This review has been on hold for over a month and I'm confident it's already scraping along the edges of the GA criteria. I've made a couple of tweaks to the article, and Yash has already addressed all of BlueMoonset's concerns. In my opinion it satisfies the "well written" criteria and am eager to get this moved along. If anybody feels that there are any outstanding issues then they can be raised on the talk page. At this time I don't think a GAR is appropriate.
JAG
UAR 15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.
JAG
UAR 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just some nitpicking, but other than that this is a well designed article. It's clear overall and the sources all check out fine. I couldn't find any dead links or copyvios. Excellent work. I'll keep this on hold until all of the above are out of the way.
JAG
UAR 14:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This needs more work to reach the well-written criterion for Good Articles. For example, these two phrases in the lead's second paragraph that are problematic:
after losing his daughter befriends a wheelchair-bound chess player and the events that follow.
the script was re-written with several changes according to the Indian audience.
I was also wondering why "dialogues" was used twice at the end of the first paragraph, unless this is a feature of Indian English; in American or British English, it would be "dialogue" without the "s". And, in the final sentence of the third paragraph, I can't see any reason for a "however" unless it's editorializing, which isn't appropriate.
There is more, but I don't have time at the moment for a complete survey. Look for further odd sentences, typos (there's a "tow" that should be "two"), inappropriate capitalizations, and so on. Thank you. Jaguar, I hope you will hold off on giving GA status, given the issues found; I had an edit conflict trying to post this. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yashthepunisher, there are still issues, and it looks like I'm going to have to do a complete review to mention them all. This may take a few days to finish; I'll be as quick as I can.
The music of the film was composed by several artists including Shantanu Moitra, Ankit Tiwari, Advaita, Prashant Pillai, Rochak Kohli and Gaurav Godkhindi for each song.Did all those artists really collaborate together on all those songs?
However, its producer died and the script was re-written with several changes.This is misleading in that the producer died and the project was shelved for about eight years. When it was revived, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was completely rewritten in a new language for a different audience altogether. I'm not looking for a major expansion, just the basic facts.
opened to mixed to positive reviews: this seems to be more accurate than the body of the article, which just says positive reviews, but the two should not disagree.
he started writing it in English with Joshi between 2000 and 2004: either give the actual year it was started rather than a range, or give the range and just say that it was written during that period. BlueMoonset ( talk) 18:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There are a few points that aren't clear, and some minor grammatical issues:
daughter of a welfare minister: are there lots of welfare ministers? I would have expected one only (at a particular level of government). Does it even matter what Qureshi's ministerial portfolio is? All that's needed here is to establish that he's a government minister (which gives him a certain level of authority and official protection), assuming that's what he is.
Nina mysteriously slipped down the stairs at Qureshi's house and died.The word "slipped" is an odd choice with "down"; a more likely possibility is "fell".
Rakesh Maria and Viswanathan Anand playing chessis taken directly from the source, and should be quoted.
more operatic than the English one.later in the sentence, but the real problem here is that there is no context. When I read the source, I'm not sure what is meant by "English one". I suppose it might be the prior English version of the script, but that hasn't yet been introduced in this paragraph. I'd suggest dropping this phrase, or moving it much later in this section.
The title of the film had gone through several changes including Fifth Move, 64 Squares and Chess being some of them.The implication by placing this here is that these titles were created and discarded at this point in time, prior to the writing of the script between 2000 and 2004. However, Fifth Move is the title associated with the English version of the script intended for Hoffman, which wasn't even finished until 2004 (according to thehindu.com). So if the many English titles are relevant, this is in the wrong place.
The script of Wazir took five years to complete.is problematic where it's placed. First, four plus two is six, not five, and Chopra actually calls it "six" elsewhere in the DNA source. But more important, at this point in the narrative, there is no Wazir, there is only a shelved Fifth Move.
we worked for two more yearsin the quote refers back to Joshi, not Nambiar (as appears to be the case to the reader). Plus there are unnecessary details about the almirah/cupboard; what matters is that Chopra had a cache of unfilmed scripts, and Nambiar selected this one from it, after which Chopra and Joshi spent two years writing a Hindi version.
The wheelchair on which he sits throughout the film was chosen among 40 to 50 wheelchairs.It sounds like they brought in 40 to 50 wheelchairs and chose one from among them, rather than what the source says, which is that they went through that many to find one that would fit him perfectly.
The film’s scale kept growing by time when it was being written: this has grammatical problems, and also is unclear as to its referent: is this the English version, or the Hindi rewrite? This matters, especially with regard to the protagonist (presumably Daanish), and because according to the article thus far, it was going to be English and Hoffman until the Hollywood producer died in 2005. At what point did they switch from an American protagonist to an Indian one? It would be interesting if they were writing the Hindi script but with an American protagonist initially, but that seems odd—this needs to be clear, and if it can't be clarified sufficiently, it cannot be included.
Bachchan had also read the original script 12 years ago, but remembered it when Chopra mentioned.This is not a complete sentence. I'm wondering about the usage of "had also"; do we know that Akhtar had read the script previously? I'm also not sure why "but" is used here, and twelve years prior would have been in 2002, two years before the original script was completed.
John Abraham and Neil Nitin Mukesh make extended cameo appearances in the film.The source for this is an article commenting on a trailer; there is no evidence in this source of the extent of the appearances. A better source is needed, and I'm not entirely sure why "cameo" is used here, because cameo indicates a short appearance; if it's extended, or a significant role, then I don't see how it can be called a cameo.
Few scenes in the film were improvised on the set: this means that not many scenes were improvised, which is not what the source says. Indeed, there isn't a sense of just how much was improvised. Chopra does say, "Some of the best lines in Wazir are improvised", and the Russian joke is given as an example.
I'm going to pass this. It appears that the prose has been improved enough to meet the GA criteria. BlueMoonset raised a few points which I had already acknowledged during my first read through of this article but chose not to raise them here as I considered them too minor. I assumed the hyphenated box-office was Indian English for example, as well as the use of "dialogues". I've reviewed dozens of Telugu, Tamil and general Indian films over the years and there is a certain quality I always expect from them—this is one no exception. If anything I would recommend paraphrasing some parts of the reception section so it relies less on bare quotes, but that can be saved for FA if Yash were to peruse that. I've made some minor tweaks. If there are still any problems outstanding then I would encourage that they be worked outside of the GA review; for now I concur that it meets the criteria and there's not enough reason to strip it of that. JAG UAR 09:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Amitabh Bachchan’s legs were removed from visual effects to show him handicapped.This sentence needs work. It might be helpful to note, as one of the sources does, that he wore long black socks and black shoes because it would make the (computerized?) special effects to remove the legs below the tied-off pants easier to do. Even so, the original version was not good enough; I can't recall whether the release delays were entirely due to the additional effects work needed, but it's in the source material, so I think it would be a useful addition if so.
Chopra was not happy initially with the virtual effects work, so he wanted changes.The word "initially" is in the wrong place; he was not happy with the initial virtual effects work. Did he just want changes, or did he have it completely redone?
earlier set to release in the mid-2015: "initially set to be released in the middle of 2015" (or "originally" rather then "initially")
both of which were not finalised: this is not necessary if you put the actual release date next, as should be done. In any event, the actual release date should be in this section, not relegated to Critical reception. It should also be made clear that this was not merely the India release, but a worldwide release (otherwise there wouldn't be box office results from "overseas" for the same weekend as the domestic release).
The writer and producer of the film,from the sentence, and possibly all but Chopra's last name.
Nambiar later apologised for hurting any sentiments.doesn't convey what it ought, at least to this American—that he apologized for hurting anyone's feelings. I realize "sentiments" is the word used by him; if you want to use it, then put it in quotes. Perhaps the revised paragraph could read something like
In pre-release publicity, director Bejoy Nambiar said, "Casting Mr. Bachchan, who has got such a strong persona, and limiting him in a wheelchair, was a big task for us to get used to". This remark was condemned as "disparaging and extremely condescending" by Javed Abidi, the founder of the Disability Rights Group. Nambiar subsequently apologised for hurting anyone's feelings.
Still working on Critical reception and Box office, after which I'll go back through the above sections and check the various changes in case further adjustments need to be made. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: do you have time to finish this review? JAG UAR 13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
In the overseaswas a not-clear shorthand; I've replaced it with "Among overseas reviewers", and edited the rest of the paragraph.
This completes the first pass. I'll try to go through the article in the next day or two for a second pass, making further edits where practical and asking for edits where not. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: if your review is finished, I'd like to close and promote this now. JAG UAR 11:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This review has been on hold for over a month and I'm confident it's already scraping along the edges of the GA criteria. I've made a couple of tweaks to the article, and Yash has already addressed all of BlueMoonset's concerns. In my opinion it satisfies the "well written" criteria and am eager to get this moved along. If anybody feels that there are any outstanding issues then they can be raised on the talk page. At this time I don't think a GAR is appropriate.
JAG
UAR 15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)