The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [1]. reply
This article is about Enthiran, the current highest grossing Tamil film of all time. It is also the first Rajinikanth film to be attempted for FA class. It was withdrawn by me in its first FAC due to WP:PUNC, MOS:LQ and WP:NBSP issues. The editors who cited these issues have accepted the article's return to FAC after the issues were resolved at the article's second peer review. Any comments regarding prose, copyediting or even punctuation (if any are found) are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC); Kailash29792 ( talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I believe this is now up to scratch, it's not easy writing about a contemporary Tamil film like this and making it sound encyclopedic. I have made some significant edits to it myself though delegates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. Not a subject I know anything about, but the text is remarkably thorough, and the prose is easy to read and well and widely sourced. Many of the sources are newspapers, but that is to be expected for a film released less than five years ago. Adverse as well as favourable reviews are quoted. Only two minor queries about the drafting:
I have not compared the version now before us with the one submitted and withdrawn last month. I refrained from supporting then because I felt unqualified to make any judgment about the topic. I am no better qualified now, but the article carries conviction, and as long as the coordinators realise that my support comes from a position of flawless ignorance I am happy to add it. The opinions of better-informed editors will naturally carry more weight. – Tim riley talk 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support It has great encyclopedic material, so I'll support this transition from GA to FA. But first, just a few comments:
Great job on the article, I'd just thought I would mention the minor comments above but you don't have to address them. Good luck! ☠ Jag uar ☠ 11:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: Looks good. A job well done by all involved. Just one minor point: If Aishwarya Rai Bachchan practised her Tamil lines each day before filming, why was her voice dubbed by another artist? -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Amazing work on this article. Two minor concerns;
-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 09:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support - Good article, nicely put together. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support - Nicely written, well-sourced and informative. — Prashant 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support with a minor comment
Support I performed an earlier copyedit, and I commented at the first FAC and the peer review. I went over the article again and corrected a few things, and it looks good to me now. I like it; good work.- RHM22 ( talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Resolved concerns from
SNUGGUMS
|
---|
Here are my only concerns:
I'll be happy to support once addressed. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply |
A reminder that we need image and source reviews at some stage; feel free to post requests at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi Ian. I'll leave source spotchecks to someone else, but here's an image review:
In terms of relevance, I personally don't see the benefit of using images of geographical locations. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [1]. reply
This article is about Enthiran, the current highest grossing Tamil film of all time. It is also the first Rajinikanth film to be attempted for FA class. It was withdrawn by me in its first FAC due to WP:PUNC, MOS:LQ and WP:NBSP issues. The editors who cited these issues have accepted the article's return to FAC after the issues were resolved at the article's second peer review. Any comments regarding prose, copyediting or even punctuation (if any are found) are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC); Kailash29792 ( talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I believe this is now up to scratch, it's not easy writing about a contemporary Tamil film like this and making it sound encyclopedic. I have made some significant edits to it myself though delegates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. Not a subject I know anything about, but the text is remarkably thorough, and the prose is easy to read and well and widely sourced. Many of the sources are newspapers, but that is to be expected for a film released less than five years ago. Adverse as well as favourable reviews are quoted. Only two minor queries about the drafting:
I have not compared the version now before us with the one submitted and withdrawn last month. I refrained from supporting then because I felt unqualified to make any judgment about the topic. I am no better qualified now, but the article carries conviction, and as long as the coordinators realise that my support comes from a position of flawless ignorance I am happy to add it. The opinions of better-informed editors will naturally carry more weight. – Tim riley talk 12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support It has great encyclopedic material, so I'll support this transition from GA to FA. But first, just a few comments:
Great job on the article, I'd just thought I would mention the minor comments above but you don't have to address them. Good luck! ☠ Jag uar ☠ 11:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: Looks good. A job well done by all involved. Just one minor point: If Aishwarya Rai Bachchan practised her Tamil lines each day before filming, why was her voice dubbed by another artist? -- Krimuk|90 ( talk) 01:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Amazing work on this article. Two minor concerns;
-- Skr15081997 ( talk) 09:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support - Good article, nicely put together. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support - Nicely written, well-sourced and informative. — Prashant 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support with a minor comment
Support I performed an earlier copyedit, and I commented at the first FAC and the peer review. I went over the article again and corrected a few things, and it looks good to me now. I like it; good work.- RHM22 ( talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Resolved concerns from
SNUGGUMS
|
---|
Here are my only concerns:
I'll be happy to support once addressed. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply |
A reminder that we need image and source reviews at some stage; feel free to post requests at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 00:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi Ian. I'll leave source spotchecks to someone else, but here's an image review:
In terms of relevance, I personally don't see the benefit of using images of geographical locations. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply