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||talk20:01, 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||talk18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"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.OneSOS14:21, 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||talk14:52, 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.OneSOS15:09, 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.OneSOS15:25, 23 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||talk13:21, 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.OneSOS13:35, 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||talk14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
More comments
"It is revered as one of the best Hindi soundtracks." - According to?
"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.
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.OneSOS15:58, 24 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.OneSOS04:09, 25 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||talk20:01, 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||talk18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)reply
"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.OneSOS14:21, 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||talk14:52, 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.OneSOS15:09, 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.OneSOS15:25, 23 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||talk13:21, 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.OneSOS13:35, 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||talk14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)reply
More comments
"It is revered as one of the best Hindi soundtracks." - According to?
"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.
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.OneSOS15:58, 24 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.OneSOS04:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)reply