Wikipedia

Talk:Chori Chori Chupke Chupke/GA1

< Talk:Chori Chori Chupke Chupke
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Aoba47 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago64 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Picking this up for a review if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead and infobox

edit
  • I would revise the link Hindi-language to Hindi-language as used in the Kal Ho Naa Ho article. I suggest this to avoid having a lot of blue text bunched together right at the top of the page.
  • For the first paragraph's last sentence, I would unlink surrogate childbirth and instead link surrogate mother since that is used first. I would also link directly to the surrogacy rather than using the redirect.
  • For this part, the taboo issue of surrogate childbirth, I think it would be useful to somehow incorporate the surrogacy in India article to be more specific.
  • I am not sure what this part, which resulted in well-publicised cases, means.
  • For this part, a prostitute cum surrogate mother it should be a hyphenated phrase (i.e. a prostitute-cum-surrogate mother). Maybe it's because I have an incredibly dirty mind or something, but I would use something like "turned" instead of "cum", but the current wording is completely fine with the hyphens.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph is quite long. I would make the Filmfare nomination part into its own sentence.
  • Is there a reason to have sources in a separate "Further reading" section rather than incorporating them into the article?
  • Well it's common practice, I believe, to add such sections where information about the film is given which is either already in the article, or less relevant for an encyclopedic entry. Shahid • Talk2me 11:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Plot

edit
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know why Priya became permanently infertile? I am assuming from the plot summary, that the film did not go into specifics about any medical conditions, etc. but I just wanted to make sure.
  • For this part, from their conservative family, shouldn't it be families plural?
  • Well, traditionally, once a bride has entered her husband's house, it is her family as well, but to clarify, changed to "his" family. Her family, by the way, is not in the picture. Shahid • Talk2me 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • For this part, an image makeover, I think you can just say a makeover.
  • Does the film explain why they are going to Switzerland specifically? It seems kind of random. Also does the film specify its location for the earlier scenes? I am assuming it is somewhere in India, but it would best to say where all of this is happening.
  • For this part, Soon Madhu is pregnant with Raj's child, would it be possible to be more specific than "soon" or does the film not provide a more exact timeline for this?
  • I would revise this part, but still believes that Madhu should carry their child, and she begs her to stay, to something like, but still believes that Madhu should carry their child and begs her to stay, as the last part in the current wording sounds a little off to me.
  • The "finally" transition in this sentence, Finally, Raj's friend assaults Madhu but Raj saves her., sounds weird. I would use something else.
  • I have two questions about this sentence: Raj's grandfather, Kailashnath and father Ranjit arrange a religious ceremony and ask Raj, Priya and Madhu to return with them to India. 1) What is the religious ceremony for? 2) Why do they want all of them to return to India? Do they provide any explanation?
  • Yes, it is the Godbharaai, a sort of baby shower ceremony to welcome the child and bless the mom-to-be. Mentioned it, and specified that at least according to the film, it must be held in India, and that's why they fly back home. Shahid • Talk2me 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • If Madhu's child was stillborn, then whose baby is Priya hold at the end? I also do not like how the plot summary is intentionally misleading by saying the baby survived only to reveal later on that it did not. I know that the movie makes this part intentionally misleading to do a twist, but I would avoid this in a plot summary.
  • Madhu's child was not really stillborn. Mind you, only Madhu was pregnant, not Priya (who faked her pregnancy to accommodate the family). When she got Madhu's baby, the doctor falsely told the family the story about Madhu, because both women had to give birth. Clarified this in the text - added "Dr. Balraj Chopra falsely tells Raj's family that while Priya gave birth, Madhu's child was stillborn." Shahid • Talk2me 22:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • This is another clarification question, but does Madhu say what she will do instead of prostitution?

Cast

edit

Production

edit
  • I am assuming that this is all of the information on the film's production, but I just want to double-check with you because this section seems rather small.
  • Oh yes, sadly there's not much more than that, although I dug in the archives quite a lot. All I found was reviews and the little (which is not that little compared to other Indian films made in those years) you see here. Actually back then, particularly in the case of the directors of the film, who are very prolific, not much information was published anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 22:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • The first sentence on Baadshah and Ajnabee does not appear to be relevant to a reader's understanding of this particular film. It may be relevant if this film was announced prior to Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, but filmed afterward.
  • I would simplify this sentence: The three leads, Salman Khan, Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta, were cast together in their respective parts, having starred together in the romantic comedy Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega (2000). Maybe something like, The three leads, Salman Khan, Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta previously starred together in the romantic comedy Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega (2000)., would be more concise?
  • This is more of an observation, but it still surprises me that the actresses in this film got paid a substantial amount less than their male co-star, especially when I consider their roles to be bigger. I just found that interesting. Good job finding this info.
  • Yes, it is quite unfair, although it works in accordance with seniority and stardom. Khan was already an established actor who had over a decade of work behind him, and he was also a huge star, while the ladies were relatively new in the business. That he's a man in a male-dominated industry is quite clearly another factor, but honestly, I see it a lot in Hollywood as well. Shahid • Talk2me 22:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Could you expand on why Zinta was reluctant to play this role?
  • I would make the part about Zinta's preparations for the film into its own sentence.

Themes

edit
  • For this part, for being one of the only Hindi films dealing, link "Hindi films" to "Hindi-language films".
  • Not done, sinceit'snot linked in the plot.
  • I was not aware of the sexual intercourse part until I read this sentence, and it should 100% be discussed in the plot summary as that seems like an important part that is omitted from that section. I was genuinely surprised reading this part.
  • Revise this part, Some of the scenes in the film, to Some of the film's scenes to be more concise.
  • I have two comments for this sentence: Some of the scenes in the film were said to have been borrowed from Pretty Woman (1990) with the storyline inspired by the 1983 movie Doosri Dulhan by Lekh Tandon. Specify who said this, and remove "by Lekh Tandon".
  • This sentence, Krämer explained the similarities with Pretty Woman in that Chori Chori Chupke Chupke is "clearly different", with the replicated scenes being "merely one plot strand among many", is awkwardly constructed and could use further revision. The "clearly different" quote could be paraphrase, and since it is not clear what scenes are similar between the two movies, this does not really help an unfamiliar reader like myself. It seems like more context is needed for the Pretty Woman comparisons.
  • Revised, I can't add context because the author does not make mention of particular scenes and I would not want to engage in synthesis. But I think it sounds better now, have a look. Shahid • Talk2me 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Currently, there is a brief reference to comparisons with Doosri Dulhan in the first paragraph and further information in the second paragraph. I would see if there is a way to pair this information together as I do not think it is particularly helpful to scatter it across two different paragraphs.
  • I would actually encourage you to restructure this section to have each paragraph focused on specific topic. I do not really see a strong sense of organization here. For instance, the first paragraph start with how critics believe the film likens surrogacy to prostitution and more information on that is put into the later part of the second paragraph. I think a stronger structure overall would help this section a lot. I will re-examine this section again once this is done.
  • Done - restructured. You're absolutely right. Now the first paragraph is about the themes, surrogacy, prostitution; second para about the inspiration from other films; third about the character of Madhubala. Shahid • Talk2me 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Soundtrack

edit
  • This part, this film's soundtrack album was the year's sixth highest-selling, is awkwardly worded and I would revise it further.

Release

edit
  • For this part, which resulted in well-publicised cases involving producer Bharat Shah, could you specify what the cases were about?
  • Well it's just about it, speculations that the film might have been funded by the mafia, not much else was revealed. It started with this film and got more and more complicated. The controversy surrounding the film was all about possible links between Bharat Shah and Shakeel. Shahid • Talk2me 23:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • For this part, to show that no objectionable content appeared in the film, I think prove would be a better word choice than show.

Critical reception

edit
  • Could you explain to me how this section is organized? I am a little confused by this. For instance, praise toward Preity's performance seems scattered through each paragraph. I would encourage you to look at the essay WP:RECEPTION, specifically the point about organizing the section by thematic elements. I will re-examine this section again once this is sorted.
  • I have a question about this sentence: However, the duo of Salman Khan and Rani Mukerji faced some criticism, with certain reviewers considering them more of beauty fillers in the film and lamenting their underdeveloped roles. The sentence references multiple critics, but I do not see that supported by citations. Is that all in the Sukanya Verma citation?

Accolades

edit
  • This section and table seem unnecessary since it only covers two awards. I would instead incorporate it into the "Critical reception" section above it. Also, Khan's win should be added to the lead, and I had assumed, particularly from this wording the only nomination for the film, that Zinta was the only one to get any awards attention for this film.
  • I'll tell you what, the Bollywood Movie Award is not a very substantial function, while the Filmfare Awards are more or less the most famous and veteran award function for Bollywood films in India. Shahid • Talk2me 10:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Final comments

edit
  • I hope that I did not sound too negative in this review. You have done a lot of great work here, and made me want to watch this film and without this article, I would have never heard about it in the first place. My primary concerns are the structure of the "Themes" and "Critical reception" sections and how certain information seems to be left out of the plot summary (like the sexual intercourse bit). I will look through the article again once everything is addressed. Take as much time as you need as there is not any deadline for this, and let me know if any of my comments require further explanation. I did a majority of this review in one sitting so I would bee more than happy to clarify anything. One of these days, I really need to watch Indian films lol, especially since there is so much wonderful Wikipedia work on them. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Your review is fantastic, and I greatly appreciate the amount of effort you've evidently put into it. I'm sorry if the article was not really up to the mark, I just expanded it because there were sources available, and upon another editor's suggestion, thought I should give it a try without going through the whole thing myself, so I'm sorry. Shahid • Talk2me 11:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Aoba47: Hi, I promoted this article for a DYK appearance, but first I spent a lot of time copyediting it. Isn't grammar and typos something that's covered in a GA review? I also think the first paragraph of the Release section is not well-developed. The part about the court cases is mentioned in passing with three footnotes next to it, while there is much more in the sources that would give a broader picture of what happened. Yoninah (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • (ec)@Aoba47: I didn't say that. I just said I assumed that grammar and spelling were part of a GA review. Now that I edited it, it looks all right. Two sentences in their own section is the least of our problems. Shshshsh, if you could add more to the Release section about what the court cases were about, it would help. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Aoba47: thank you, but I have very little knowledge of how GA reviews work. The few times I tried nominating something, the review was so incredibly nitpicky and I got very stressed out. I am just interested in some more information about the court cases so that readers clicking on the hook at DYK will learn more about it, as that is the subject of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply


@Yoninah: There's not much else you can learn about the cases; the movie was speculated to have been funded by the mafia by virtue of relations between Bharat Shah and Choota Shakeel. That's it. Everything else the media reported is a development that was going on for a few years which had very little to do with the film. The film's prints were seized and released a few months later - not much else was mentioned. I can't see what else you thought couldbe added. If you see the big sources, that's it.
I would actually argue that Aoba47 (talk · contribs)'s review was very nitpicky, and I had to work upon it a lot. Sometimes grammar and spelling mistakes are easy to miss. I'm sorry for them. Shahid • Talk2me 20:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Shshshsh: OK. I'll try to spend time reading the sources you provided and see if I can add anything. Yoninah (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Yoninah: I have to add though - now that I see your changes, which I like, most of them are actually not corrections but copyediting and prose tweaks mostly based on personal writing preference rather than grammar. Thank you for your valuable copyedits, but I'm really grateful to Aoba47 (talk · contribs) for her meticulous review. Shahid • Talk2me 20:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the compliments, and thank you again to Yoninah for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chori_Chori_Chupke_Chupke/GA1&oldid=992763368"