Talk:Drishyam

Recent edits

Hello Anjaan333, You recently blanked large section of this article without apt justification and later went and reverted my changes citing "fake source". Source provided by the author is not dead and since you are attempting to carry out edits, it is your responsibility to prove the validity of the changes. Moreover, please note engage in edit war. Feel free to contribute to the article but only with valid references and edit summary. You can discuss here before you engage in further edits. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

The film also broke the record of the movie 'Twenty 20' by securing the all-time highest gross collection in Malayalam Cinema.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The movie's official Facebook page is not a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Visuals Can be Deceiving

"Visuals Can be Deceiving" is the official tagline of the movie. If you look at this poster carefully, you can see it written below the title of the movie. But, I don't have any opinion as to include this tagline in the caption or not. Salih (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The caption= parameter of {{Infobox film}} is a WP:CAPTION describing the image, not the caption (subtitle, tagline, etc.) of the film's title. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi @Salih:, the Manual of Style guidelines for image captions can be found here. I don't think that the proposed, multiply-submitted vague title of "Visuals Can be Deceiving" meet any of the five criteria. If I'm missing something, I'm happy to yield. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand that the tagline of the film is not appropriate in the image caption. Salih (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2014

The plot section reveals the entire story and kills the entertainment value of the movie for those who have not watched it yet. This section needs to be trimmed down and the narratives leading to the climax should be removed. Sreekrbs (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: See WP:SPOILER. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly arbitrary date totals.

Hey, can someone explain to me what the deal is with the seemingly arbitrary date spans that we're using as we track the money it's made? I don't get it.

The film netted INR6.70 crore (US$1.1 million) gross in eight days

and collected a gross of INR10 crore (US$1.6 million) within eleven days

The film has grossed INR19.6 crore (US$3.1 million) within 25 days

32 days after its release, the movie had grossed INR23.12 crore (US$3.7 million).

8 days, 11 days, 25 days, 32 days? Is there something special about these days? It seems to me what's notable is:

• How how much did it make its first weekend?
• When did it beat the box office record for highest gross?
• What are its domestic and worldwide totals? Example

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's responded to this post, and we have a recent contribution with a 50 day total. I'm going to be bold and delete the random intermediate dates/totals unless someone has a different opinion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of plagiarism

There appears to be a difference in opinion about the addition of the "Accusation of plagiarism" section. While there are some unhelpful weasel-words in the article, the accusations of plagiarism appear to be significant enough that Joseph was asked directly to answer those allegations, here. So deleting the section doesn't make sense to me. We're not in the business of promoting the film, we should provide a balanced perspective all-around. For all the gushing accolades in the review section, I think we need some criticism to balance it out. I believe the accusations of plagiarism to be noteworthy even if it needs to be rephrased so it doesn't contain weasel words. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph or Jeethu

The director is referred to as Joseph in most part of the article. It is a Western practice to address a person by his surname. Here, the name "Joseph" is patronymic (his father V. V. Joseph, a former member of Kerala Assembly) and I guess it is an accepted practice in wiki to use first names for Indian persons. We can see a tag in Jeethu's wiki page (as well as in most articles) which say "In this Indian name, the name Joseph is a patronymic, not a family name, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Jeethu." So why don't we revert to the previous revision of the article which used his first name itself. Libin Scaria (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not taking a position on which version is technically "correct", but I am confused. I've seen a number of articles, including ones on Karisma Kapoor, Shahrukh Khan, Manmohan Singh, and CV Raman. In all of these, the subjects are referred to by their last names. What's different about this? The tag on Jeethu Joseph's Wikipedia page was inserted without explanation or references by a relatively inexperienced editor here. So we're sort of taking it on faith that the statement is correct. I've poked through some of the references at Jeethu Joseph and I don't see where his name is described as a patronym. I'm further confused because his father's last name is Joseph, and Jeethu's last name is Joseph, so how is Joseph not the family name? It doesn't seem as clearcut as in Iceland where Laura Michaelsdaughter is the daughter of Michael Bradson, who is the son of Brad Robertson. (Examples have been Anglicized) I'm happy to yield on this, but it seems that if we're relying on an unsourced template addition and our own assumptions, that maybe changing it back is not the way to go. However, if we do decide to change it back, I'd rather manually make the change (I'm happy to do it) instead of reverting. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It is customary in Kerala to add your fathers name as your surname. And although I can't provide you a reference which says Joseph is not a family name but his father's name only, I'm pretty sure regarding this. And only in few media you will see him being referred to as Joseph. I request to change it back to the previous revision. Libin Scaria (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Okay, it's uncontroversial enough. I changed Joseph to Jeethu, except where "Joseph" appears in a quotation (mostly in the review section). I double-checked the referenced reviews to be sure that if his name was quoted as "Joseph", that the source actually called him "Joseph". Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2014

Here's some information about how the film influenced the cover-up of a rape and murder case in Nilambur, Kerala. Please add this information as well as how the police criticised the film after its release.

Links: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-02-13/news-and-interviews/47304181_1_drishyam-film-crime

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/538949/20140216/nilambur-murder-case-drishyam-mohanlal-crime-coverup.htm

Links for criticism:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-21/news-and-interviews/46410523_1_drishyam-mohanlal-and-meena-movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.254.21 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

and here's a review from Outlook:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx/?289430

plz add this in the review section as the author mentions the thematic similarity of Drishyam with the Korosawa classic Rashomon.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.254.21 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Crtitism

Amidst all good reviews, some police officers have also criticised the movie after a Police Commissioner came against the movie saying, " it will create a negative impact on people for supporting hiding crimes ". Similarly Jail ADGP TP Senkumar mentioned against the blackmailing scenes from the movie saying that, "if a women gets blackmailed, the first thing to do is to inform the Police". He also suggested "Mohanlal should also think before committing such movies". Rajeshbieee (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC) let me know whether the above para is perfect to add in Drishyam page under Criticism header ( of couse with the same references )

Hi is the guy's name Sen Kumar, or is Senkumar his last name? Anyhow, a more appropriate write-up might go:

Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Senkumar claimed that two people accused of murdering a woman from Nilambur, Kerala in February 2014, admitted that their methods for disposing of the victim's body and mobile phone SIM card were inspired by Drishyam.

There was other content about how Senkumar advised people to call the police if they are blackmailed, but I consider this information rather pointless, since we're not here to give life advice. I'll add the above to the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Nana Film Awards

The Awards section mentions one award named "Nana Film Awards". There is no such award and the source given is a scanned image of the "Best of Malayalam Cinema 2013" selection by the famous Nana film weekly. Instead of categorizing this list in the award section, it can be better included in the Reception / Reviews section. I am not for removing the entire detail as Nana is a source notable enough since it commands a huge readership in Kerala. - 14.139.188.161 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted this edit by greenhorn editor Anjaan333 because the edit summary given was "vandal", though that's not explicitly plain. I think the portions where we attempt to get into how Drishyam created a "family thriller" genre is a bit silly because it tends to unreasonably inflate the importance of the movie (plenty of family thrillers have been created over the decades). However, the blanket removal of probably the only negative review of the movie is glaringly suspicious. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the Theme and Genre sections are aptly sourced. The details are taken from an interview with the director and "Drishyam" being Malayalam cinema's first family thriller is also separately mentioned in the article. I don't think we had similar films in the past, at least not one in the films that I watched. Of course these sections can be rewritten if some user believes it is vague. Anyway it cannoot be completely removed as WP:FILM clearly states that film articles should include those details.Malayala Sahityam (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the claim is aptly sourced. Only one article, that we are aware of, makes any claim of a "family thriller" and that comes from the lips of an interviewer, whose subject, Jeethu, disagrees with. ("I still believe it belongs to the genre 'drama', not a thriller.") That doesn't make it a fact. When the industry and multiple sources support this, then it could be included as presently phrased. Also, it's copied word-for-word from the article, which is problematic as well. As far as both sections being cut if improperly written, I don't see the prohibition for that at WP:FILM (That's a shortcut to the Wikiproject) or at MOS:FILM. And the fact that much of the content is copy/pasted from one source, likely in violation of copyright, makes cutting the sections almost necessary. ("The film, which takes off as a typical family drama" "The audience has a good time enjoying the lighter moments in the family of Georgekutty" "is about how the family, despite the vengeful villainy of a corrupt cop, stands its ground even as the law takes its course.") Surely we do not advocate plagiarism... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

51 crore source?

With regard to today's delightful edit-warring, a couple of questions: 1) Why has nobody started a discussion here? 2) Where is the reference for the 51 crore gross? I don't see it. The infobox reference supports 37 crore, there is a source elsewhere that supports 50 crore. If we're going to fight over the data in this article, (and I hope we do not,) we should update the sources to reflect the facts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This link gives the total theatrical gross of the movie as 51 crore - 37 crore from Kerala theatres alone, 10 crore from Outside Kerala and 4 crore in the international market. This fact is mentioned in the Box office section and the total gross is included in the box office.

I didn't start a discussion here but have used the other editor's talk page instead, regarding the edits in this page. Anyway thanks for starting a discussion here. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so there's been a lot of back-and-forth about this subject. While I get that the movie has very likely grossed more than the 37 crore cited in the source, the source says that 37 crore was made, not that 51 crore was made. If we start tallying the numbers from the various sources, that epitomizes original research. The source above, at sify.com looks really sketchy to me--I'm not sure I'm willing to accept what appears to be a hastily slapped-together blog as a reliable source. So, while I agree that admonishing and (for the time being) blocking Anjaan333 was appropriate considering his failure to discuss his edits, in principle I agree with some of his edits: the 51 crore box office gross needs a reliable source. I believe an existing source in the article that mentions Drishyam is in the "50 crore club" might be usable, assuming that it's not just more fluff content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the sum 50 crore is not obtained from tallying amounts given in various sources. The source from Sify gives the total theatrical gross of the movie as 51 crore - 37 crore from Kerala theatres alone, 10 crore from Outside Kerala and 4 crore in the international market. (Request to read that article fully) And Sify is a reliable source. I will add more sources soon if required. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I yield on Sify as a reliable source. However the number "51" is not explicitly mentioned in the article. They mention 37 in Kerala, and then it gets a little vague after that. I mean, they even use the word "rumoured" to describe the international revenue. Whatevs, if it's the best source we have now, I won't fight it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We clearly have to find some mutually agreeable reasonable sources to use for box office budget and gross. It's somewhat mind boggling that these values (particularly gross) keep getting changed, reverted, changed, reverted. I can understand an argument that the filmmakers would want to inflate their numbers to make the movie more attractive and successful-looking, and that rival filmmakers could have a stake in making the film look bad, but jeez, it's just a film, not a political movement. Is there any box office gross value, and a source, that we can all agree upon? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

When the major nationwide paper Times of India gives up in despair of being able to accurately track Box Office figures we need to be very selective in who we decide to accept as "reliable". Box Office India is one that the community has determined is acceptable, and other major news groups. Other than that, the default should be "not reliable" with a high bar for exceptions WP:REDFLAG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

An interesting article--thanks for that, @TRPoD:. I'd be interested in reading some of the community's input on this discussion if you can point me to any of that. Also, if BOI is the only major reliable source and they've discontinued their box office reports, are there no other sites that can be trusted as a reasonable secondary source? If not, why do we even entertain receipt totals in these articles? In the discussions above on this talk page, Sify was mentioned. Thoughts? I thought the totals were somewhat vague. They cited 37 crore as the "distributor's share", which doesn't sound like a gross total, but I'm ignorant about that stuff. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

Drishyam has grossed more than 60 cr worldwide. The page in Wikipedia has only mentioned 50 crores!! It has almost completed its 150th day in Kerala!! Rexjasonkuwait (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Further, Wikipedia is not a breaking news site. Since there appears to be rampant inflation of box office success in Indian cinema, we need to find reliable sources to support the data. If reliable sources can't be found to support the data, the data will remain the same until a reliable source can be found. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per Cyphoidbomb — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to clear out the request. Thanks Technical 13. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2014

• Drishyam Public Reviews, Ratings & More Filmelon.com. Retrieved on 22 May 2014

Nithinuday (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 edit request

Drishyam has won the Kerala State Film Award for Best Popular Film and the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Malayalam, but it hasnt been mentioned in the 'awards' section. please mention it there also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.16.63 (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

|gross = ₹819 million (US$9.8 million) Josekj06 (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom since that isn't a reliable source. Stickee (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

This movie is inspired from The Devotion of Suspect X (容疑者Xの献身 Yōgisha Ekkusu no Kenshin?) a 2005 novel by Keigo Higashino 103.18.168.87 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015

This movie is inspired from The devotion of suspect X by Keigo Higashino This is mentioned in its Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devotion_of_Suspect_X

Adding an independent source below http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/3-similarities-between-drishyam-and-the-devotion-of-suspect-x/ Quarkud (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 1) You can't use Wikipedia as a source. 2) The Bollywoodlife "reference" is a gossip site that only endeavors to list 3 similarities. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

getting almost 75 crore rupees from all sources of income (http://www.onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/after-drishyam-it-is-premam-which-is-cruising) 178.152.117.132 (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

Please update the box office gross from 66.25 crores to 75 crores in the infobox. See sources - 1 2 106.66.170.233 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Both the sources fail WP:RS. Please cite a reliable box office source such as newspapers or news websites for the proposed change. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Starring parameter

In this edit I removed many of the roles in the |starring= parameter. Originally this content was removed here by IP 117.199.2.32, which I reverted, then had second-thoughts about. Per Tempalte:Infobox film: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release, separated by {{Plain list}}. Do not add non-notable or uncredited actors". The problem we have, is that there is no billing block in most Bollywood theatrical posters. So what then are the criteria for inclusion? People consistently confuse "starring" for "appearing in". A person who appears in a film is not necessarily "starring" in it. A starring role is a special credit given to an actor in a film. Does anyone have access to the film's onscreen credits to determine whether there are unique starring credits? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This film does not have opening or closing credits. We may have to go for third-party sources such as IMDb in this case. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to have your opinion in the discussion here regarding inclusion of release date in infobox . Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. How does the film not have any credits? Also, we would virtually never use IMDb per WP:RS/IMDB and WP:RS. The only exception is when the credits are verified through the Screen Actors' Guild, which would never the be case for non-union Indian films. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Most Malayalam films do not list the full cast of characters. Drishyam also does not include any details of its cast in the opening or closing credits. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

SaraswaT VaruN (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Drishyam Box Office:- Last week in this very column it was predicted that the opening day of Drishyam would be in the range of 8-10 crore. The prediction came true to the T as Friday collections read 8 crore. In fact one adds the Paid Preview collections, the numbers came to 8.5 crore. Of course these were the lowest numbers for Ajay Devgn since (delayed) Tezz as each of his films in the recent past had collected in the double digit range on the opening day with Son of Sardaar being the lowest at 10.5 crore (courtesy, its clash with Jab Tak Hai Jaan). However, 8 crore on Day One wasn’t bad as it set the stage for the word of mouth to set in. This is exactly what happened as the film showed escalation over the weekend. As a result, around 29 crore* came over the weekend, which is decent, if not very good. The film needs to be very stable right through the weekdays as well to net a respectable lifetime total. This means fall on the weekdays needs to be minimal when compared to the opening day. SaraswaT VaruN (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi, it's unclear what your question is, or what your proposal is. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not for general discussion or musing about the film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good article

Malayala Sahityam, Anishviswa, Anoopkn, Josu4u, Sreejithk2000, Abpillai, Libin Scaria, Nijilravipp, Malayalammovie2013, Achayan, Febycv, 991joseph, Vaidyasr: Can we together work towards making this a good article? As far as I know, there is not a single 'good' or 'featured' article for a Malayalam film (save for Swayamvaram) or at least for a contemporary one. Expecting all your help. And please invite anyone and everyone who I couldn't. Thanks! JosephJames ^Talk / _Contribs 12:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Josephjames.me, I'm in. I earlier tried to make Twenty:20_(film) a GA, but had to settle with Class B. Please take leadership on this and assign different areas to improve to different people. We can do it :) --Anoopkn (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Anoopkn, I can't say how happy I am to see your message. I can't really take leadership on this, because I haven't ever made any 'good article' myself. But we can try anyway. Yup, we can do it :) JosephJames ^Talk / _Contribs 14:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, invite to Jibin net and Charles Turing... JosephJames ^Talk / _Contribs 15:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And Tinucherian... JosephJames ^Talk / _Contribs 03:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So happy to know that Drishyam became a good article... Thanks to JO Bieson for nominating it and Jaguar for promoting to GA status. A special thanks to Charles Turing for all his inputs. I wish I could have nominated it, but I am having my exams and couldn't do it. But right now I feel so happy that Malayalam cinema post-2000 has a good article. (Correction: two including Loham. Three in whole including Swayamvaram.) Also thanks to all who worked on this article and everything related to it. Feeling great! JosephJames 10:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sections to be improved

Soundtrack: There are some blunder mistakes in this section. The films music label is Muzik 247 not Mathrubhumi Music. Recorded is not "2013", its the name and place of the studio where the music was recorded. The producer is not Antony Perumbavoor its the music producer (composer). There are two composers Anil Johnson and Vinu Thomas, but only the chronology of Anil is listed but written as the chronology of both of them. An additional chronology should be listed for Vinu. Isn't it be better if an audio cover is added ?. The soundtrack section is too short. The audio cd launch and digital music release informations are missing. The video songs release. Then the reception, music reviews, the basic theme of the music, development, technics used, popularity and charts.

Release: The most important part of a film article as per WP:MOSFILM. This section can be expanded. Is the release section this short for a highest grosser.

Reception: You missed a most important review from this man K. Balachander. There are a lots of sources available on the internet. You can also include an "Audience response" sub section if needed (considering the film's popularity).

Production: This section is short and should be elaborated, assuming there will be more information available on the internet when considering the popularity and accolade given to the film.

--49.15.199.111 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Article move

The user Josephjames.me has moved the article from Drishyam to Drishyam (2013 film). It's unnecessary as the name is unique and other films with the name are it's remake. The title Drishyam helps to recognize the film as the original from its remakes. For the naming convention of the films which had remaked with same name, see the example of Miracle on 34th Street in the section Between films of the same name in WP:NCF. The move he had done is only applicable to different films with same names (not remake) or a disambiguation name which can also refer to name of a person, book, place etc. So I am moving it to the original title Drishyam. --Charles Turing (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Charles Turing: Okay... Thanks! JosephJames 15:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drishyam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

As requested... JAGUAR  22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "the son of the Inspector-general of police (IG)" - '(IG)' isn't used again in the article's body, so I would recommend getting rid of it here. I don't think 'Inspector' needs to be capitalised here

 Done

• "with critics praising the screenplay, the performances and the direction" - would sound better if you lost the two "the's"

 Done

• "It ran for more than 150 days in theaters" - theatres (Indian English)

 Done

• "is the son of police inspector general" - 'inspector-general' had a hyphen in the lead, should one be here too?

 Done

• "In July 2013, it was reported that Jeethu Joseph will be directing a film titled My Family" - would be is past tense, so it should be used here

 Done

• "A thread similar to that of Drishyam has been with the director since the early nineties" - 1990s

 Done

• "Drishyam is completely different from the director's previous films" - a tad informal. How about Drishyam contrasts from the director's previous films.

 Done

• "The film was criticized for the use of some" - criticised

 Done

• "Sowmya Rajendran of Sify, criticized the same" - no need for the comma here, and should be criticised once again

 Done

• "It had its global television premiere on 7 September 2014 at 6 p.m." - no need for initials here

 Done

• No dead links

I'll leave this on hold until all of the above are clarified. Overall, it's a solid article JAGUAR  17:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them so quickly. I've looked over the article again and am confident that this now complies per the GA criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  17:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much JAGUAR, This is the first malayalam film after 2000s to become a GA. JØ +TALK 17:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Drishyam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bangaloremirror.com/entertainment/south-masala/Mohanlals-Xmas-release-has-Kerala-hooked/articleshow/27862036.cms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/inside.asp?xfile=%2Fdata%2Fcitytimes%2F2013%2FSeptember%2Fcitytimes_September233.xml&section=citytimes
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mathrubhumi.com/movies/malayalam/423355/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160321013952/http://www.amritatv.com/afa2014/awardcatogories.html to http://www.amritatv.com/afa2014/awardcatogories.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074456/http://www.asiavisionawards.com/portfolio-winners/ to http://www.asiavisionawards.com/portfolio-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Drishyam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508061044/http://www.metromatinee.com/news-articles/best-actor-jayaram-vayalar-film-awards-announced-full-list-of-awards-8378 to http://www.metromatinee.com/news-articles/best-actor-jayaram-vayalar-film-awards-announced-full-list-of-awards-8378

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)