Wikipedia

Talk:Kuselan

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineeKuselan was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Separate Article for Telugu Version

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wouldn't it be better if there was a separate article for the Telugu version of Kuselan titled "Kathanayakudu"? --இளைய நாயகன் Eelam Stylez (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

i agree, but i don't know much about the telugu version Ckwerty (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rajini's apology to kannadigas no excuse for vandalism

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please do not vandalize this article.--Gthorvey (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Flop show

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I never understood why Rajini bothered to remake Katha Parayumbol, which itself was a flop. Now, Kuselan too has collapsed. Anwar (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Katha parayumbol was not a flop, it was one of the biggest hits of 2007 Malayalam movies. --Syam Kumar (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Box Office

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I read from behindwoods.com that in chennai alone it has made 2.19 crores by the second week thats about 21 million rupees/£273,750/$547,500 and the film was made for 600 million rupees/£7,500,000/$15,000,000. Its not doing bad.Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found out that kuselan has already made 200,000,000 million rupees Xxxsacheinxxx (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

unsourced statements

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed several unsourced statements that fail to meet the neutral point of view and Verifiability policies.--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your efforts. I've let the IP know of the same. Mspraveen (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kuselan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. I've only scanned it so far, so here are some initial changes to be made before I delve more deeply into the text:

  • Rajinikanth is linked several times in the Plot section...only link the first mention. Actually, overlinking is an issue in several sections.
  • There is a lot of tense changing going on, especially in the development section. Plot information should be in present, but everything else should be in past tense.
  • Song titles should be in quotes (not italics). Albums names should be in italics.
  • Crore is linked twice in the reception, but no definition is given. A brief definition in the text is needed for those not familiar with the term. See WP:JARGON.
  • Avoid peacock terms such as "super hit"

That's it for now. The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for these initial changes. When most of them are complete, I'll add some to the list. Nikki♥311 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The seven days are up and nothing seems to have been addressed, so I am failing the article. Please consider incorporating my suggestions, as well as getting a good general copyeditor to look over the article, before renomination. Nikki♥311 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kuselan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit

This article is in very poor shape. The grammar is extremely poor, it needs a thorough copy-edit. It appears to be a poor translation into English.


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Very badly written, see above.
    The Lead does not fully summarise the article, please read WP:LEAD
    Contradiction: The lead states that Rajinikanth siad he was making a guest appearance, but the Development section says he was cast in a lead role.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  Two dead links were tagged using WP:CHECKLINKS, another was fixed from an archive source.
    What makes ref #7 [1] a reliable source? The reference is badly formatted as well
    What makes ref #14 [2] a reliable source - it claims to be a "social netwroking utility"
    What makes ref #16 [3] a reliable source?
    What makes ref #21 [4] a reliable source?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    The image in the infobox box needs a caption. I query why an album cover is being used in the infobox to illustrate a film?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    The prose is extremely poor as mentioned above. See if you can get someone else tp copy edit. The WP:Guild of Copyeditors may be able to help. There are also referencing issues. I shall place this on hold for seven days, if you cannot fix it in that time the article will not be listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    As the nominator has removed the article from the list at WP:GAN, I shall close this review as not listed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kuselan. 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:

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) 16:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kuselan&oldid=1208061600"