Talk:Santosh Subramaniam/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

• Doesn't really need sourcing aside from "unreleased".

The second source does not mention that It's My Life is a remake, contrary to the first.

• Bommarillu -year in brackets?

 Done

• At the end of the film, the father repents his foolishness and the happy marriage of the protagonists. Santosh Subramaniam was released = - Paragraph break needed

 Done

• "dotes on his son, who resents his father's dotage." -repetition

 Done I have written it differently.

• No mention of production and the shooting in New Zealand and of the award nominations?

 Done

Plot

• "even after he is 24 years old. The son, Santosh (Jayam Ravi)—who is now 24 years old" -repetition of 24 years old, not needed in second instance.

 Done written "grown up".

• "begins verbally abusing all the fathers in the world" - eh?

What do I write, when that is just what the hero does?

I don't understand what you mean? How can he verbally abuse all of the fathers in the world?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As I recollect watching the film, he was ranting away while drunk. Guess I'll just write that.

• "When inquired about his disgust" -awkward wording

How about "asked/questioned"?

"When questioned about his strong reaction"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Seeing her chirpy nature" -doesn't fit, reword.

How about "jovial"?

Perhaps "Noting her jovial, vibrant personality"

 Done. Written as "Seeing her jovial and vibrant personality" because "noting" is a word to watch.

Nothing wrong with it in that context!! I've used the word in FAs. Maybe if you're referring to somebody as being a "notable" person. Its use as an adverb to describe people is frowned upon on here, not when writing about somebody surveying something. I really don't know why some editors here swear by the guidelines as if God himself ordered them anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• "He tell her that he is " -informs?

 Done Ok, informs written.

Cast

Remove full stops.

 Done

Production

• "300 talking invitations" -oral invitations?

I don't know, the source reads "talking invitations".

That doesn't make it superior to oral invitations or 300 invitations by word of mouth in good English! The invitations don't actually talk! Shoddy journalism, he'll soon be hired by the Daily Mail LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have now written it as just "invitations".

• Why is mention of the launch before casting?

 Done casting now comes before the launch.

Soundtrack

• "'santhosham'(happiness)" -gap needed
• Shouldn't track listing be sourced too?

Comments: I am maintaining SIC, and the tracklist does have a source.

santhosham vs santhosam in second instance. Which is more widely used? Also you can remove happiness in brackets in the second instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Santhosham" (also called Santhosam) is a Tamil term meaning happiness. Because non-Tamil speakers won't know that, the translation is necessary, also because it appears in a quote. WP:SIC states that "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced" which I do not wish to violate. However, I will remove "Santhosham" in the soundtrack section in order to cut short the quote.

The spelling should be consistent, and if you explain what a term means once you don't need to twice really, although if it is quoted I suppose it's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Release

• Why are "[w]ell and [o]verall bizarrely worded like that? Surely the review didn't call it "ell" and "verall". If it was a typo then you don't need to do that.

 Done don't know why Baffle Gab put the brackets anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 4 -publisher?

 Done The site is baradwajrangan.wordpress.com

• Put film years in brackets in footnotes

 Done

Not great to be honest. But I think we can get it through with a bit of effort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, these comments have been resolved. Anymore? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This one is a weak pass I think. The quality of prose and the sources aren't exactly great, but I think it's just about passable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)