Talk:Teri Meri Kahaani (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pavanjandhyala (talk · contribs) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• The premise would be a "love story with the same two actors in three different time periods" that did not involve reincarnation. -- The words within the quote would make no difference if the quotation marks are removed. I suggest you to remove those marks.
• For instance, he chose to display a different side to the Indian independence movement of the 1910s as opposed to the "unromantic and non-colourful" depiction, as Kohli said, because "everyone takes a very serious approach to that part of the history," so he instead used it to frame a love story between a Punjabi belle and a Casanova. -- This is long and needs to be broken into simpler sentences.
• Why the director wanted to remake the whole era? It is said here that it is a challenging task. But there is nothing mentioned why is it difficult, what made him chose to remake an era etc. Any reason?

• Not much information is available. He doesn't say much about it.Krish | Talk 14:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Kohli described it by saying, "Today people flirt, communicate and connect through smses and you get that feeling of being with somebody even when you are not with that person because that person is telling you everything that is happening in their life. You are constantly updating the other person with your thoughts and that is what keeps you connected to that person." -- Capitalise SMS in the quote. And, if possible, try paraphrasing it to an extent.
• "Media started speculating about the actress, with Priyanka Chopra's name mentioned. In January 2011, Kohli confirmed Chopra's casting on Twitter." -- Please don't mention speculations here. It is enough to say that Kohli confirmed Chopra's casting on Twitter in January 2011.
• In February 2011, it was reported that Kohli would be producing the film with Eros International, revealing the plot to be "a passionate love story spanning over 100 years" -- I have three issues here.

• Avoid using "was reported" kind of words which suggest speculations and rumours.
• Kohli producing the film with Eros should be a part of the Development section to be frank.
• Already in the Development section, it is mentioned that these love stories span for 100 years. Why again?

• Several stills from the films were released to the media before the trailer, which was posted online on 5 April 2012. -- Sounds like a case of WP:FILMMARKETING. Think once.

• It is mentioned in the release section. Because I can't have a sub-section featuring one sentence. Plus it is part of the release.Krish | Talk 14:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Critics praised the performances by the lead pair..." -- of the lead pair..?
• Yahoo! review is from the site's blog. I don't think it can be termed reliable exactly.
• Following need to be linked in the refs. if they exist -- News18 in ref no. 2, Bollywood Hungama in no. 4, India Today in no. 5, Hindustan Times in no. 9, Indian Express in no. 15, Mid Day in no. 16, Asian Age in no. 19, Deccan Herald in no. 22, Rediff in no. 26, Mumbai Mirror in no. 34, TOI in no. 42, Koimoi in no. 43, YT in no. 59, Sify in no. 61, DNA India in no. 66. Phew!
• It is Business of Cinema, not Cinmea in ref no. 63.
• Masand needs an authorlink in ref no. 68.

• Done.Krish | Talk 14:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me know once these are addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A small comment as the editor who copyedited this article: the things that are in quotation marks are in quotation marks because they are direct quotes. I'm not saying paraphrasing isn't an acceptable alternative, especially for some of the longer quotes, but removing quotation marks and leaving the exact verbiage that was quoted sounds like a problem to me. —2macia22 (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that those lines which were in quotation marks would sound like paraphrased ones if the marks are removed. Feel free to undo those edits of mine, though. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Pavanjandhyala: Done.Krish | Talk 14:45, 29 May 2017 (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: Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)