Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mullum Malarum/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Mullum Malarum

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. After months, there is no one suggesting it should be delisted (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article failed it's fourth and most recent FAC, because of one detractor (Fowler&fowler). While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

edit
  • I will do a thorough read-through of this article later in the week. I did a brief scan through the article, and I did not find anything that would take away its GA status. I would remove the "Accolades" section and incorporate that information in the "Reception" section as I would avoid having a one-paragraph section. I would also rephrase this note, " In the end Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.", to simply, "Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.". I found the "In the end" part to be confusing as when I first read it, I thought you meant at the end of the film. Those are my only notes for now. I hope you are doing well and having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not really see any other issues that would prevent this article from keeping its GA status. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you done with the thorough read-through? Did you read any of Fowler's comments from the FAC and see if they must be addressed, or if he was just being overdemanding? I'll share with you pages of the book Pride of Tamil cinema, you please read them and tell me if I missed anything. The link is available only for 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in my response. I will leave this for another editor. I am currently in the middle of a few other reviews and I plan on taking a break from Wikipedia once my current FAC is completed, and to be completely frank, I do not really want to read through Fowler's comments from the last FAC. Again, I will leave this for another editor. Apologies for that and best of luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DaxServer

edit

Comments from Nicholas Michael Halim

edit
  • Merge the "Accolades" section with the "Release" section since it is really short or make it a table.
Done. It certainly won't look good in Reception will it though? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just realised it will be better to move it to the "Reception" section. Make the "Release" section only a paragraph, and move the "Awards" section to the second paragraph of the "Reception" section after Balachander's letter. Also, change "the film's commercial performance" to "its commercial performance" and "positive magazine reviews and favourable word of mouth spread" to "positive reviews and word of mouth spread". —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred to Release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)--Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film's remakes can be moved to the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section.
Done. Is it good now? Or does it need rephrasing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the title translations not capitalised?
Such as? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I meant "italicised" —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Beside that, the article is absolutely fine. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just saw that refs 36 and 45 are books. Move both to the "Bibliography" section and use {{Sfn||p=}} to cite them. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • "at people who" --> "whom"
  • Remove the comma in "First serialised in the Tamil magazine,"
  • "It was only after producer Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films", remove "producer"
  • "Ramasamy was signed as art director,[15] and D. Vasu as editor", add "the" before the "art director" and the "editor"
  • Do you find better sources for the film's Telugu-dubbed version's 1979 release? I don't think the iTunes is reliable enough for this.
  • "Mullum Malarum was well received at the time of its initial release"", remove "at the time of its initial release"
  • They? Changed it to "The reviewer also praised the performances of Shoba and Jayalaxmi, called Balu Mahendra's camera work a "feast for the eyes", and Ilaiyaraaja's melodies "delicious". The critic was disappointed of the film's first half for moving at a "leisurely pace", but said the second half was "eventful"."

—Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes to them, except the 1979 release source and removing the "at the time of its initial release". I'll leave it to Kailash. — DaxServer (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Michael Halim, sorry for the long break. I've made changes, would you like to have a look? If you are okay, I'll arrange for the GAR to be closed with the consensus to keep. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a perfect shape, still deserving its GA status! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Mullum_Malarum/1&oldid=1054762242"