Talk:Puthiya Paravai/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave some initial comments within 24 hours. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

Some parts of the lead could be better reworded, for example "The plot is about Gopal, a businessman" could read better as The plot revolves around Gopal, a businessman
"on a cruise ship sailing between Singapore and India" - I'd link Singapore for reference
The plot paragraph in the lead could be expanded (taking out some of the content from the actual plot section and moving it in the lead) in order to summarise the article better. "The rest of the plot deals with Gopal's method of overcoming the incident" - this needs to be expanded up to this point! What does the rest of the plot do?
"The final cut of the film was 4,473 metres (14,675 ft)" - I don't understand this part?
"Puthiya Paravai was released on 12 September 1964 to positive critical reception" - could read better as Puthiya Paravai was released on 12 September 1964 to positive critical reception from critics;
"the music and the performances of the lead actors" - from the lead actors
"and was slated to be released in theatre Shanthi, which was Sivaji Ganesan's family-held theatre" - the lead states that Shanthi is still Ganesan's own theatre (as of 2010), but this is in past tense?
"It was widely believed that Puthiya Paravai did not do well during its first theatrical run" - by whom?

Done as asked. —Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

References are in very good condition - not a broken link in sight. Also the citations are in the correct places, so this meets the GA criteria

On hold[edit]

Well done on all the work, this is generally a well written and definitely a well referenced article. I can imagine this becoming a GA however the only things that are standing in the way of that are the notable prose issues (which I have listed above) and some claims that need to be clarified. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have been addressed it should be closer to passing the GAN. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) While I agree with most of the reviewer's comments, I cannot accept any major spoilers in the lead; it is a thriller film full of suspense, and I myself was taken back by many of the twists when I saw the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thanks for sorting that out. It's up to you if you want to change the plot summary in the lead, typically film articles are meant to describe the whole plot in the lead but it's your choice if you don't want to give any details away (despite all of it being explained in the plot section)! Anyway this article now meets the GA criteria, well done. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]