Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waiting (2015 film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 [1].

Waiting (2015 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 release starring Kalki Koechlin and Naseeruddin Shah. The article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and a Peer Review and has been stable since. Looking forward to the comments. NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks a lot! All your edits are always appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for being the wonderful person that you are. XD NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the compliment :) Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

I like the article. Short but sweet. I have a few comments:

  • Kiwi singer-songwriter -> Seems a bit odd to use the nickname; I'd prefer New Zealander
  • and she shares her disappointment with her friends and followers on social media for having abandoned her. -> not clear to me what abandoned refers to
its not the easiest thing to put in words, but in the scene she feels let down by the fact that despite of having such a huge of no "friends" on social media she is at a lonely stage.
  • not sure if email is the preferred spelling of e-mail, but you should probably choose one
  • In an interview with The Hindu, Koechlin revealed that before the actual shoot began -> would this sentence not fit better in the previous section?
  • last paragraph of Filming and post-production is largely quotes. I don't think they all have to be quotes, could be rewritten
  • This sentiment was echoed by a reviewer for Koimoi -> this makes it sound as if it's just a user review, not written by a staff member
  • The Marketing and release section also relies too heavily on quotes methinks
  • praised the cinematography -> that's 3 times praised in short succession, maybe rephrase?
  • the script was "dignified [and] without any false notes", and the film "manages -> that's past tense and present tense in one

Spot check references

  • ref #2 links to another page with no reference to Waiting
  • ref # 6 does refer to James being an anesthesiologist, but doesn't confirm "fellow London Film School alumnus"

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Tweaked the prose, and hopefully fixed everything. Looking at the refs now.. NumerounovedantTalk 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Done. NumerounovedantTalk 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Gets my Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the PR. Looks worthy enough. But, i feel that the poster can have a source other than IMDB. Good luck! ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pavan, I'll see what I can do about the poster. NumerounovedantTalk 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • The phrase "got under way" in the lead sounds somewhat informal to me, and I believe that a stronger word choice would improve this.
  • Replaced with "started" (although not sure if that's the best word either.)
  • I think it is a better word choice for now; you can always come back to this in the future if you think of something better as I do not believe it is anything hindering this from being promoted to FA if this is successful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, would it be helpful to include a brief part about what specific aspects of the film received praise from critics?
  • Expanded.
  • In the lead, you mention that the film received positive reviews upon its release in India. Do you think you should include information on its reception overseas, since you have a separate section for it in the body of the article?
  • The article mentions the response from Dubai, which was the film's world premiere.
  • Makes sense to me; I must have overlooked this by accident so thank you for clarifying this to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "average grosser" sounds somewhat odd to me; I have never encountered it before, and I think a stronger word choice would benefit the article.
  • Tweaked.
  • Do you have any information regarding the film's budget? You say "a modest budget", but do you have anything more specific?
  • No, unfortunately independent films do not attract any sort of media coverage here in India, and it's almost impossible to get the production details.
  • That is what I thought from reading the article, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you for clarifying this. It is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may sound childish, but the phrase "probed Menon" just sounds extremely dirty to me, and I would recommend a different phrasing for that part.
  • Had a good 15-minute laugh right about here. Fixed.
  • I had a laugh at that too lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could move the image from the "Marketing and release" subsection down into the "India" subsection to replace the current image there. The caption for the image in the "India" subsection references both actors so having an image of both actors there would be useful, and I am not certain about the value of having two images of Kalki Koechlin in the article.
  • Should you link The Huffington Post India to the general Huffington Post page? (I am referencing the resources/sourcing)
  • Removed.
  • The word "Watch" should not be in caps in the reference titles.
  • Fixed
Great job with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Fixed everything (hopefully). Thanks for taking out time for the review. NumerounovedantTalk 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks great; I can definitely support this. Good luck with getting this promoted, and I look forward to working with you more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The feeling's mutual. Cheers. NumerounovedantTalk 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Development began in June 2014, --> The development of the film began in June 2014.
  • Done
  • Newspapers like TOI, The Hindu should be in italics and use 'work' or 'publisher' parameters instead of 'website', as its widely used.
  • Done
  • How 'Ishka films' a RS?
  • It's the official page of the production house, should it qualify as a RS?
  • Then I guess it does.
  • I see reviews of prominent critics like Anupama Chopra and Rajeev Masand are not mentioned. Also, you should add 1-2 negative or mixed reviews for the sake of neutrality.
  • Added Masand's mixed review, and expanded on Gupta's mixed review as well.
  • Mention the writers name in the lead.
  • It's already there.
  • "In her review for Firstpost Anna Vetticad said that.." A comma is missing somewhere. Also, it should be 'wrote that' unless its a video review.
  • Added
  • I'm not sure a site like Koimoi can be used in a featured level article since many of its stuffs are WP:MIRROR.
  • Removed the review from reception section, I don't think that the one line in the music section should cause any issues, but if you're still uncomfortable with the use of the site, I can remove the too.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking out time to review this, I greatly appreciate all your help Yash, you're a wonderful person. NumerounovedantTalk 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yashthepunisher: Fixed everything. NumerounovedantTalk 19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see any issue now. Great work on the article bro and thanks for your kind words for me. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
  • "The next day she is angered on reading an intimate message on Rajat's phone from a colleague Sheetal, who is later revealed to be a man." — Isn't Sheetal a woman's name? Don't quite get this part.
It is, traditionally. I'll try to help you make sense out of this. In the particular scene Tara suspects that her husband was cheating on because of messages from a person named Sheetal. She confronts Rajat's junior, and he reveals that Sheetal is actually a guy, Rajat's boss and the messages were regarding a private work meeting which Tara had misinterpreted. It's just used to some humour to the film, and aksi helps brings out the Tara's paranoia in the situation.
  • Are Bollywood Life and RadioMusic.com reliable sources? There's also a music review from Scroll.in here if you like to use it.
I agree that they might not be best sources. I'll look into them and try and find more reputed reviews
@Numerounovedant: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking out time for this. I'll get back to you as soon as the second comment is addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: I have essentially re-organised the whole section, and have removed the objectionable source material. Hope it looks better now. NumerounovedantTalk 18:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: You have my support. Good luck with your FAC.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I previously missed out on adding the link to the recent PR. Also, I believe that the article has received substantial amount of commentss. Sorry for the trouble, but can i get a status report on the nomination. Thanks a lot. NumerounovedantTalk 20:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't scanned the article myself as yet but it looks like we have a healthy level of commentary and support for promotion; as to remaining checks, I can see Ssven has looked at source reliability but we should have someone check reference formatting as the other half of a standard source review (unless I missed that above). Cheers, 07:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)~[reply]
@Ian Rose: Yash did go through the format and offered comments, and they have been addressed. Thanks for taking a look. NumerounovedantTalk 07:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Waiting_(2015_film)/archive1&oldid=1136094774"