Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lagaan/1

Lagaan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review on talk page

Result: No action. Improvements appear to have addressed most concerns, but have stalled, as has this reassessment. I don't see a clear case to delist, nor a strong endorsement of the article. If further concerns are raised a new reassessment can be opened. Geometry guy 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While the article contains many important elements of a GA, there are a few problems with its current state. I've completed a minor clean up but I feel it needs more work in order to maintain its GA status. The plot is exceptionally long and the overall prose of the article needs to be sharpened. Some of the organization and structure of individual sections feel in need of rewrites and revision. Since Lagaan is an important film, I think that its position as a GA article is worth review.-Classicfilms (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• First thing I noticed: the plot is about 8 zillion words long. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned most of it. Hometech (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:Great job Hometech! This is a vast improvement. However, the prose and mechanics of the article still needs an overhaul. The awards section is a step in the right direction as well but it still contains too many small paragraphs composed of one or two sentences- I think it needs to be further compressed. We still need to attend to these areas. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever created a subarticle for the plot, becuase I wrote it and it's been sawn off :( YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There shouldnt be any such subarticle per WP:PLOT. Any way it contained details of no use to an encyclo reader. Hometech (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the rewrite made the prose worse, eg "He invites an untouchable Kachra who can bowl a leg spin. However, the villager refusing to play with an untouchable" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We need to follow the guidelines for MOS:FILM in order to maintain the GA status for this article. The guidelines for writing plot summaries are here: WP:FILMPLOT. In terms of plot length there is a limit:

"Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot."

Before the long edit to the plot summary the word count was 1941 which is over the limit. The current count is 678 which is within the limit. Since we can technically go up to 900 words, you can restore some of the previous summary as long as it doesn't go over the limit. However, better articles try and maintain a 700 word limit (MS Word has a word count option in its "TOOLS" menu) . I do agree with the point, however, that in order to maintain GA status, the overall prose and mechanics of the article must be attended to. WP:MOS offers useful tips for this area. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another useful set of writing guidelines: Wikipedia:Writing better articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the plot a bit though it could still use some more fine tuning. Other sections in the article need attention and clean up as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"We need to follow the guidelines for MOS:FILM in order to maintain the GA status for this article." Actually, no you don't. The only criteria for good articles are the Good article criteria. You are welcome to use WikiProject guidelines to help you meet them, but they are not themselves part of the good article criteria. Anyway, it is always good to see article improvement taking place. Geometry guy 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The two usually go hand in hand for GA and FA articles. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, GA criteria specifies that a good article is "well-written" and that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" which is the primary issue I have with the article. It also states that it must comply with style guides: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIAGA

-Classicfilms (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the MoS and PLOT guidelines intersect with both the criterion 1 (well-written and follows MoS, eg "length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections") and criterion 3b (stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). A plot for a single film being longer than 900 words almost certainly is either badly written or is in too much detail, imo. The newly-trimmed plot section seems not unduly long.YobMod 08:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd say actually at this point in time, the article is not that bad at all. I would suggest moving Awards before the reviews in the Reception subsection, and making it a general Reception subsection, with two sub-subsections: Awards, then Reviews. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. The article has improved since I first asked for the reassessment. However, I do feel that the writing could be improved throughout the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Does any editor wish to press a case for delisting this article, or can it be kept? Geometry guy 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I asked for the reassessment, I should respond here. I'd like to see Lagaan remain a GA and the article has improved since I posted my request. Some of the writing needs to be cleaned up, however. For example, this passage:

"After pre-planning for a year, including ten months for production issues and two months for his character, Aamir was tired. A first-time producer, he managed a crew of about 300 people for six months. With a good hotel lacking in Bhuj, they hired a newly constructed apartment and furnished it completely for the crew."

needs to be polished a bit for grammar and style. There are other sections as well that would benefit from a clean up. There is also the matter of the two tags at the beginning, one referring to general clean up, one referring to a merge. I think they both need to be resolved as well. If these issues are taken care of, I would vote to keep it as GA. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)