Talk:Gunday

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGunday has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 1, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gunday (2014) became one of the lowest-rated films on IMDb following a vote brigading social-media campaign by Bangladeshis?

Controversy[edit]

The film deals with the historical events and information regarding independence of Bangladesh. In the beginning of the movie, there is a title encrypted that, "At 16th December 1971, West Pakistan army surrendered under East Pakistan freedom fighter and it was one of the biggest surrender after Second World War. This creates a new nation named Bangladesh."

This line has some inappropriate information. At 16th December 1971, Pakistan army surrendered under Bangladesh & India coalition forces. Pakistan surrendered for Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 at same time. The war pitted Bangladeshi freedom fighters against West Pakistan, and lasted over a duration of nine months. India entered the war on 3 December 1971, when victory was almost assured(16th December 1971 Bangladesh got independence).

The mass of Bangladesh condemned this inappropriate history based movie.

Related News[edit]

[removed copyvio from [1] —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. this article is about the movie. Please provide sources for any content you wish to include in the article. Personal rants are subject to immediate removal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rating on imdb[edit]

The movie currently is the one with the lowest rating on imdb: [2] Is this worth mentioning in the article? 91.50.85.24 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather clearly mentions their IMDb rating. So it's not a bad idea to include imdb rating. Rosswante (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosswante: Well I tried to add it a couple of days ago. But it was taken down with some rather unsanitary comments. @Prashant!: I do believe it is important to note this fact on this encyclopedia article, espcially when it is a comment about the movie's reception. I understand there is cultural and historical conflict over this film; but it is important to note. Hori.horizontal (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb in itself is not a reliable source. We don't bother adding any info that is sourced from IMDb. Likewise we shouldn't even bother writing the ratings the film receives over there. The Shawshank Redemption's top rating on IMDb is mentioned in our article as its talked about in a secondary source. If such source is present in this case then add it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gunday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gunday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC) ·[reply]


Initial Comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the infobox, replace the 'screenplay' template with the 'writer' one.
 Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not mention Chopra's name before Singh and Kapoor's in the lead? Since she is their senior.
 Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "the most powerful outlaws of their time" bit from the synopsis, looks puffer-ish.
 Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the effects of war-caused immigration". Link 'war', since its unclear which war the film is talking about.
I'll leave this to Krish.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wrote the film as a tale of the consequences of the struggle of two outlaws against the system". This looks awkwardly written.
I'll leave this to Krish.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The soundtrack was produced by Sohail Sen and Irshad Kamil, the latter writing the lyrics." This can be re-written as The soundtrack was produced by Sohail Sen and the lyrics were penned by Irshad Kamil.
 Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of writting "..the highest-grossing February Bollywood release of all time." mention its position on the higest grossing films of that year.
I'll leave this to Krish.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film received two nominations at the 60th Filmfare Awards: Best Choreography for the song "Tune Maari Entriyaan", and Best Action (winning the latter). Rewrite this sentence as The film won the Best Action Award at the 60th Filmfare Awards and was nominated for Best Choreography for the song "Tune Maari Entriyaan".
 Done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:FILMPLOT, trim the plot section and bring it down between 400 and 700 words.
@Yashthepunisher: Trimmed it further. Do check it again.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs some trimming. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 doesn't confirm the "who became well-known criminals" bit.
  • Alt texts need fullstop.
  • "Gunday was the last film narrated by Yash Chopra" --> narrated to Yash Chopra.
  • Remove the quote following this sentence. It doesn't add much to the articles info.
  • "who both had made their film debut with the same production house". Remove this bit, seems redundant and trivial.
  • "..Kapoor would play Bikram and Bala would play Singh". Who will play who?
  • Authors name is missing from ref 9.
  • "Masala!" fails WP:RS.
  • "Singh injured himself after falling from a height" --> Singh was injured after falling from a height.
  • At ref 20, The Times Of India --> The Times of India. Also, the authors name is missing here.
  • The first two sentences of the second para in the filming section should be merged.
  • "While filming, a huge crowd gathered to watched the stars and the shoot." How is this encyclopedic?
  • "The filming was done over a period of over 110 days and was completed on 25 September 2013." The word 'over' is used twice here.

Soundtrack

  • Fix redirect of KK.
  • Remove 'also' from the last sentence of first para.
  • 'Planet Bollywood' fails WP:RS.

Release

  • Ref 48 doesn't support the "receiving a positive reception" claim.
  • "The film was promoted by its stars in major cities across India." Its a very mundane fact.
  • In the second para, several sentences begin with 'The film'. Please rephrase.
  • Delink India, per WP:OLINK.
  • "People from Bangladesh asked the production house to apologize.." Apology is demanded, I think.
  • Remove YRF's apology statement. Articles should be as concise as possible.
  • Ref 58 doesn't support the prose claim.

Box office

  • The use of INRConvert should be consistent.

Accolades

  • The publisher of ref 84 is Big fm.

That's it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Except for the references 9, 48, 58 and 84, as well as the INRConvert bit, the rest have been resolved hopefully. Krish, all my edits were done in good faith and you can feel free to modify/revert them if need be. Thank you. :-)  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:
  • I have performed a couple of edits. The article looks in a good shape now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gunday&oldid=1206545302"