Talk:Don (2006 Hindi film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pavanjandhyala (talk · contribs) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it is important to mention the cinematographer and editor here.
No mention of the film's budget here. Asking this because the BO gross is mentioned.
"It won Best Asian Film at the Neuchâtel International Fantastic Film Festival." -- Something is missing. Was it awarded or adjudged? Please mention it.
"The film was also nominated for nine awards at the 52nd Filmfare Awards, including nominations for Best Film and Best Actor for Khan." -- It is better to use "including the ones for..." to avoid repetition of 'nominate'.
Done but I think mentioning the editor and cinematographer would be too much.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh's murder is an important aspect of the film. It would be better to explain why Ramesh wanted to leave Don's gang.
"De Silva finds a look-alike named Vijay (Shah Rukh Khan) and asks him so the police can get close to Singhania." -- What was he asking him? Please mention it.
"Meanwhile, Jasjit (Arjun Rampal), Deepu's father, just released from prison, plans to kill De Silva." -- It is important to mention why he wanted to kill him.
"Having discovered his true identity, Don's associates turn against Vijay, but he escapes and, to prove his innocence, tries to recover the disc." -- It is better to break this line into two for a smooth flow.
"He receives a phone call saying that if he wants to see his son again, he will have to bring the disc to the men who are holding his son Deepu hostage." -- Two things.

Deepu is already established earlier as Jasjit's son. So, it is not important to say "his son Deepu hostage"
The word 'son' repeats twice in the line. Replace those two instances with suitable words.

"After Jasjit escapes with his son, he meets with Vijay and Roma and shares this information." -- meets Vijay should be fine. Meeting with usually happens with accidents.
"In a final twist, it is revealed that the real Don was alive all this time, and was pretending to be Vijay the whole time." -- 'all this time' and 'whole time' are phrases which aren't used in the same line usually.
In the lead, Isha Koppikar was listed as one of the key supporting actors. Her character finds no mention in the summary though. Same with Om Puri.
Done.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development

"In early 2005 media reported that Akhtar was planning the remake, but rather than confirming the news, he revealed that he was writing the screenplay based on the film but would make the decision whether to proceed only after completing the script." -- This line can be condensed like something on the lines of this: "In early 2005, Akhtar announced that he was writing the screenplay based on the film and would take the final decision after completing the script."
The quote of Akhtar in the second paragraph has two new things to say apart from what the first line did. They are: He found the film little ahead of its time. And, he thought so because of the narration, dialogue and the writing style. I feel that instead of using a long quote, it is advisable to use a sentence that accommodates those two new things.
"In order to suit the modern sensibility, several changes were introduced." This is the first sentence. In the next line, we have this "...the director said it was important to adapt the film in a way would suit the sensibilities of the modern viewer." Why twice explain the same thing? Any particular reason?
Done.Krish | Talk 19:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

"The director said that Roshan's innocence was not right for the role, and instead he cast Shah Rukh Khan" -- "instead cast" alone should be fine without that 'he'.
"Khan, Chopra, and Rampal underwent extensive martial arts training from an expert from Shaolin Temple." -- the Shaolin Temple.

Filming

No issues with the soundtrack section. Proceeding further...

Any specific reason for not maintaining a separate section for the box office figures? In practice, box office and critical reception are shown as the subsections of the reception section.

Box office information is very less and so is the release and marketing information. So I thought it would be better to have one big section rather than two very small sections.Krish | Talk 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]