Jump to content

Talk:Gentleman (2016 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gentleman (2016 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this within a couple of days! JAGUAR  17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Reviewing now... JAGUAR  11:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • "directed by Mohan Krishna Indraganti, who co-wrote the film with R. David Nathan" - might sound better if it was compacted: directed by Mohan Krishna Indraganti and co-written by R. David Nathan.
  • Done
  • "The story, written by Nathan" - no need, as Nathan is already mentioned in the lead's first sentence
  • Done
  • Three paragraphs in the Plot section begin with "Catherine". If you think it's best, I would at least recommend merging the third and fourth paragraphs together so that it improves the flow
  • Done As for Catherine's repetition, well, queens makes more noise compared to rooks.
  • "David stabs Jai fatally at a warehouse" - David fatally stabs Jai in a warehouse
  • Done
  • "According to Indraganti, the costumes, production design, and cinematography co-ordinated well" - try According to Indraganti, the costumes, production design, and cinematography were well-coordinated, resulting in the film being produced with an "interesting palette"
  • Done
  • "claiming it the biggest release for a Nani film up to that date." - it sounds like Nani directed the film or produced it. Try biggest release for a film starring Nani
  • Done
  • "Besides the United States, Gentleman was released in other overseas markets such as Africa, Germany, and Mauritius" - this could do with rephrasing as Mauritius is part of Africa technically
  • Done Removed Mauritius
  • A special thanks to Wayback Machine and other Internet archiving websites.

Those were all of the minor prose nitpicks I could find, but other than that it's an excellent article once again! It is comprehensive, well sourced, and well written throughout. Will pass once all of the above are out of the way. JAGUAR  11:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: All done. Awaiting your judgement. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them. This looks good to go now. Well done! JAGUAR  11:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]