Jump to content

Talk:Gopala Gopala (2015 film)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Pavanjandhyala, without further ado, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I assess that it definitely meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some comments and questions that should be addressed first. Thank you tremendously for all your hard work on this and other articles illustrating the Telugu film industry. -- Caponer (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavanjandhyala, thank you for making the suggested changes in such a timely manner. Your continued efforts are greatly appreciated, and I hereby pass this article to GA status. Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article, Caponer! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lede

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the film, establishes the film's necessary context, and explains why the film is notable.
  • The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
  • The image of in the info box is licensed as non-free media data with proper rationale.
  • In the second paragraph, the sentence should be written as follows: "Religious organisations revolt against him and Krishna visits him as his human guide."
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Rephrased the sentence in the lead. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • How does Rao obstruct a holy ritual involving his family, and is this holy ritual a named ritual in the Hindu faith?
  • Does the earthquake destroy his shop in response to his obstruction?
Nothing like that. Rao's family visits a holy ritual conducted by a fake godman and that may injure them as they have to walk on burning charcoal. To save them, Rao has to stop the ritual. So he announces a fake message that Krishna is in our colony now and all run. Hours later, due to an earthquake, his shop is destroyed. I did not elaborate this in the plot so as to ensure a clear narrative there. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written and I have no other comments or questions for this section. No sources are necessary per WP:FILMPLOT.

Cast

  • While formatted properly, are there any inline citations for this section?
Not for all, as the film's DVD is not yet out. Only a few can be named using the reviews. Will that suffice? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, but are there any inline citations for this section?

Production

  • In the Development subsection, it should be specified which movies the remake rights were for, which has been specified in the Lede but should be spelled out here.
 Done specified. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Development subsection should spell out that the film is a remake of the 2012 Hindi film OMG – Oh My God! which was itself based on the Gujarati stage play Kanji Viruddh Kanji.
Actually, i specified them in the "Themes and influences" section. As you suggested, i shall specify here too. For the same, i used an article of The Times of India. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of Chakraborty is licensed CC BY 3.0; the image of Saran is CC BY-SA 3.0; the image of Kalyan is CC BY-SA 2.0; and the image of Venkatesh is licensed CC BY 3.0; therefore, all are acceptable for use here.
  • The first use of Hyderabad in the prose should be hyperlinked, which is in the second paragraph of the Development subsection.
 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Osmania University's College for Women is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here; as is the image of Ramoji Film City which is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0.
  • Visakhapatnam should be spelled consistently as Visakhapatnam throughout the lede and prose of the article.
 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Themes and influences While the Themes and influences section goes into the fact that the movie is a remake, it should also be mentioned above so that the chronology is intact. It can also be mentioned in this section, too.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The translations should be mentioned as being from Telugu.
Adding a note for the same. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Music

  • The Music section should be expanded and treated as if it were the lede of the Gopala Gopala (soundtrack) article. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the section should adequately defines the soundtrack, establish the soundtrack's necessary context, and explains why the soundtrack is notable. It should also include content from each of the Gopala Gopala (soundtrack) article's sections and subsections so that it is truly comprehensive.
 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Release

  • This section is well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Reception

  • Both images of Daggubati Venkatesh (left) and Pawan Kalyan (right) are licensed properly and free to use in this article.
  • OMG – Oh My God! should be italicized in the first paragraph; so should Gopala Gopala. These should all be italicized throughout this section.
 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gopala_Gopala_(2015_film)/GA1&oldid=651865721"