Talk:Krrish/GA3

GA Review

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's my review. I have been slightly involved with this article, though not enough to be unable to review this article. I am going to first review the lead, and its not satisfactory at all.

"with Bollywood veterans Rekha and Naseeruddin Shah in supporting roles." Bollywood veterans is unnecessary.

Naseeruddin Shah did not play a supporting role, he is the film's antagonist. Credit him as such, since both are very different.

Combine the first two paragraphs of the lead; the first paragraph is essentially a single sentence.

For encyclopedic purposes, avoid "shot" as much as possible. In the lead, the word should be "filmed".

"The film's abundant special effects" Abundant is a subjective opinion, should not be present.

"with help from" - "with the help from"

"Stunts were choreographed by Tony Ching Siu-Tung. The music was composed by Rajesh Roshan, and received mixed reviews. The film itself also received mixed reviews from critics, but was widely appreciated by audiences, who gave it record opening week at the box office." Choppy prose, unencyclopedic content. This entire part needs rewording.

"Krrish picked up a few awards" Its amusing to see such phrases, but its most certainly not encyclopedic.

"numerous best acting awards" It should be Best Actor (note the capital letters).

I think capitals are not needed since this is a generic term and not a specific award title in this sentence. The other items have been completed. BollyJeff | talk 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, I'm generally not too happy with the prose of the lead. It needs work. I hope these points can be clarified, so that we can continue to other aspects. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ankitbhatt. Thanks for taking on this review. I will do all I can to improve the article during the process. For your part, please be aware of Wikipedia:GA_Criteria, and especially Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not, which concerning the Well-written criteria says that the reviewer must check that in the article: "The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently." It also says the the reviewer should not be: "Imposing your own stylistic preferences or national variety of English on the article text." Please do not get too picky about every single word. That is not the intent of the GA review process. BollyJeff | talk 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I am aware of the criteria, and as far as I can see, my points mentioned are not stylistic but some genuine problems such as grammar or incorrect info. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize for the long break I have taken. I will now continue the review. I am still not happy with the lead, but I'll let that go for the moment since the rest of the article also needs attention ;-

Please avoid using present tense with "ing". "Twelve-year-old Krishna Mehra is undergoing an intelligence quotient test by a professor" should not have "is undergoing" but "undergoes".

"his family have superpowers" Uh, has superpowers?

"Years later, Krishna (Hrithik Roshan) meets Priya (Priyanka Chopra) and her friend Honey (Manini Mishra) when Krishna's friend Bahadur (Hemant Pandey) takes them camping near his home." The sentence implies that Bahadur took all three to camping, which is not true. Please re-phrase.

Wikilink hang glider.

"both tested it and were shocked to see Siddhant holding a gun besides Rohit's head." It should be "holding a gun to Rohit's head."

The Development section is one hell of a mess.

"Following the blockbuster success of the Roshan's Koi... Mil Gaya of 2003" Tch tch. It should be "Following the commercial success of Roshan's Koi... Mil Gaya (2003)" Avoid peacock words.

" there was several months of speculation that a sequel would be prepared" Sorry, didn't understand this sentence. Do you mean :- "speculations of a sequel continued for several months"?

"In November of 2004" Tell you what, change all dates in this article to "Month Year" rather than "Month of Year". More encyclopedic, and followed universally.

"Hrithik Roshan and Rekha would return for the sequel, but Preity Zinta was confimed to be replaced by actress Priyanka Chopra." This sentence would be better placed after the statement made by Chopra.

I can't see having a quote by Chopra and then announcing that she is in the film afterwards, but I have re-worded this section a bit. BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The story will focus on the son of the previous films's protagonist. The son inherits his father's special abilities that were given to him by the alien.[1] The story combines elements of Hindu religion and ancient Indian texts (the main character's name Krishna eludes to the Hindu Lord Krishna),[5] Chinese martial arts, and Hollywood films, to set itself up as a film of global significance.[6] Director/producer Rakesh Roshan hoped that this film would be remembered as the first film in the Indian industry that "proved we are no less than any Hollywood film."[7]" This is like one long piece of completely unencyclopedic promotion. Why are the first two lines needed at all? There is no need of specifying "Director/producer". And the entire elements bit should come after Roshan's statement.

This is barely the tip of the iceberg. The entire section needs a copy-edit, balancing and prose improvement. Please get to these points soon. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Some minute flaws in the changes :-

The plot section now has "is undergoes", which is obviously wrong.

The Development section has "commercial success of the Roshan's ..." The italicized part should not be there.

"hoped that this film would be remembered" It should be the film. Many other silly grammar mistakes present, such as " the Indian film industry is the equal to Hollywood", extra commas in the international significance bit.

"with many visual effects on par with" No need of many.

"who had previously worked on Godzilla and Independence Day," Is there supposed to be a "respectively", or did both the experts work on both the films? Besides, I'm not really sure that aspects regarding the film's visual effects come under the "Development". It should ideally be in Filming (or a Post-production section if you can create one with sufficient content).

It wasn't in the sources so I removed it. BollyJeff | talk 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have luckily found a replacement which will give some information regarding the VFX :- Difeature: Krrish sets new benchmark for special effects in Hindi cinema. Hope this helps. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid writing "shot", use the more encyclopedic "filmed".

The article was dinged in an informal peer review for having "the film" too many times. Also, it would then read "the film was filmed", which is also very repetitive. Is it really that bad as is? BollyJeff | talk 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the The Gateway" Extra "the".

"Shruti Bhasin of Planet Bollywood liked it a lot" Not encyclopedic. Give a more formal tone to the sentence.

There is too much weight on Taran Adarsh's review. Each review deserves no more than two lines (preferably one).

In fact, the entire India section is very weirdly written. For one, there are too few reviews which is causing lot of unwanted excerpts to be added. Additionally, the section does not read in an appealing manner. I suggest re-wording and some digging up to expand the section suitably.

I searched for hours, and could only find one additional critical review from a reliable source. It was not very good, so the mixed summary is okay (I also provided a source specifically saying that it got mixed reviews). BollyJeff | talk 02:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more review - a highly important one, at that :- Masand's Verdict: Krrish-crass. But the section still does not read well. There is too much of content from a single review, which we should avoid. Cuts are needed. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The starter says that the film received mixed reviews in India, but I haven't seen even one negative review except the rather ambivalent TOI review. This fails neutrality and comprehensiveness. Rapid improvement needed.

"Overseas reviews were consistently good." Please re-word to the standard use such as "Overseas reviews were generally positive" so as to be more encyclopedic.

Otherwise, the article is alright save for the still-unsatisfactory lead. I shall check the references tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I'm sure a majority of the above points can be cleaned up. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has now been completed. BollyJeff | talk 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for a long break; I got cooped up with another GA review. I'll complete my review today in the hope of passing this article tomorrow (at max).

In the lead, "It is the second film in the Krrish series, being the sequel to Koi... Mil Gaya," There are too many "it"s coming close together. Could you re-word either the previous sentence or this sentence so as to break that monotonousness?

"who suspects his family has superpowers" Missing "that".

One thing I totally forgot to see: I'm quite certain that the plot exceeds 700 words. This is a big problem. I'd like to discuss possible solutions for this.

It is 782, considerably less than when I started. We can discuss. BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Roshan's Koi... Mil Gaya of 2003" Awkward use of the phrase "of 2003". Its best to use (2003).

"there were several months of speculation by audiences" This needs re-wording. Something like "Audiences speculated for several months"

"a sequel would be prepared" Prepared? Wrong word. Made/produced is correct.

"that Preity Zinta would be replaced by actress Priyanka Chopra." You have noted Priyanka to be an actress but failed to do so for Zinta. Please state that Zinta was also an actress, or better still, just remove the word "actress" from Priyanka's definition.

"Chopra also confirmed, "Yes. I am in a sequel" You should say "Chopra also confirmed the same, saying, ..." The present sentence leaves a hanging phrase.

The info about the budget is rather misplaced in "Development". Something better, like "Release", would be fine.

"Locations used" This has a slightly derogatory feel. I would suggest saying, "Locations featured".

"There were traffic blocks" Repeated statement.

"one of the wires broke that was tied to Hrithik Roshan's leg" The "broke" word is wrongly placed.

Indian words like jadoo have to be italicized (not in the PLot though, since there its a character name).

Some wikilinks for the technical visual effects terms would be good.

"about five times the average for an Indian film" I doubt this sentence is necessary.

"merchandise released prior the film" Missing "to" and it should be "film's release".

"maximize returns" Returns is a confusing word. Use a simple word like "profits".

"he will be making a sequel" Tense. Same for "Hrithik Roshan and Priyanka Chopra will reprise their roles,[35] and the main antagonist will be played by Vivek Oberoi.[36]"

"it is all about Hrithik Roshan" Either change the tense, or place this in quotes.

So professional journalists can use bad tense, but we can't? Ha ha :-) BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"both said it was a good film for kids" Missing "that".

"I sat through the film indulgently having a good time, wincing frequently at dialogue but overall quite carried away." This quote is not needed. You could make cuts like these to avoid putting undue stress on any single review (something I pointed out previously).

"it takes too long for the action" Tense. Same for "lot of attention is spent showing off Roshan's muscles."

Italicize Krrish wherever it comes.

Tense again :- "hopes that this is not the future of Bollywood.", "Krrish is a hackneyed formulaic masala film". Plus the latter needs some commas.

"He gave only 2 out of 5 stars" Missing "the film".

the film, the film, the film - I counted how many times "the film" is in the article already 27. Oh wait, its okay; I just checked Ra.One, would you believe that "the film" appears 185 times? Too much. BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ronnie Scheib of Variety said it was an" Missing "that".

The Rotten Tomatoes rating (and a Metacritic one, if available) must come at the beginning of the section.

" 69 crore nett gross" Nett gross? Please use only gross/only nett. Let's not confuse people more than they already are :P. Plus, extra space between ₹ and 69.

"was classified a "blockbuster"" Missing "as".

" BFJA - Best Actor Award (Hindi), GIFA Best Actor" change the comma to an "and".

"won Creative Person of the Year" Make it "won the Creative Person of the Year title".

Otherwise alright. Hopefully these should be rectified quickly. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 4. I doubt the credibility of the source. I've found a replacement for it here, sourced from the Hindustan Times. I hope you can open it.

I cannot. Sources that require subscription are not preferred. Since it is a duplicate ref, I will delete it.

Ref 12 is unacceptable; its a first=party source. Please find replacements.

Ref 13. How is Live India a reliable source?

Ref 56. How is Web India a reliable source?

Ref 57. Reliability?

Ref 58, first party source. Unacceptable.

Ref 59. First party source, unacceptable.

What better source can there be about the awards that were won then the award presenter's web site? This article is not about IIFA, which would make it first party, it's about a film. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are major reference problems which must be rectified before GA passing. One small point: In the article, avoid the word "kid". Use the encyclopedic "children". ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try, ~~but will probably just have to delete the information or let you fail it.~~ BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the references are complete now. BollyJeff | talk 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More:

"for taking too much vacation." Sounds wrong. Please make it more encyclopedic, like: "for taking a non-permitted extension in their vacation".

"Describing the effects, Roshan stated," Umm, could you clarify which Roshan (Rakesh/Hrithik) said this?

"The film's soundtrack, by Rajesh Roshan," Missing "composed".

" Salim-Sulaiman provided the background score, for which they won a Filmfare Award." If you are talking about the awards in the Accolades section, the bit here is not necessary. Please remove.

"However, she felt that" Uh, Sukanya Verma is a she?

I think so, see here] BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information :D. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"excellent special effects are as good as the best from Hollywood" Tense.

I would ask you to seriously consider making a table version of the Accolades section. There are an adequate number of awards for that.

I will consider it, but not right this minute. BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this article is ready to go. Finish this fast and it will be a GA hopefully by today. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

Well-written

The article has good prose, and any grammar problems have been fixed. The MOS is followed throughout, and is clear in its tone.

Factually accurate and verifiable

The content has been uniformly cited to reliable sources, and gives a number of inline citations and wikilinks to clarify the possibly technical content. The article is free from original research.

Broad in its coverage

The article covers all the major aspects of the film, and does not deviate into unnecessary details.

Neutral

The article is written with a fair, unbiased and balanced way, with no instances of excessive praise/criticism.

Stable

Apart from the necessary GA review points, the article is stable and free from edit wars.

Illustrated

Though lacking in this department, there is no content which desperately requires illustration except the poster. This point must be clarified later.

In view of the above points, I hereby pass the article as a GA. Congratulations. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 06:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]