Shshshsh, I've completed the review and left some comments below. Most of them are either suggestions for improvements or minor issues and the article itself more or less meets the good article criteria so I'm going to go ahead and pass this but do take note of them. Otherwise, you have done a good job with your research and write-up for the article so congrats on the successful nomination! If you have any questions or objections to my comment, feel free to express them. Tayi ArajakateTalk14:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps wikilink muhurat clap since it is unlikely to be understood by a non-Indian reader.
The last paragraph of the production section could be instead placed after the second sentence of the section. It seems more relevant to mention it before referring to Kapadia wanting Reva's role or that the character was a ghost.
"Lekin is based on.." should be in past tense in the production section.
The section doesn't need to say that Gulzar also wrote the lyrics for the songs since that is repeated again under soundtrack, instead it could introduce him as a lyricist and screenwriter.
Ref 20 doesn't link to the citation; adding the second author should fix it.
"India Today described...", this sentence recounts a very short description rather than a review so doesn't really belong here and could just be excluded.
"The same publication wrote that year of Kapadia", reads a bit awkward, I would suggest re-wording.
"Actress Raveena Tandon called the part her dream role." This sentence reads like Tandon means that it was a dream role for Kapadia rather than it being the kind of role that would be her own dream role, so I would suggest rewording it.
"Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com wrote...", might be better to include this sentence somewhere after the The Essential Guide to Bollywood since it's a later review. There is another sentence about Verma's review, they should probably go together.
"In his book Hero, author Ashok Raj praised...", any reason why this should included? The author does not appear to be a recognised reviewer.
In the first paragraph of "analysis", the last two sentences should probably go first, they work better as a primer and Gulzar's comment should come at the end since he isn't independent.
The second book in the bibliography hasn't been used as a citation so that should probably be removed.
I would also suggest varying the wording a bit more, for example the repeated, "said" and "wrote" feels like it breaks the flow of reading through the article.
Pass
Neutral