Jump to content

Talk:Mughal-e-Azam/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: I will be reviewing this article. Animeshkulkarni (talk · contribs) 07:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some random points:

  • "The film currently enjoys a 100% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes"... When does currently mean?
 Done
  • "Due to her heart condition, she could no longer accept any new parts, and was unable even to finish some films that were underway."... The reference provided verifies this statement. But if you see Madhubala's article you would see few films that released in '61 and '62. They could very well have been accepted beforehand and also worked on beforehand. But it still sounds like Dinesh Raheja (referred article's author) has drawn some conclusion by himself. Raheja's reputation and notability, though better than many other 24-hr-news-channel writers, can not be relied upon this issue. I am objecting only "she could no longer accept any new parts" part.
Let me research this some more. BollyJeff | talk 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • In "Accolades" section when all awards are mentioning names of nominees in brackets, "Best Dialogues" should also do that.
 Done
  • All entries in "Books" section should have citation.
Why? The ISBN links will lead you to them. BollyJeff | talk 00:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? One of those took me here. And what is that? I got better results with bare number directly on Google. Could be i don't know how to use it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "Find this book" at Google Book Search online database. It takes you there quicker than the search you did. BollyJeff | talk 12:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" section is unnecessary. WP:LAYOUT.
 Done
  • All references are not in same format style. (Just pointing this out as i know this article aspires to be FA in near future.)
Noted. This is mostly done now, but not all are archived. BollyJeff | talk 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""stamped" with the official seal of the Akbarnama"... What does seal of Akbarnama mean? That was a book, right?
 Done
Glad you explained more. But if Akbarnama is a book, how does it have a seal? A office, officer, committee, king, etc. have seals. I am not understanding how a book has a seal. It could be Akbar's seal or Mughal empire's seal or something like that.
 Done
  • The "Reception" and "Critical reception" sections start with "universal" acclaims. By "universal" one would assume that Korean and French critics also acclaimed the film.
 Done
  • "The song "Mohe Panghat Pe" was objected to by director Vijay Bhatt"... How is Bhatt related with the film? Was he commenting just as a friend or was he assisting in this film?
I would assume as a friend, but its not clear from the source. Must it be deleted? BollyJeff | talk 22:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. No! Let it be. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox should have the re-release date; just like the re-release time.
I will be updating the dates and times soon. BollyJeff | talk 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • "Before migrating, Ali suggested the name"... "Before migrating" sounds so filmy. I am visualizing Ali sitting in the train and suggesting Pallonji's name to Asif, as Asif runs along on the platform.
 Done
That's better. But i did not find any reference to Ali suggesting the name.
§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source 11, "Saga of all sagas" says "Shiraz Ali Hakeem who originally conceived “Mughal-e-Azam” went over to Pakistan after Partition and suggested Parsi businessman Shapoorji Pallonji to invest in the film." BollyJeff | talk 16:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the stage-play was (in an unrelated manner) adapted for film as Anarkali (1953)"... This is killer. What happened with Anarkali? Who directed it? Who were in it? Did it succeed as good as this did? Write a line about the film, of course, without directly comparing the two films.
 Done
  • "The cinematography by R. D. Mathur, and the choreography was executed by famed Kathak dancer Lachchu Maharaj, who agreed to be a part of the film after initial reluctance."... I assume the reluctance was of Lachchu Maharaj. But i did not find that in the reference. Maybe i overlooked. The sentence is still confusing. It can be rephrased.
 Done
  • A para in "Principal photography" starts with "Certain sequences of the film utilized 14 cameras," and then it talks about all the props used in the film. The opening would suggest that technical equipments would be discussed here. That line can be moved to "Design" where alongside R. D. Mathur's problem it would fit better.
 Done
  • Mentioning "Additional crew members" after "ultimate break-up of Kumar and Madhubala" is also a killer. Although we won't be satisfying gossip-mongers it is better to end para at the break-up news.
Not sure where else it fits. BollyJeff | talk 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could now go after "..was executed by famed Kathak dancer Lachchu Maharaj."
 Done
  • "The film's lighting faced a number of difficulties, with Mathur reported to have taken eight hours to light a single shot.".... It could be confusing for readers to know who exactly Mathur was. They have already heard many names till now and for non-Indians it would be more confusing. And Mathur is not key person in this article like Asif, Kumar or Kapoor. We can use "cinematographer Mathur" here.
 Done
  • "with the opening lyrics of "Mohe Panghat Pe" being composed by Thakur Prasad."... Who is Thakur Prasad? Please introduce him.
 Done
  • "A statue of Lord Krishna, to which Jodhabai prayed, was made of pure gold."... Its better to add "that appears in the song "Mohe Panghat Pe"". That way readers can go on Youtube and see the statue easily.
I did not see it in the song on YT. BollyJeff | talk 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right! My mistake. It is shown just before the song but not in it. Forget this.

Will come back with more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • All 4 lines that use references in lead and infobox are referred to in the article. Refs from there can be removed.
 Done
  • "His father sends him off to war in order to learn courage and discipline."... Shouldn't it be "make him learn" or "teach him". This sounds like Akbar is learning. But i could be wrong.
 Done
 Done
  • Lead has not summarized the Music section.
 Done
  • "debuting against three other releases – Veer-Zaara, Aitraaz and Naach." ...One liner fate of these films should be included.
 Done
  • Sheesh Mahal was constructed in Mohan Studios. Were all indoor sets constructed there itself? (Needed for FA.)
Don't know, will have to wait. BollyJeff | talk 03:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgian glass". Any suitable wikilink there?
No. BollyJeff | talk 03:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 "Celluloid Monument" has quite a lot of info about re-released music that is missing from the article.
Will add soon. BollyJeff | talk 03:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That ref also says that film was selected for seven international film festivals. (Needed for FA.)
 Done
  • ".. in addition to hosting "the entire film industry,"" .... Quotes not in ref.
 Done
  • "Ziya Us Salam described Mughal-e-Azam.." .... "of The Hindu" should be added.
 Done
  • "A total of 20 songs were composed for the film, with Naushad charging ₹3,000 per song."... Referred source says, "Almost 20 songs were recorded for Mughal-e-Azam at the price of Rs. 3000 a song." It doesn't mean that Naushad charged this amount. It could mean the recording studio charged it.
  • "..released theatrically on 12 November 2004 in 130–150 prints" ... Current refs 1 & 3 both say 150 prints. Where is this 130 coming from?
 Done
  • All Highbeam refs 23, 24, 25 and 49 should note that registration is required. (Needed for FA.)
How? BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done we add "|format=Registration required" in the reference.
  • Ref 31's Webcite link doesn't work.
Please use names (for those below as well), the numbers have changed. BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Webcite link and Original. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - removed.
  • "he did not provide the vocals for any of the film's songs."... Although referenced, how is this relevant? Did other actors like Madhubala and Sultana sing any pieces?
 Done
  • The ragas referred to are from a Highbeam source. I can't seem them. But if the source says which song is from which Raga please add that in the para or below each entry in the tracklist.
I don't have access to Highbeam yet either. BollyJeff | talk 03:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..Shiraz Ali Ahmed, owner of the Movietone Studios in Mumbai.[12]".... Ref 12 here does not say that he owned Movietone Studios. There is no Wikipedia article on Ahmed and hence this would require reference.
 Done - no source found
  • "On the occasion of Mughal-e-Azam's fiftieth anniversary, producer Shapoorji Pallonji Group put up a website commemorating the event.[57]"... Ref doesn't say anything at all. It just verifies that such website exists.
What would you like to see here? BollyJeff | talk 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ummm...I dont know. This is okay i suppose. Marking it done. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Art director Omung Kumar, who designs sets for major Indian films" .... Some examples of his work? Black, Saawariya could be mentioned. He doesn't have any article here. Hence.
 Done
  • In one of the refs i read somewhere that Uttam Singh assisted Naushad in the recreated music. Don't know which reference. They have his photo also with Naushad. That should go in.
I see where he did the re-recording of the soundtrack; will add it later. BollyJeff | talk 03:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17 Original link is another example of Times of India's article that was not liked by few regular editors. See this discussion Wikipedia_talk:INCINE#The_Times_of_India. Such single liner tweet articles can not be relied upon. As this information is correct and is easily verified through other sources already used in the article, i would prefer if it is excluded.
 Done
  • Is News.oneindia.in. ref 55 reliable?
Yes. Secret of success (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It says the source of this news is UNI. What news agency is that? I couldn't find it. Any idea? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UNI appears to stand for United News of India. Certainly is reputed. Secret of success (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Okay! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is some PDF uploaded on Google pages ref 48 reliable?
Yes. Secret of success (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How? Refer some problems mentioned here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds complicated. Secret of success (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For this particular article these awards can probably be sourced from somewhere else. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this site is reliable? I am having a hard time finding non-conflicting, reliabe linformation on awards. Another site that is often used for filmfare shows no entries for this year. BollyJeff | talk 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose i am mostly done. Will go through the GA checklist finally when these points are taken care of. Will probably also note down some FA related points now that they are striking. You need not take care of those now. Will simply note them down for future. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might not be able to finish this for several days due to limited ability to log on. Give me some time. BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through the checklist now.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The article would pass as GA when above mentioned points are resolved. Till then i am putting this on hold. Other editors are still welcome to review the article and comment. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everything has now been addressed. BollyJeff | talk 16:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Check the markings . Also i have to do some sample checks to see if http://www.awardsandshows.com/ is reliable or not. Will close the review after that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried contacting the user who uploaded the document, but they have not been active on WP for over a year. I have pretty much run out of ideas for finding more sources; even Highbeam did not help. Would you prefer that the article lists no awards? BollyJeff | talk 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No! I am passing the GA now. The pdf isn't exactly reliable but for this particular article it is okay. Good job. Keep up. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mughal-e-Azam/GA1&oldid=505753298"