Talk:Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara!/Archive 1

Title Change to Once Upon ay Time in Mumbaai Dobaara!

Hey, can we change the title of the page to Once Upon ay Time in Mumbaai Dobaara! since the producer Ekta Kapoor has changed the film's title (due to numerologial reasons) to the title shown above. Evidence: zoomtv, as well as the infobox picture shown

Done:Article name changed.---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 08:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood or Indian?

Let's keep Indian cinema. :). At least that's the way it is in FA Kahaani

Bollywood/Indian Confusion

You wanted to see me??? Let's have a chat.

Okay, first of, you should know that I'm not here to mess up the article. In fact, I've been trying really hard to improve the quality of this article for the past few days. Take a look at the histroy page; all the IP addresses starting with the number 49 are mine. Furthermore, I respect in particular, the contributions you have made to the article. Now let's come to our little argument, 'Bollywood or Indian'. I disagree with you on the matter that Bollywood is an official term. Even the Wikipedia page related to Bollywood says that it is an informal term which is used to refer to the Hindi Film Industry of India. I am quite adamant, but not pushy. So, I will respect whatever choice you make on this matter.

Okay, so I noticed that you decided to go with 'Indian' with a background redirect to the page 'Bollywood'. I would like you to take a look at these two articles: Chennai Express, Hot Fuzz. Just hover over the demonyms mentioned in the first lines of the aforementioned articles and then decide whether you want to keep 'Bollywood' as the redirect, or 'Cinema of India', or just want to keep the word 'Indian' alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.12.207 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for responding so fast. Above all I want to clear that is a discussion to make the article better not an argument.

Now on the topic,

In Kahaani, a FA Indian cinema is considered with a link to Bollywood Article. I would like to keep bollywood as it refers to cinema of Mumbai, since this is a bollywood film.

---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding name of the article and female lead respectivley.

Hello @Pleasant1623: and @The Witty Warrior:,

I am starting this section in order to find a resolution regarding the names of the article and the female lead as recently I witnessed a near-3RR between two editors. Any editor committed for this article is appreciated to express their views.

Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara! (official name in accordance with the poster)

Once Upon a Time in Mumbai Dobaara! (disputed name in leading dailies and Industry sources)

Please provide the sources along with reasoning.

Over & Out $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 09:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception of Soundtrack

plz enter critical reception of soundtrack..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.71.100 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done DONE DONE LONDON :)$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Hey, Kindly add the article of critical reception of the film, its almost 12 hrs of release and still no sign of the section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.65.223 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday (15th August) Day 1 collections: approx 9cr (by BOI)) link: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5967&nCat= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.55.102 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done both, Working tearing my @ss out here.$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination or Peer review

Hey all,

I just wanted you to know that am going to list it up for a GA review or should I opt for a peer review instead. I am still not sure since this is my first. Everyone (including IP's) are welcomed to weight in with their opinions. $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as y'all can't settle on a title I wouldn't do this. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. And after settling on the title, the first thing that needs to be done is the correct formatting of the references. Check out current Indian film FA's and GA's to see how they have been done. --smarojit ^HD 15:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, just a correction you need to make. From source 64 in your article (koimoi.com), 14cr is the GROSS figure while 11.5cr is the net collections (the figure that should be in the page). Please correct the article and references. Cheers.

FTR we don't count Koimoi as Reputed Source as they have industry connections and are in contract with films to promote them. For example, Chennai Express had a marketing parter - DNA along with ETC. Boxoffice India is the source for Box Office Collections in Wikipedia.$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 09:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Smaro, I added all the citations clearly and checked other articles also. Can you suggest for example how I may improve it? For the title I opened a discussion but no one participated in it therefore I hold by the silence of other editors that the issue is resolved more so with the fact that the current name is in accordance with the same on the poster.$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 09:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it'll be great if you request a copyedit first then a peer review and finally a GA review. The article needs a lot of work, especially the grammar. Regards, --Jionpedia ✉ 14:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jion, placed a request on your talk page instead of going to the Guild of Copy-Editors. ☸ 16:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question - Is it ready for a GA Nom, aesthetically? ☸ 16:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at its current state, its a strong no (no offence to you, Soham).----Jionpedia ✉ 07:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None Taken, Jion. As a matter of fact I do like critism till its constructive. The whole point of opening this sections is to draw out the short-comings of this article which may avoid my eye. Coming back to the point apart from the Copy editing issue, what are the other areas in which it is lagging. I will add production and rewrite the critical reception after my exams so excluding that. Thanks ☸ 10:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dropping the Idea~~. Dont have enough time to devote it to this as also lost interest. If anyone completes the work please feel free to do so and feels its enough for GA nominate it. Might reassume it later. Sohambanerjee1998 16:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell! I never give up, more so after watching the film. Sohambanerjee1998 07:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release section looks very short, I'd merge with reception Yes, it needs a copyedit before GAN.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blo, anything other than that? Sohambanerjee1998 12:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Flop capitalized? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blo,

Done. Anything else? Sohambanerjee1998 08:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per the request for comment at my talk page I think the critical reception is fairly comprehensive. However, it is structured quite unconventionally by going through the comments critic by critic. It gives the impression of giving too much WP:WEIGHT to individual critics. Generally, what we are trying to do is summarize the overall critical reception, and we quote from critics that best sum up the commonly held view. If you take Skyfall#Critical_reception (which is really well structured), for instance, the section first covers the overall impressions of the film; it then covers reviews of Daniel Craig and some other cast members before describing the directing and cinematography, and then finally covers the negative reception the film received. No undue emphasis is given to an individual critic. Remember, we are aiming to tell the reader what is good and bad about the film, not what individual critics think of it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will look into the matter. Sohambanerjee1998 06:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change in collections

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey guys, just a correction you need to make. From source 62 in your article (koimoi.com), 14cr is the GROSS figure while 11.5cr is the net collections (the figure that should be in the page). Please correct the article and references. Cheers. 182.68.185.37 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How I should put this - nett means profit incurred after deducting taxes, wages etc. while gross means the total amount, FTR I haven't put the amount saying Koimoi - 14 crore, its the amount quoted by Tanuj Garg. Plus note that I included a range, 11-15 I guess. Thats the reason. Plus don't be offended for asking this who is your fav bollywood hero - is it SRK or Akshay?$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 09:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Soham 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can start now. Soham 17:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld If you are ready we can proceed now. Soham 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"where its predecessor ended" - link the film here.

Done.

Is it Jaaved or Javed?

Not specified in the film, nor does any source exists for the naming. Soham 11:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say this because you spell it Jaaved in the cast section. Pick one spelling for both..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done changed to Javed, in light of two sources - [1][2]. Should I mention it in a note? Soham 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, as long as the spelling is consistent and the most common.

Filming

Please don't start this with quote boxes, much less two of them. Find a way to disperse them into side boxes like on the Clint Eastwood article as it affects flow. In looking at them I think you'd be best writing them in your own words into the prose or at least only quoting part of them.

Done

"The remainder of the film was shot on location in Khala, on the Sassoon Docks and at Mukesh Mills in the Mumbai area to give the film a retro look." - Not sure why this gave the film a retro look..

Done. Removed.
Effects

"Scenes in the Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium in the United Arab Emirates" -you should probably mention in the filming section that UAE was also a location.

That was created digially.

OK♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

"for Luthria as well who shot her first song Sambhala hai Maine in the 1994 film Naaraaz." What do you mean, Luthria didn't accept fees too?

Done, ha ha, Luthria charged a lump-sum, Bendre did it for luthria. Change wording.

What is Eid? I think you should put time of year in brackets at least.

Soundtrack

Delink Eid

Done.

Can you find a way to avoid that big gap and move the track listing into it?

I beg your pardon, please explain. I collapsed the track list. Soham 16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Vijayakar reviewed each song for Bollywood Hungama:onwards to the end of the section is far too excessive and poorly organized/worded and the bullet points are unattractive. Can you rid of the bullet points and perhaps pick the most important reviews and condense into a decent concise paragraph or two. I'd probably nuke the entirety of it or at best only use a couple of further quotes nicely written into the prose.

If I was you I'd create a soundtrack article and nuke the bulleted section and review in the main.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of it too, but thats of laters, I summarised the review section in one befitting para.

Done Soham 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"deewana dons and their dilrubas." what on earth are these?

Done. Changed wording. Soham 16:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should neatly reorganize the quotes, the worst first and then the better reviews rather than 1.5 out of 5 and then a 3.5 out of 5 etc. One paragraph for more negative and one for more positive as a counter argument I'd think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

This needs to be expanded a little to summarize whole article. Mention film locations etc...

Looks good for GA, but before I pass you need to significantly cleanup the organization and structure of the reviews in both the soundtrack and reception sections. Try to make it less convoluted and flow better. Soundtrack section especially needs to become visually more attractive....♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the improvements. I've helped you out with some of them and although this could still be polished further I think it is now passable. Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]