Talk:Paan Singh Tomar (film)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

A lot of copyediting is needed for grammar and tone. Mixed verb tense is a recurring issue.
There is only a single image in the article. See if there are any appropriate ones to add. If there is an available photograph of the historical Paan Singh Tomar, I would suggest at least adding that.

Lead

The WP:LEAD will need further work at a later stage since the body requires a lot of work (see below) and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
but was forced to become a rebel against the system – hardly WP:NPOV.
shoestring budget – should be sourced.
The film was released domestically on 2 March 2012 – avoid using the word "domestic". The meaning of the word is context-dependent.
emerged as an average at the box-office – copyediting needed. "An average" is an odd phrasing. How does one emerge as such? Box office should not have a hyphen when used as a noun.
a domestic net of ₹201.80 million – according to the cited source, that's not the domestic net but the worldwide gross.
The film won the Best Feature Film and Best Actor – either remove the definite article or add "awards" after this.

Plot

Verb tense is not consistent throughout. There are even several instances of mixed past and present tense in the same sentence.
dacoit – replace, gloss, or at minimum link.
Answering questions about himself, the story goes in a flashback from the year 1950. – copyediting needed for grammar.
He forms a gang of people some of whom are his relatives and are in conflict with Bhanwar Singh. – anacoluthon.
As an act of revenge for his brother's death – unless there's something I'm missing, this is the first mention of the brother's death.
had become police informers and had informed the police – seems rather redundant, no?

Cast

I would suggest glossing the characters.
Who does Paras Arora play?

Production

This section is rather thin.
Dhulia researched the film's background – the film's background?
But that would need a lot of money. This caused Dhulia to work on it for 10 years. – conspicuous use of short declarative sentences. Not an appropriate writing style in this context.

Soundtrack

freewebmusic.co appears to be a spam website; even the Wayback Machine link redirects my browser to some random webpage.
Since the film [...] classical influences. – unsourced.
The music of this epic film stands out for its authenticity, originality, and the perfect blend of central Indian folk with western classical influences. – hardly WP:NPOV.

Release

This section is quite the WP:QUOTEFARM.
Paan Singh Tomar achieved universal critical acclaim among the critics. – this is a very strong assertion that is not backed up by the cited source.
grossed ₹65.0 million (US$810,000) nett – "gross" and "nett" are contradictory terms.

Awards and nominations

This entire section is unsourced.
There is a lack of consistency with regard to linking recipients.
What's with the bolded "Winner" above the table?
I would suggest rethinking the formatting of the table. The WP:Good article for the film Jab Tak Hai Jaan, another Hindi-language 2012 film, provides an example of how this can be done.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See my comments above.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
See my comments above.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction. The excessive use of direct quotations in the "Release" section may however be a problem in this regard. Because the article will need to be extensively rewritten before it can be promoted to WP:Good article status, I have not checked for WP:Close paraphrasing at this point.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
As noted above, the "Production" section is rather thin. There may be other significant omissions as well.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The "Release" section goes into way too much detail about individual reviewers' opinions.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
See my comments above.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The only image is the poster, which would seem to be an acceptable instance of fair use.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

@Twinkle1990: I'm closing this as unsuccessful. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. I don't think this can be brought up to WP:Good article standards within a reasonable time frame. I gather that you are fairly new to this, and I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. To that end, I'll suggest WP:Peer review as a a more appropriate venue to bring this article to at this stage to get feedback and suggestions for improving the article. You may also wish to consult the WP:Guild of Copy Editors. For specific guidance about writing film articles, I would suggest reading MOS:FILM and you could of course always ask for help at WT:FILM. I will add some maintenance templates to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.