Talk:Siva (1989 Telugu film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 10:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this by the end of week!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this tomorrow afternoon if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't think Saikumar walked out of the sets; while this source cannot be used, it explains that apparently RGV removed him a day before the shoot was supposed to begin. In The Hindu, Saikumar states, "I was supposed to do J.D. Chakravarthy's role in Ram Gopal Varma's Shiva but somehow missed it. I saw the film in Vizag and called Ram Gopal Varma and became emotional." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I've removed it altogether as it ultimately went to Chakravarthy and that Saikumar himself doesn't clearly explain in The Hindu how he missed the role. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by Kailash himself. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"it was released on 5 October 1989 to critical acclaim primarily for its technology and sound design." -comma needed after acclaim.

Done Added. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Its Tamil-dubbed version, Udhayam, was also successful and Varma remade the film twice in Hindi with the same title." -suggest new sentence after successful and state when they were remade.

Try: "Its Tamil-dubbed version, Udhayam, was also successful. Varma remade the film twice in Hindi with the same title. The first, starring Nagarjuna, Amala and Raghuvaran, performed well at the box office, but the second, with Mohit Ahlawat and Priyanka Kothari, did not".

Done.

Production

"Varma befriended Akkineni Nagarjuna, Akkineni Venkat, and Yarlagadda Surendra," -actors?

Done. Yep.

"When Varma approached Rohini to dub Amala's portions, she initially rejected his offer to avoid being typecast as a voice actress." -not clear why she would be typecast without explaining previous roles or putting in context

Done. I've tweaked the sentence. If Pavan has a better alternative, he can tweak/rephrase it.

The casting section warbles a bit, do you really need to repeat who was cast all the time?

I'll leave this to Pavan.

I think the Casting section is actually about who, how, and if available, why was an actor/actress chosen to play a character. It seems fine to me. But, if you have a better idea, please let me know so that i can rework on that.

" Midway into a bridge," in or on?

Done.

"During the filming of his death scene, Raghuvaran ensured that the belt used to choke him did not hurt him.[18] " -stating the obvious?

Done. Rephrased

Themes

" the character of Siva was partially fictitious; Varma considered him an "ideal person" who would make society "too dramatic".[19] Siva was partially" -rep of "partially"?

Done. Tweaked.

The whole article needs a trim really. I get the impression in places that you've drawn out the text in places for length purposes, but length should never be the main issue. Better to be concise. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was done keeping the length in mind. I wanted Siva to be my most comprehensive GA ever, and have added only things which are not too trivial. Since you, a level-headed reviewer IMO, have asked to trim the article, i will do it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Pavan seems to have made a headway with the "Casting" section I think. Do let us know if there's still any work to be done, doc. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trim as much as you please. But if the article will be tried for FA (which it most likely will), it may need to be bigger. Just look at how large all the Marvel Cinematic Universe film articles are at GA level. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Those are recent films. Finding this much info for a 1980s Indian film, particularly a Telugu film, is itself a big thing. One thing I've learnt is that conciseness is an article's key and not length as doc points out. Bede735 had to trim Olivia de Havilland by 16kbs after comments by fellow users at the article's PR requested him to. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 15:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld, Kailash29792, and Ssven2: I've trimmed nearly 5kbs. If anyone of you find anything trivial and excessive, please remove it without hesitation. And Doctor, apart from that, if there is anything else left, let me know. Thank you! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will look a little later. It's just a lot of it did read like you were trying to make it as comprehensive and as long as possible but ended up seeming unnecessarily long in parts for what needed to be said haha.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own time. I am waiting. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just finishing my pasta and ice cream, I'm so Italian haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 23 May 2016 (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: Much improved, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]