Talk:Soni (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 20:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it up. VedantTalk 20:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Here are a few things from a cursory glance at the article:

Kislye or Kislay?
The lede mentions Ayr as the editor twice.
The opening sentence is a little problematic. Try reading it without the "co-edited and directed by Ivan Ayr and" part and it just doesn't work.
Why are the music directors in the opening paragraph?
It's a giant leap from observing their daily routine to shooting a film, isn't it?
"performances of the lead"?
The Plot is incoherent. Very little of it follows the previous sentence naturally:

"He refuses to leave his vehicle and Soni slaps him.

Soni's ex-husband Naveen often visits her, trying to persuade her to rekindle their relationship. The commissioner of police tries to take disciplinary action against Soni for the check post incident. "

This might have been the chronological order of happenings, but makes very little sense as such. There a lot of such instances. The sentence structure in itself isn't great in places either.

The same thing continues down to the Production section. The first paragraph itself has three different thoughts.
The section then goes back and forth with the casting, followed by use of camera technique, auditions, workshops, and views on the script. These should really be put in order.
And then we go back to 2014 and the idea of the film.
And it does not get better.

@Yashthepunisher: this is not looking good. I'd like to hear your thoughts about my initial comments, but this does not look promising at this point. VedantTalk 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant Please have a look. I have hopefully fixed your above raised issues. Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this tomorrow Yash. VedantTalk 18:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

Hey Yash. Although things do look better, it still requires work. I have made a few changes to the Lede and Plot sections. Let me know how you feel about those. Coming to the Production section, it still is not in the right order:

Why was Delhi put under scrutiny is never made clear in the opening paragraph.
The 2012 Delhi rape case comes in much later and should move up right in the beginning with the mention of the Delhi under scrutiny bit.
Avoid mentioned "was inspired", "idea for Soni occurred" and the likes of these repeatedly. It confuses the reader as to what really "inspired" the film.
"probably the highest proportion of policewomen in the force" - in India? the world?
"a female police officer would react to a case of sexual violence" - makes it read like he wanted to see how a female police officer would investigate a case of sexual violence and not how she would react to being assaulted herself.
Also, this bit is mentioned more than one time and not in the same paragraph. It would make mores sense it you mention them in close proximity and avoid putting in repetitive information.
"Ayr said he was motivated to write the script by the way women in police work with their male counterparts" - awkwardly phrased.
A few big quotes can be paraphrased and used more organically into the text.

This is down to the Casting section. More to follow. VedantTalk 07:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant Done, hopefully. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

What's up with the first names Yash?

Can you be more specific? Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's the same with this section:

Why are postures and body language coming up in different paragraphs and not tigwt?
Why is the fact that Batra auditioned for the lead role mentioned in the end? Why is her character description in the last paragraph when the entire has been discussing it throughout? Can't her character sketch and the things everyone have to say about it be in one paragraph?
Why is the workshop bit being repeated?
Why the stray about 18 hour filming in the midst of casting choices?
The same with Ayr working on all aspects of the film? iT should all go at the end in paragraph after the casting bits are complete.

You'll have to do some restructuring here as well. Follow a structure: casting, followed by filming, and later post production. And please remove repetitive information. VedantTalk 22:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant Hopefully done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but take a look now. Hopefully, I didn't mess anything up. VedantTalk 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

This has already taken a while, so let's not rush anything. I'd prefer if the Reception section is arranged according to ideas and not reviews. Say, the technical aspects in one paragraph, the feminist elements in one, performances in one and so on. While I don't think that it's an absolute requisite for GA, it just reads much better. Let me know if you'd willing to take up that challenge.

Also, italicize all the web sources (there's quite a few like Firstpost, The Quint).

The refs look okay overall, some of the websites could use wiki-links thou.

Will go ahead with the final read through after hearing from you. VedantTalk 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you got time Yash. VedantTalk 19:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant Sorry for the really late response. I was extremely busy in my RL. Now, what I have heard is that web sources shouldn't be italicize, newspapers and magazine's should. The wikilinking bit doesn't look necessary to me. As for the reception revamping thing, I will try to polish it more in the near future as I plan to take the article further. The current version seems kind of suitable for GA standards. Thank you so much being patient with the review. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be okay now. Pass. Good work, Yash. VedantTalk 12:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]