Talk:Talvar (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Produced by Bhardwaj and Vineet Jain, the film is based on the 2008 Noida double murder case involving a teenage girl and her family's servant. Starring Irrfan Khan, Konkona Sen Sharma and Neeraj Kabi, the film follows the investigation of a double-murder case of a girl and a servant from three different perspectives in which her parents are guilty or innocent of the murder charges." — You've already mentioned that its based on the double-murder case, so don't need to mention it a second time. Also, what are the three perspectives? A little bit summarising there is needed.
"Bhardwaj and Meghna did not obtain permission from the Talvar family for the film" — You mean "not yet" obtained permission as they approved the film afterwards.
"At a screening, lawyer and politician Ram Jethmalani, said that the trial depicted in the film inaccurate." — "in the film was inaccurate".
"Bhardwaj and Meghna researched the case for nearly two years, and found" — At what period of time. At a later paragraph you mention they "began researching the case in mid-2012, during the trial." So which one is correct? Just clarify this bit.

It started out in mid-2012 but when it was finished, I could not really find and which is why I didn't include it in the first place. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Earlier entitled Nyodda, the film was renamed Talvar. The title was initially registered with Pritish Nandy Communications (PNC), but was purchased by Bhardwaj. PNC was the film's initial co-producer, but the company withdrew from the project." — You can move this up to right before "About the film's title, Meghna said that it referred to justice"
The surname of "Arushi Talvar" should be changed to "Talwar".
In the critical reception section, talk more about the technical aspects in one separate paragraph rather than just stating the same kind of thing about the film.

All reviews mostly talked about the film's treatment and performances, which I have tried to cover in the reviews, and not very much the technical aspects. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the critical reception section, there are lot of times where "called" and "calling" is repeated. Show some more variety.
Wikilink the names of the websites, magazines and newspapers on the first instances of them being mentioned.

That's about it from me, Yashthepunisher. Resolved my comments and the article is passed. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssven2 The rest has been resolved. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing my comments, Yashthepunisher. Congratulations, the article has passed. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 03:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]