Jump to content

Talk:Ugly (film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 14:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin the review in a couple of days. —Vensatry (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Mention the writer(s) in infobox
Done
Done
  • "Kashyap had the idea of the film since 2006, and he started writing the script after he talked to one of his friend about kidnapping cases, who was in the Special Task Force, Lucknow." - The whole bit needs to be rephrased. The last part of the sentence should follow immediately after the mention of "his friend" (and that should be "one of his friends").
Done
  • "Ugly was screened in the Directors' Fortnight section at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival and was also screened at the ..."
  • "after a two year delay regarding the inclusion of anti-smoking sign in the film" -> Not sure 'regarding' fits well here - maybe something like "due to" should be fine.
Done

Production

  • "Tejaswini Kolhapure, per Kashyap knew "what happens when you make bad choices in life", which was then translated on screen." - I don't quite understand what the sentence means.
Mentioned
  • "He met its director Umesh Vinayak Kulkarni" - He directed both of the films, no?
Yes
This is confusing. Who met Kulkarni? Vineet Kumar Singh or AK? —Vensatry (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why suddenly switch to first name (Girish)?
Why revert to the earlier grammatically incorrect version? —Vensatry (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
Fixed now, hopefully. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He came back and called Kulkarni for Ugly" - Kahsyap?
Mentioned
  • "Surveen Chawla plays the role of an actress of C-grade films, who she ..." -> Surveen Chawla plays the role of a C-grade film actress, who she ...
Done
  • "Ugly is her second collaboration with Kashyap, the first was Paanch, which was never released." Comma splice error
Done
  • Any explanation for "untouched innocence"?
Mentioned
Where? —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned the authors name who said this. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant an explanation for "untouched innocence". Perhaps, include it in quotes. —Vensatry (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting verbatim: "With the exception of the little girl called Kali or bud, who represents untouched innocence, there is not a single sympathetic character in the film, each one outdoing the other in venality, treachery and duplicity, as the tightly woven psychological thriller unfolds." Now which bit should I include in the article? Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The camera was kept rolling" - grammatical error.
Fixed
  • "So to decrease the number of retakes, they had to give their best shot." This sounds like POV
Removed
  • "The film was shot by cinematographer Nikos Andritsakis" - Already mentioned
Removed
  • "Kashyap wanted the one scene when Siddhant gets the money" - Grammatical error
Fixed

Soundtrack

  • debutant G. V. Prakash Kumar. Is it worth clarifying that GOW was released before Ugly?
It's not mentioned in this section
  • "One song, "Ni Chod de", mocked the item numbers and their corny music and lyrics" - According to?
Mentioned
You say several critics but the claim is attributed to a single source. —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and release

  • "Later, he said in an interview that he will not watch the film because he felt the no-smoking disclaimer was "insulting"" - Not sure this really adds value to the article.
Removed
  • "The circumstances that led to the birth of the little girl Kali, was separately made as Kali Katha, and was released in YouTube on 23 December" - A feature film? Also mention the year.
Done
  • "The film also had its theatrical run in Europe in France and Belgium, where it grossed 80,000 euros in its first week." - Needs reworking
Done
Month/Year? —Vensatry (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned in the source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trade analysts?
Linked

Reception

  • "Upon release, Ugly received widespread critical acclaim" - Are summaries of "critical reception" allowed in WP:ICTF articles? CC: Cyphoidbomb

Box-office

  • that "Ugly was the last release of 2014 in India." has been mentioned earlier

Removed from one instance.

  • "It earned a low occupancy of ₹40 lakh (US$62,000)" - Are we correlating "occupancy" and gross?
Tweaked

General

  • Avoid staccato sentences (there's plenty of such sentences)
Can you be more specific?
  • You use both present and past tenses throughout the article (eg., The film has television actor Abir Goswami's last appearance before his death in 2013. Tejaswini Kolhapure played the role of an alcoholic mother and for its preparation she actually consumed alcohol while shooting. Alia Bhatt makes a brief appearance in the film. The film's album soundtrack is composed by debutant G. V. Prakash Kumar,who had earlier composed songs for Tamil cinema. The album rights of the film were acquired by Zee Music Company and the album consisted of five songs).
Fixed above mentioned. The article reads in present tense now.
  • In references, link all publishers wherever necessary.
Linked at their first instance. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... more to come. —Vensatry (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vensatry per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words." So yeah, they're fine, but they should be attributed to a specific voice. Cherrypicking positive reviews and then summarising that selection is not sufficient. You need someone saying "the response has been largely positive". Editors shouldn't just look at the reviews and say, "Meh, that feels like mostly positive to me." Summaries should also be neutral, i.e. all that "Blockbuster" "super hit" "disaster" "flop" "hit" stuff should be avoided, although I guess those are typically used when describing finances. I'm not a fan of phrasing like "overwhelming positive response", because I find it idiomatic and I don't know who is supposed to be overwhelmed, or if they fainted, or what. Anyway, I'm rambling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

[edit]
Production
  • You might want to add a post-production section as it has no information on the part. There is information from the info-box that needs to be substantiated here: Editors, production houses, runtime.
Done
  • Also bits like "A road accident shown in the film was shot on two different places, on with traffic and one without it; they were later merged with visual effects" could easily go into the section.
Done
Marketing
  • "However, Bombay High Court refused to change the act." - I do not think that the court could have changed the act anyway. maybe something like: "However, Bombay High Court refused to give any concessions". Or so.
Done
  • The second paragraph uses the word released to much in close succession. Maybe try mixing it up a little.
Done
  • "Kashyap said that he saw people reaching out to their children after watching the film which he felt was his purpose behind making the film." - When did he say this? The the special screening? Because otherwise it mages little sense in the marketing section.
He said this after the films release. I don't see any issue with it being in the release section.
  • "The film was also theatrically released in France and Belgium, where it grossed 80,000 euros in its first week." - The latter half of the sentence too does not belong in the section.
Done
  • Unless you want to establish a connection with PK, there's no need to mention it. It does little to help with the flow.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed
General

You might want to use shorter sentences as the long-ish ones are too convoluted and either lose the reader midway or mess up the grammar. Here are some instances:

  • "Later, Kashyap met his friend Amit Pathak, who was the head of Special Task Force in Lucknow, who told him about the real life kidnapping cases and how they were tackled." - one "who" too many.
Rephrased
  • "He found lot of parallels between Rahul Bhat's life and his character in the film and hence was given the role of a failed actor." - The subject of the sentence is Kashyap but by the end is seems that is should be Bhat as he was given the role. It should be like: "He found a lot of parallels between Rahul Bhat's life and his character in the film and hence gave him the role of a failed actor."
Done
  • "To prepare for his role, Bhat started consuming alcohol, left his house and did not sleep for three months to create dark circles around his character's face." - This makes little sense. I am sure he could not have left him home or not have slept for three months.
Rephrased. It's per the sources.
  • "Tejaswini Kolhapure, per Kashyap knew "what happens when you make bad choices in life", as their first film Paanch was never released." - This might need some elaboration because I do not understand most of it.
Tejaswini's wrong "choice", according to Kashyap was, choosing Paanch which was never released. I have done a tiny bit of expansion here.
It's even more confusing now. —Vensatry (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry Have a look again. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph could use some variation up too. The words "cast" and "role" appear in almost every sentence. You might want to move the Kolhapure and Roy to the previous paragraph as the former is already mentioned there (and move Kulkarni here). Also, the two have more in common with Bhat's character as all three are parents to Kali and that could help with a better flow (Add a little on Roy's role too).
Done. Added some info about him in the filming section.
  • "and for its preparation she actually consumed alcohol while shooting." - not sure if preparation is the best word here.
Fixed
  • "During shoot, he would brief the actors before shot about the shot and let them emote and do their own bit, while the camera was rolling." - This is a fairly colloquial sentence.
Tweaked
  • "Kashyap had told Bhat and other cast that he wanted to make this film in 2010." - It was 2012 in the previous section.
Fixed
  • Who is Vaiju Naravane?
He is the author who talked about the 'untouched innocence' bit. Per #7 query of Vensatry.
  • "She was unaware of the story and Kashyap requested her parents not to show her the film as they felt she was too young for the subject matter." - Did the parents think of her as too young or did Kashyap?
Tweaked
  • "For a sequence, where Bhat had to cry, Kashyap started talking to him about his life for three hours and he started crying." - Whose life? And more importantly, why? It might need some elaboration as it makes little sense at the moment.
Mentioned. Kashyap did that because he wanted the scene to be real.
  • "improvised, because, as Kashyap" - as should be just fine.
Done
  • "The circumstances that led to the birth of the little girl Kali, was separately made as a short film titled Kali Katha, and was released in YouTube on 23 December 2014." - The subject of the sentence changes too many times here. You might to form two simpler sentences here.
Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. NumerounovedantTalk 13:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

It's really confusing and vague. Look at instances like:

  • "Later, Bose overhears one of Shalini's conversations, in which she explains how Rahul used to beat her after marriage and she met Bose after the police complaint." - There's barely any explanation. Also, Bore hears her tells someone​how she met him? what?
  • "Rahul calls at his number, when Bose arrives at that place telling him that Chaitanya cannot kidnap her since he knows that he has no money." - Whose number? What place? It makes very little sense.
  • "Chaitanya selects and records one voice of a captive girl pleading to her father from the audition and plays it in Rahul's call, while demanding ransom in his disguised voice." - One voice? captive girl from an audition? what? in Rahul's call?
  • "Later, Shalini goes to Rakhee's house where she tells her to give the money to the kidnappers. Later, Chaitanya is captured by the police and Rahul escapes while buying pistols from a man in a bar." - Why would Rakhee give the money? The latter starts sentence is in chaos too. "Later" appears in quick succession too.
  • "Next day, Rahul retains the gun he had thrown in a lake and robs a Jwellery store, but is arrested by police." - What? Where'd the pistol go? Why did he want one if he and a gun? Why is he robbing a jewelry store? There are giant leaps here. And how can he retain a gun that he threw away?
  • "Bose asks her about the money, but she does not answers and shots him in the shoulder." - Who is she? I remember it being her wife? shoots.

It only gets worse from here. I have begun to question the film's narrative altogether which is not a good sign. NumerounovedantTalk 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerounovedant Is it okay now? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Yash, I do not know how i missed the ping. All my concerns have been addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 07:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: Just to confirm, have all your concerns been addressed? —Vensatry (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Yes sir. VedantTalk 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check against the criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
I feel the article would benefit from a bit of copy-editing. Nevertheless, it meets the standards. —Vensatry (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vensatry for reviewing the article. I will soon put a request at the GOCE. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugly_(film)/GA1&oldid=1137279963"