Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Kom (film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2017 [1].

Mary Kom (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an inspiring film based on the legendary eponymous boxer, who was largely unknown in her own country despite achieving plethora of accolades. Additionally, the film features a remarkable performance by Priyanka Chopra. I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 91 is dead and either needs to be replaced with a new source or recovered through a website archive. Same comment applies to reference 6.
  • I would imagine that the ALT description for the image of the actual Mary Kom would need to be more descriptive than "Mary Kom". Please expand this. You are very good with the other ALT descriptions so just modify this one to match the quality of the others.
  • I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. What do you mean by "first appearance"? Could you please clarify what this sentence means?
  • I would move the "despite her numerous achievements" to the end of the sentence to avoid awkwardly cutting that part of the sentence in two.
  • The phrase "much before" in the lead is awkward and too informal. You can just use "before" or an exact time/time estimate if known.
  • The use of the parenthesis in the last paragraph of the lead is a little awkward. The placement of (Chopra) directly before the word categories is a little odd and I would suggest revising this to avoid this.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who is singing the Indian national anthem at the end of the movie and is it worth identifying?
  • The phrase "woman-oriented biographical subject" sounds a little odd and ambiguous to me as it can read either as looking for a good female subject to make a movie out of and look for a good biographical subject that appeals to a female audience. This might just be me, but it just sounds a little strange to me and I would recommend revising it to make the meaning clearer.
  • In the phrase "he felt disgusted", do you need to clarify that he felt disgusted at himself for not knowing about her? Who was he disgusted towards? Himself? The media for not bringing her more into attention?
  • I would say "first choice" instead of "original choice" as the term "original choice" implies that it didn't work out and someone else had to play the character.
  • I would revise the wording for "choice of actor" since it is so close to the quote "perfect choice" that it is a little bit too repetitive in such a close proximity.
  • In the sentence about Danny Denzongpa, do you know who was doing the reports about him being a part of the film? If you specified who was doing the reporting, it would not only avoid the passive sentence construction from "It was reported", but also give a clearer idea to the reader on what is occurring.
  • The last sentence in the "Pre-production" subsection needs a citation.
  • Any information on the commercial performance of the soundtrack?
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the reference titles (i.e. reference 98).

@Krish!: This is a very strong article. Great work with it. Once my comments are resolved, then I will support this nomination. I am not familiar with anything about this film or Indian films in general and I have never actually ever seen anything with Priyanka Chopra so I apologize if I miss anything. Good luck with this and hopefully, this review gets more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for your kind words and I have worked really hard on this. It was supposed to be my first solo FAC but I ended up nominating another one which was successful. I really liked this film and saw over 10 times in theatre alone particularly because of Chopra and the inspiring story. It might not be a great film, thanks to its weak and manipulative direction, but is certainly entertaining and inspiring thanks to Chopra's spectacular performance.Krish | Talk 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krish!: Awesome! I am glad that you enjoyed it. An actor's performance can definitely elevate a film. I can definitely support this nomination and good luck with getting this passed. I was wondering if you could possibly provide some comments for my FAC as well? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Great with work with article and hopefully it will receive more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
  • The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • In a 2012 meeting with Sanjay Leela Bhansali, on being asked by Bhansali about his plans, Kumar told him about the film, explaining that this was not "his kind of cinema", given Bhansali's signature work. -- Bhansali repeats thrice in the sentence which needs to be rewritten for a simpler read. Also, why introduce the person again when the very first sentence does that job with a wikilink too?
  • Priyanka Chopra was Omung Kumar's and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's first choice for the title role -- Again, why introduce the makers again?
  • Later in that month, it was confirmed that she had been cast for the part. -- Who confirmed this? the makers or the actress' spokesperson? Please mention it.
  • In an interview with Daily News and Analysis, Mary Kom said "I don't think anybody could have done it as well as Priyanka. She is the best actress to play me. Acting anybody can do, but boxing will be different as one needs a certain type of body structure. She suits that. Her body is very structured, like that of a boxer." -- Please paraphrase this quote. It is a WP:QUOTEFARM issue that needs to be addressed.

More later in the day. Pavanjandhyala 04:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see any actual reason for existence of the infobox in the soundtrack section. Can't we mention the label and release date directly in the paragraphs with reliable sources?
  • The film made profits of ₹50 million (US$740,000) before the release. -- No other figure in the entire paragraph was given a conversion. Why this?
  • Subhash K. Jha's review is another issue of WP:QUOTEFARM. Please look into it.
  • Ensure that every link here is white.

I don't have any other concerns beyond this. Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. And, I don't know about the infobox but most of the FAs happens to have this. Coming to your quotefarm complain, its the only two line quote in the whole article and nobody even said a word about it during the PR review. I think its fine considering its the only line in that review that gives a proper summary of what the reviewer wanted to say. And, yes, I would be archiving all the sources on Thursday as I have a test tomorrow.Krish | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about that. Let me know once the job is done. Pavanjandhyala 16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash

I'll try and make prose improvements wherever possible. As for my comments, lets begin with the lede section...

  • The film title in the intro section needs to be boldened and italicised.
  • I don't think you have to say "biographical sports drama film". It will cause genre overload. Just the first two genres are enough.
  • Try reducing usage of the word "film" as much as possible.
  • This section complies with WP:LEADCITE, and that's not a concern.

Plot

  • I say the actor names are best removed from this section if you want to keep them linked in "Production" to avoid violating WP:OVERLINK. Also, please try to stay in-universe as much as possible.

Cast

  • Please see that it complies with WP:FILMCAST. All characters must be sourced. But if they are sourced elsewhere apart from this section, you don't have to add sources here.

Production

  • Please see that unnecessary rumours are avoided to comply with WP:RUMOUR.
  • However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. However, she was enthusiastic about the idea - "However" has come twice, and I'm not sure it satisfies WP:NPOV.

Final comments

  • Life's too short for someone like me to go through each source to see that all content is written as per. I'm sure the admins will do a better job. You may want to combat link rotting (Archive.is is best advised for sites like The Times of India and CNN-News18, formerly CNN-IBN). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm fine with the prose, I see quite a few links have issues. Once they are fixed, this will have my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good work Krish. Hope this passes FAC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vedant

Will put up comments after taking a good look at this, can be a couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Early observations :[reply]

Lede
  • "The film Priyanka Chopra in the lead role of the eponymous boxer, with Darshan Kumar and Sunil Thapa in supporting roles" - notice anything?
  • I don't think that the last sentence of the first paragraph belongs there.
  • "where only the boxing sequences were filmed continuously for twenty days" - reads awkwardly to me, how about : "where the boxing sequences were filmed in a single schedule."
  • "distinct boxing styles" - style
  • Why don't we take a step back and actually try and read what's written? I meant that you need to replace "styles" with "style". Rest assured, everyone here in pretty darn serious, so let's just drop the silly questions and make better use of our words. NumerounovedantTalk 17:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was released on 5 September 2014 to generally positive reviews" - "It" can be used to avoid repetition of the weird "film".
Plot
  • "After realising Narjit Singh (Sunil Thapa), coach of the gym, and of the Asian champion Dingko Singh, Kom tells him about her boxing aspirations." - what is this supposed to mean?
  • "Due to Kom's dedication and stubbornness, Singh starts training her, suggesting she change her name to Mary Kom." - These should be two separate sentences.
  • "state level championship" - hyphenate
  • "After winning the state level championship, her father confronts her for keeping about her involvement in the sport from him." - you will need to rephrase here as well.
  • "boxing:" - not sure if this should be a colon.
  • "Kom has to fight a wrestler to arrange money to get her household cow back, which is where she meets the footballer Onler Kom." - Doesn't this happen way before the events mentioned prior to the same.
  • "Onler encourages her to revive her boxing training." - revive?
  • "She later writes an apology letter, and the official accepts it, not without insulting her." - you might want to rephrase using "though".
  • "Kom then asks Coach Singh to train her" - Be sure that you are consistent in your manner of referring to the character, earlier the section refers to his as Singh.
  • "gruelling activities" - vague and ambiguous, not the best choice of words.
  • "On the podium while accepting the medal, she learns that her son's surgery was successful and she is given the nickname "Magnificent Mary"." - Again, separate sentences. Two distinct facts should always be two different sentences, to avoid making them sound related somehow.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 10:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production
  • "Kumar went to Manipur to meet Kom and to seek her permission to make the film. However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. Nevertheless, she was enthusiastic about the idea." - not sure if "However" and "Nevertheless" are the best choice of words here.
  • "Research for the film was done through sources," - that is really vague, unless you mention what sources or substitute the comma.
  • "In her interactions with Quadras and Kumar, Kom was honest and forthcoming" - this really isn't very encyclopedia-like phrasing, it sounds mostly approving of her, which is totally unnecessary.
  • "However, Quadras's main challenge was to make the film authentic and cinematic," - I am not sure of what the statement means, even with the long lengthy explanation that follows. You'll have to rephrase and be more precise about he "challenges".
  • The explanation too is colloquial in itself. Rephrase.
  • "The fifth World Boxing Championship" - what about the 4th?
There is no mention of her 2005 win in the article, at least up untill where I have read, which tends to lead the reader to believe in just three WC wins. Let me know if I am missing something here. NumerounovedantTalk 07:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a contract that permitted to depict Kom's life up to 2008" - "a contract"? Were there more than one? If not rephrase using "the".
  • "The contract for the film was signed at that time when Kom was not even qualified for the London Olympics." - was not even qualifies is wrong grammatically.
  • "Still, he wanted to hear the story and was also enthusiastic towards the project." Replace he with Bhansali.
  • "Her win also brought the recognition of her previous achievements." - "Her win also highlighted her previous achievements."
  • Split the last sentence of the paragraph.
  • "which the actress denied initially." - the actress sounds really informal and tabloid-like.
  • "Samir Jaura, who previously trained Farhan Akhtar for Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was brought to train Chopra." - "brought in".
  • "Chopra, at that time, was busy with her other works" - really weak wording.
  • "She started training in April 2013 to develop body like a boxer." - "Chopra started training in April 2013 to develop body like a boxer." The last female reference is of Kom. Consequently the next "Chopra" becomes "She".
  • "Chopra got a fifteen days break" - "fifteen day break".
  • No need for "continuously" here.
  • "She was particularly trained by Kom's" - particularly trained by? I am not sure of the phrasing.
  • "channeled the grief.
  • The paragraph overuses "Chopra" in parts.
  • "Unlike Chopra, Kumar did not met Onler Kom before the film, working mainly from videos provided by Kom to the makers, and helping the actor to understand the nuances of his character." - Rephrase.

This is turning into a really taxing review. It was much harder than I though it would be, and honestly I am surprised to see the quick supports for it. Will go section-wise from here on. NumerounovedantTalk 20:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, on a closer look I am inclined to giving a Strong Opposeconsidering the number of errors I have found from just a single section. I went to read on and things are pretty much the same. I feel that thus discussion should be closed as the article needs a lot work. NumerounovedantTalk 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: You know what, I am not even surprised that you said this. FYI, the article was copy-edited by GOCE, went through a Peer review by some of the notable editors including Giansts2008. No one said a word but suddenly you came and challenged my article. You have always been critical to my work, finding flaws when there aren't. What you have listed above is your POV of how you want the sentences to be in the article. Still, I will try to resolve everything but I guess some people have this habit to be over-critical, which is a good thing. Nevermind, I also did the same when I was new here.Krish | Talk 04:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, in that case we should wait for an a third-person intervention which can decide if my concerns are legitimate or not. I am not going to proceed further (but will uphold my Oppose here, as i still find the prose to be really weak throughout the article), to avoid creating drama where there is none. I don't want rain for either of us. As far as the being critical of your work claim goes, I have done nothing to deserve that, I have offered source reviews, comments, and suggestions on your request every single time. I been nothing but nice to you, and haven't really been asking for the favour to be returned. That aside, you might want to look for a third party opinion on my comments here. I might review the Reception section in a short while, till then you may ask for another reviewer's opinion. NumerounovedantTalk 07:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the intrusion, but I have to agree with Numerounovedant's comments as I find that are pointing out areas that require improvement. I would advise you to not take these comments personally, but view them as ways in which you can grow and improve on here. Numerounovedant took a lot of time and effort to put all of these comments up so I would imagine that they are just trying to help to make this article the best it could possibly be in order to reach the FAC standards. I know it can be hard to react to criticism (I also receive some very helpful criticism on my FAC that made me feel a little awkward as well), but it is important to learn to take it and grow from it rather than reacting negatively. That's just my two cents for this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aoba47 for being the buffer here. So, I feel that I instead of offering comments on every single issue I would​ rather perform a minor copy-edit and we can proceed from there. Alright Krish? NumerounovedantTalk 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, feel free to work around them. I have not been through the Soundtrack and Reception sections, but most of my early concerns have been addressed. I believe it's nearing the FA standard, but still could use some copy-editing and proofreading. That's it for me. Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!: I would really appreciate your comments on Waiting's FAC. NumerounovedantTalk 07:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As stated above, I left comments at the article's peer review. I finally had an opportunity to return to the article today and found some prose issues that I don't remember from the last time I looked at it. Perhaps subsequent edits added the glitches, or I could have missed a few things earlier. Either way, I made copy-edits where I deemed them necessary (please go ahead and change back any you don't like). The articles appears comprehensive for the subject matter, and I'm satisfied that it meets FA standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
  • "a female sportsperson who had to confront opposition from her father, politics and making a comeback after a long career break." — You can just say "career break" as 2006 to 2008 doesn't seem too long.
@Krish!: Fair enough.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fifth World Boxing Championship and the London Olympics were left out because of the contract that permitted a depiction of Kom's life up to 2008." — The world boxing championship is included in the film isn't it? This sentence contradicts the plot. Do clarify about this.
  • "For Kom's wedding sequence in the film, the designer created an exact replica of the wedding gown that she wore for her wedding." — Repetition of "wedding". This can be rephrased as "For Kom's wedding sequence in the film, the designer (if it is Tangri, just say his last name here) created an exact replica of the gown that she wore."
  • "Later, Uday Shirali, Chopra's makeup artist since Agneepath (2012), was hired." — What happened to Garbarino?
@Krish!: In that case, you can say he was replaced with another guy.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ssven2: "Hollywood-based makeup artist Mark Garbarino was selected to work on Chopra's makeup. At first, they wanted her to look exactly like Kom by using prosthetic makeup.[34] Chopra did a prosthetic test in the United States which included heavier eyelids for a more East-Asian look. However, the final result did not appeal to the makers. Also, the prosthetic would not hold during filming of the heavy-action boxing scenes.[34] It was later reported that Chopra's look would be created post production by using Visual effects.[34] However, the results were unsatisfactory and hence, this idea was also dropped." I don't think anything needs to be changed. It says the final results did not appeal to the makers.Krish | Talk 13:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to find a better source for BO other than Koimoi. Haven't you found the one for BOI or from IBTimes?
  • Jha's review borders on WP:QUOTEFARM. Try to describe it more or at least trim the review.

@Krish!: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ssven2: Well Box Office India's gross reports are contradicting. In one source, it said it grossed 94 crores but the film's BIO data says 86 crores. So, I chose the Koimoi source. Plus, The another Box Office India, the magazine, which is more reputed reported the gross to be over 100 crores. Coming to that quote, I think I had answered someone above that why its neccessary. It have used it because that is the only quote in the review which describes the film, rest praises Chopra. And, its only two small sentence quote in the article. I hope you are okay with itKrish | Talk 08:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!: Ok, maybe you can use this instead of Koimoi.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krish!: You have my support. Good luck with the FAC.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- quite a lot to wade through here, if we haven't had a formal source review for reliability/formatting then pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Syek88

[edit]

I am sorry to drop in late but I am convinced that Numerounovedant is correct in saying that this article is not ready for Featured Article status. There are simply too many prose deficiencies. This is a selection from just one section of the article: "Plot".

  • "The film opens with a pregnant Mangte Chungeijang Kom (Priyanka Chopra), heading towards the hospital with her husband Onler Kom (Darshan Kumaar)." What is the significance of her being pregnant? Or is she in labour? Also, by what means are they "heading towards the hospital". The reader assumes that it is by motor vehicle, but the next sentence suggests otherwise.
  • "Onler is mistaken for an insurgent and beaten when he tries to find a vehicle despite a curfew." - Some context is needed for the "insurgent" and "curfew". Why is there a curfew and why would Onler be mistaken for an insurgent? This sentence suggests that the film has a political backdrop, perhaps concerning events in Manipur, which the article does not explain.
  • "Kom has to fight a wrestler to arrange money to get her household cow back, which is where she meets the footballer Onler Kom." This sentence makes very little sense in any respect.
  • "After watching her victorious 2002 Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships match on television, Kom reconciles with her father, who apologises to her for not understanding her passion for the sport." - The subject of this sentence is the father, not Kom, so it should be "her father reconciles..."
  • "Kom then asks Narjit Singh to train her, as she thinks that he is the one who can get the best out of her, which the coach accepts." - "and the coach agrees" would be more grammatical.
  • "Meanwhile, Onler Kom informs her about one of her children having ventricular septal defect." - Previously he has just been "Onler", which has worked fine.
  • "She regains her strength and fights back, winning the 2008 Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships." - we've already been told what the name of the Championships is, so "winning the tournament" would suffice.

Scanning through later parts of the article there are grammatical errors ("neither of the films were [was] made."), PR language ("generating a positive buzz") and misplaced commas that often change the meaning of a sentence unintentionally ("Filming for the boxing scenes was difficult for Chopra as she got hurt several times saying,..." - suggests she got hurt while saying something).

  • Fixed (were not that many you claimed). By "generating a positive buzz", I meant to show that the the film was marketed on the basis of the trailers. Indian films don't employ viral marketings and other stuffs. So its iimportant to show that the film opened well becoz of the buzz.Krish | Talk 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it clear that I am using a selection from the article as the basis for my comments. I take the view that if there is a certain rate of error in one section of the article, that rate will be extrapolated to the remainder, making it unnecessary for me to review the whole thing.

All I think it needs, probably in advance of a future Featured Article nomination, is an experienced and independent editor to spend a few hours going through the article sentence by sentence. Syek88 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Syek88: I wish I had answers to your questions. LOL. If the film opens that way then tell me if its my problem? Do you want me explain a political backdrop which is not even present in the film? So should I add the 9/11 bombing or 26/11 attacks? Still I will try to resolve your comments.Krish | Talk 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed most of the problems. Thank you for your review. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 13:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the intrusion, but I couldn't help but sense the hostility from Krish here. It's really disappointing to see your reaction to legitimate criticism, I mean I get sarcasm and trying to be funny, but this is a little over the line and should not be entertained. Syek88 has offered comments that I believe would concern a reader who's unfamiliar with the film. Having seen it multiple times, I (and probably some other reviewers) might have overlooked it because we know the "context" to most of the things. That said, I agree that the lack of context on the insurgency is the director's fault (not your own). Other than that I think you should address Syek88's comments with less sarcasm hostility. Let's remember that we're all here for the same reasons, Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 04:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been drawn back here by a pushy note on my User Talk page. Whatever copy-editing has taken place on the article it is clearly not enough. Setting myself a time limit of 10 minutes, I scanned the article and noticed the following further examples of sentences with grammatical errors or poor syntax:
  • The first teaser was released on Chopra's birthday, 18 July, which showed the actor as Kom, getting ready for her boxing match with the tagline "Most Champions Make Their Name. She Made History".
  • However, neither of the films were made. - I even highlighted this one above
  • For the role, Kumar lost 12 kilogram, and followed a strict, grilled chicken and oil-free fish protein diet for three months.
  • Before filming, Chopra had to re-train herself all over again to build muscles.
  • Cinematographer Keiko Nakahara used a hand-held camera during the shooting of the film, which was shot in 57 days over the course of two years.
  • Inconsistent spelling of Dharamsala/Dharamshala.

I am even more firmly of the view that the article needs substantial work away from the FAC process. Syek88 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Syek88: Fixed all of these. I am sorry but I had informed you about resolving your comments like a week ago and you didn't even care to come back and look at them. And, now you are questioning everything? This is funny considering a lot of these reviewers didn't found these mistakes. Yours is a problem of Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT. Plus these changes you had listed here yesterday, were done by FrB.TG (on your demand). Saying to close the FAC, just because YOU DON'T LIKE IT is ridiculous. I am sorry but It takes a lot of work (taking out hours from your college life) to write these articles, Indian films, and that is why not many editors are willing to take these up because of editors like you, who discourage them. Why don't you give the article a copy edit if you think certain things are wrong with it? I want Ian Rose to look at this case. I am tired.Krish | Talk 05:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • The budget ref says 150-180 million, the BO collection ref says 180. You'll​need to change accordingly.
  • What makes WonderWoman.ib, Business of Cinema reliable?
  • You can wiki-link Notch Magazine, Indo-Asian News Service, Yahoo, India-West, The Financial Express, Firstpost, The Telegraph, Sify (only) at the first instance in the section.
  • Ref. 42 is missing publisher
  • Ref. 46 - formatting issue
  • Koimoi should not be used as it's reliability is in question.
  • Should International Business Times be International Business Times India?
  • Dolby should be Dolby Laboratories and wiki-linked.

Rest looks fine, good job. NumerounovedantTalk 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this would better substantiate the opening line of the Critical reception section. NumerounovedantTalk 13:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly about it. Anyone more familiar with referencing can always cross-check the comments though. NumerounovedantTalk 04:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been through everything else. NumerounovedantTalk 12:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a reviewer opposed the nomination, the nominator asked me to take a look at the prose for grammar. I have given it some copy-edits, but please review my changes and let me know if I have actually improved the prose or messed anything up. These are my edits. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over two months now, and I'm afraid I don't quite see a consensus to promote. There is support from Aoba47, Pavanjandhyala, Yashthepunisher, Kailash and Giants2008, and there is substantial commentary there. However, Syek88 has made a reasoned oppose and indicated that the article needs more work. Additionally, Numerounovedant, although not opposing, found several issues and expressed reservations. This is a difficult one, to be honest and it could have gone either way. What might have helped a little is if the earlier reviews had addressed the FA criteria in a little more depth. I took a quick glance myself at the prose and found one or two other little glitches. Therefore, I am going to archive this nomination. I recommend that the nominator asks someone to look at the prose, possibly one of the FAC regulars, before renominating. However, given that I am archiving after quite a lot of support, I would be prepared to allow an earlier renomination if the nominator can work with Syek88 and the latter is happy that the prose meets FA standards. If this is not possible, or neither editor wishes to do so, the article can be freely renominated after the usual 2 week wait. Sorry that this has not been successful after such a long wait and hopefully the second nomination will be more successful. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mary_Kom_(film)/archive1&oldid=1136096600"