Rang De Basanti has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 11, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 1, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Not approved May 13, 2009 WikiProject A-class review Approved
Current status: Good article

This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Cinema Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as High-importance). Film: Indian This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force. This article has an archived A-Class review.

Can someone add the tagline 'a generation awakens' to the Infobox. I tried but wasnt too successful.Sbohra 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is simply awesome. The best in recent Indian cinema. Highly recommended for everyone, especially youngsters. Rohitbd 13:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree, except "youngsters" should mean "teenagers" (it's reeeeally bloody). Brutannica 07:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the synopsis is good and doesn't violate any copyrights of reviewing web-sites it still reveals the full plot. Should it be shortened so that it only highlights the salient features while keeping the plot hidden...? Rohitbd 09:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who tagged it with copyvio because the synopsis seemed to be taken directly from another website. IMO revealing the plot in summary form doesn't make it a copyvio (wikipedia is full of articles which do that) so the amount of plot to reveal is an editorial decision. In this case I think knowledge of how the film ends is pretty essential to understanding the whole work. Kappa 10:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had changed the synopsis after seeing the copyvio tag. But now, I hope that it's not a copyright infringement to write about the movie's plot in an article. Rohitbd 12:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of completely rewriting the article, shortening the synopsis and leaving out the details of the ending. No, I haven't seen the movie <g> However, it's been discussed so thoroughly on Rediff, Sepia Mutiny, and Usenet that I feel as if I've seen it.

I think there's enough of the ending left to let readers decide whether or not they want to see the movie, without completely spoiling it. Zora 12:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.Now the synopsis is quite ok.Giving away the ending is not good for a recently released film!I did not get anywhere else that the film has made 22 crore in 1st week - as mentioned in the trivia section.Rather, the advertisement of the film tells that it has made something around 33 crores.Any source?--Dwaipayanc 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't supply the numbers, someone else did. If anyone here has time to look up the numbers, and post the correct ones, that would be great. Zora 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That number was an older estimate...as per this site http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/hindi/article/20208.html it is 34.55 crores. I have updated the same in the article. Rohitbd 14:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Daljeet or Diljeet? I had mentioned it as Daljeet, then someone modified it to Diljeet and now it has again been changed to Daljeet by a user with IP 196.15.16.20. Rohitbd 12:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two big problems with the reverts. Dwai started to format them... but there were still useless line breaks... but that's not the real problem. I don't see where the text was going exactly and it wasn't sourced. A political telling of the story needs to have a strong source or it should be removed. Please add a notable source before adding the material... if there is a notable source then it should clear everything up. gren グレン 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with adding quotes from reviews, to bring in the controversy the film has aroused. That might satisfy everyone. Zora 07:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actor who played "Mackenzie", the grandfather of Sue is apparently uncredited. It happens that critics have praised his rather brief appearences. Could anyone do some research and get his name.

I keep noticing that someone writes in the Trivia section,"There is an appearance by Indian Rapper Abhinav Batra,better known as Abs-t",when there is no such person ever being known in India.

I saw the movie and it was ok; however, the lady who says Gen Dyer was shot to death by some random revolutionary type person after the Jalianwallah Bague incident is bloody wrong: he died after a series of strokes in bristol in the late twenties. Someone ought to mention this there.

If an error in fact, continuity, etc. is mentioned by critics, in an article to which we can link, seems fair enough to include it. But I don't think that it's a good idea for just any editor to add items noting errors in the film. That would probably be considered original research, and might incidentally lead to fights with people who don't think it's an error. We're developing this sort of policy re plagiarism claims: if a critic mentions it, or there are threats of lawsuits, we can put it in the list at Bollywood and plagiarism. If we don't have that requirement, anybody and everybody will be making charges. Zora 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, the claim by the unsigned editor is true. Major-General Reginald "Rex" Edward Harry Dyer, "The Butcher of Amritsar " died of arteriosclerosis and a series of strokes at Long Ashton, near Bristol, on July 23, 1927. Whereas Michael O'Dwyer was murdered by Udham Singh in 1940. Its a common mistake, and even RDB has this mistake. IMO, this can be written in the article, may be in the trivia. Its not a good candidate for Bollywood and plagiarism. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following:

In India, the color yellow represents sacrifice. When someone says, Main rang de basanti, ("paint me yellow") it means that person is ready to be sacrificed for a great cause. Yellow is also a predominant color in the movie.

First off, does basanti mean yellow or saffron? As far as I know, basanti is the colour of the marigold flower - the mature flower has a saffron colour. The word in Hindi also means saffron, so where did the idea that basanti means yellow originate from?

Secondly, who coined the English name to be "Paint it yellow"? AFAIK, this name is not officially endorsed anywhere. The BBC review page shows the English name as "Paint it Saffron" [1]. Even the word Basanti in the movie's banner appears in the Saffron colour.

Yellow and Saffron are two different colours (but they are related), not to be confused with each other - saffron is more orangeish than yellow - though it is a shade of yellow.

Rohitbd 09:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus,whatever the BBC may say,isn't it understood that Rang De Basanti actually means "Paint ME Saffron",rather than Paint IT Saffron?I'm considering removing the BBC reference and correcting the translation.

Deepak (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate your concerns here, but there cannot be your points of view in Wikipedia. Since BBC is an established reference plus many other sources have constantly addressed the English version as Paint it Saffron, I think it is in the article's best interests to retain the one which is best sourced. Mspraveen (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True,but doesn't local knowledge trump a foreign publication's crippled translation?EaswarH (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that local knowledge can be correct 9/10 times, but here on Wikipedia - we go by reliable sources. If you can bring out a reliable source here, then we can talk further on this. I hope this helps. Mspraveen (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with WikiProject Indian Cinema's policies regarding synopsis, but I don't find it very encyclopedic to leave out large chunks of the plot simply to keep from revealing it to those who haven't yet seen the film. Spoiler warnings exist for a reason, and the "synopsis," as it currently stands, is simply incomplete. It is merely a back-of-the-DVD-box overview of the plot; this is not in line with Wikipedia style. vedantm 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that Wikipedia style dictates giving the *complete* plot. Can you quote any guidelines? Myself, I'm a strong advocate of giving enough information to let the reader know whether or not he/she wants to watch the movie, without spoiling the ending. If we describe the ending, it should be in general enough terms that the film is still watchable.

If the film were to completely disappear, it would be useful information for the ages to know the plot' however, this film is still easily available. If the film has been out for ten years, everyone probably knows the plot already, so there's no harm in mentioning it. But if the film is JUST OUT, let's be kind to our users.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Exercise all your eloquence, Vedantm :) Zora 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel like signing in (as Khirad) so I'll just do this quickly. The Urdu should be رنگ دے بسنتى .
69.244.37.79 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many people had worked over the synopsis that it was disjointed, ungrammatical, and nonsense in places. I rewrote it for style and clarity.

I also removed the milk ad -- if we're not allowing actor articles to include advertising, I don't think a film article should either. I also removed all the casting rumors. None of them are referenced. They're all film column gossip and might be complete fabrication. I'll bring this up at the main cinema discussion.

Someone published an article about the life cycle of a Wikipedia article that was unfortunately too true: it starts out sketchy, is rapidly improved and then cycles through repeated changes that turn it into disjointed mush unless someone bothers to rewrite it. Zora 08:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the article under the Trivia section that the character Sukhi played by Sharman Joshi is a Parsi. However his accent in the film is like that of a person from the Haryana state in India and as far as I know there are no Parsis in Haryana. Besides I didn't notice anything at all indicating his religion in the film. Since Sukhi sounds like a short form of the name Sukhwinder which is a Haryanvi/Punjabi name, the portion in the article calling Sukhi a Parsi is without any basis at all.

I think if the point was to show the diversity amongst the four friends then some other parameter can be chosen to indicate it. For eg. DJ has a pronounced Punjabi accent, Sukhi a pronounced Haryanvi accent, Aslam is Muslim and Siddhartha from a rich background. What I mean to say is there's plenty of social, regional as well as religious diversity amongst the friends. So just mentioning their religion seems odd to me. Hence I've deleted that line.

I marked most of the trivia as needing references, and then looked at the main body of the article. Parts of it need references too. Help would be appreciated. Zora 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Trivia seem to have been picked up from IMDB ? Is IMDB a reliable source, and will this be considered a fair use ? Abecedare 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added to the article; I think it's much much more appropriate here than there. Studerby 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Toward the end of the film, Amir Khan kisses the British actress full on the lips. Given the controversy surrounding Richard Gere kissing Shilpa Shetty at an award ceremony in India, wouldn't this scene be controversial? I haven't heard anything about it. Perhaps because it wasn't an Indian actress Khan kisses? --Malia3000 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malia3000, Kissing scenes in MOVIES don't create controversies in India. Yes sometimes there minor/major buzz about these scenes, but not controversies. Nadesai 07:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um dude, the reason Richard Gere kissing Shilpa Shetty was controversial was because they were there for an AIDS foundation and all...and plus the whole kissing in the movie thing was planned...Gere kissing Shetty wasn't, he was just being a horny white guy, so no Amir kissing the British actress full out wouldn't be controversial at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.166.85 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what dance troop was it in the seen with the men in brite colores? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.107.186.220 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to make a GA review right now, but the article needs copyediting, and here are the comments:

In lead

• "amidst controversies" - seems redundant. The very first paragraph should introduce the topic. Meaning, when, where, directed by, starring, and results like success etc.
• Unnecessary use of "the" -
  • "...Kiron Kher and Anupam Kher in the supporting roles.
  • "...the movie was well-received by the critics and audiences.
• The second paragraph is extremely long. A short description of the story would suffice.
• "Besides these, the film won the Best Movie award among other technical awards at the 2007 Filmfare Awards. Furthermore, it won several more awards at the other Bollywood award ceremonies." - bad. What about "The film won several awards for Best Movie in major award ceremonies in India, including the 2007 Filmfare Awards..." ?
• Please mention its nett gross in the lead.

Other parts

• A quick glance at the release section.
  • Third paragraph, "Not surprisingly" - why?
  • Fourth paragraph starts with "Only" - why? Please beware of using such words.
  • "It also won the prestigious 2007 International Indian Film Academy awards" - remove redundant word, and quite surprising that IIFA is described as pretigious and Filmfare isn't.

Reception

• "it noted sadly that 'the message..." - sadly?
• "the review said that the film will do good business" -> would do good business.
• There's a punctuation before and after ref no 68; also one follows ref 72.

Debatable sources

• Apunkachoice.com
• Indiaglitz.com

Further later, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments

Firstly, thanks for taking out time in providing your observations! Now, most of your observations have been checked and suitably implemented. However, in occasions where I felt otherwise, here are the details:

I checked the lead section guidelines and I felt that I was sticking to it overall.

"Not surprisingly" in the Release section was used because as predicted by The Hindu, the box-office results showed that the film did exceptionally well in metros.

The debatable sources are used in 3/74 references. Unless the text cited from these sources is debatable, I feel that they can be retained.

I believe that rest of these have been addressed according to the observations. Thanks once again! Mspraveen (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm also going always according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and this very link you provided says: "the first paragraph of the lead section should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country, stars, and director (and possibly writer, if significant)." - so I think "amidst controversies" - is redundant, and in addition to that, vague and unclear, because there is no mention of a particular controversy. You also don't provide explanations of what kind pf controversies you are talking about. That would be an important point if I was to review it for GA.

"Not surprisingly" seems a bit POV, because we are not allowed to make our own conclusions, and it has a bit of WP:OR (though it's not a big deal for itself, and I wouldn't fail a GA because of this :) )

The rest is fine by me. Great job! Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the lead section has been revamped altogether keeping in mind the exact guidelines of WP:Films. I might have overlooked a bit, but this conforms to most of what is mentioned there. Removed instances of POV/OR that might appear and did some copyedits too. I hope this is presentable as a GA. Lets see. Thanks once again for your candid comments. Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

I said I would review this article but I now think it's best if I don't. Still, here are some comments:

• Is there a rationale on why this article is named Rang De Basanti and not Paint it Yellow like Wikipedia's naming conventions suggests?
• The caption under the poster on the infobox should describe the type of image used, not the film's tagline.

In the lead section:

• The first paragraph's last sentence should be merged with the second paragraph so as to describe the film's subject more consistently on one paragraph.
• The sentence before last should be merged with the last paragraph on the section so as to have everything regarding reception on one paragraph.
• "requests a group of youngsters that are nonchalant about the state of affairs in their country to enact in her film", strange word choice why not just "requests a group of politically indifferent youngsters.." or just change nonchalant for indifferent?

Characters section:

• The whole thing has to go, everything on it is original research that depends on the reader's point of view.

-Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to note that you will be discontinuing with the article review. However, I express my appreciation to you for taking out time in fine-tuning with your edits and comments here. Here is my reply.

• The rationale for using the name Rang De Basanti instead of Paint it Yellow is because of the approximately 20x increase in the likelihood of the title being listed in external search engines.
• Addressed the other comments viz., caption changed appropriately, lead section modified accordingly and original research removed from cast section.

Thanks again for your comments. I hope these would help the new reviewer better. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment

I believe it's my last comment before making a GA review. Does the article cover a majority view in the "Reception" section? Does the section constitute a representative coverage of the film reception?

I wonder, why are leading newspapers/websites missing here? Weren't there reviews at The Times of India, IndiaFM, The Hindu, New York Times etc.? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed at GAN for a while, so I would like to help. At its current state, I do not think the prose is well written enough to pass the first criteria. Would the main contributors protest my doing a copy-edit? It would be time consuming for both the contributors and a potential reviewer in which nearly every line of the article is listed in bullet format with various suggestions on how to fix them. I think the article is an interesting one, and can definitely make it to GA status with a little work from a competent copy-editor. Get back to me and let me know. María (habla conmigo) 13:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

We have some work to do with the prose. Otherwise, the necessary changes to bring this to GA-status are fairly minor. I have listed some suggestions for improving the article below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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:

Prose

1. In general, the article uses the word said too much. While fixing this issue, please be careful to avoid potentially problematic synonyms of said.
2. The lead: "The film tells the story of a group of youngsters who become determined to change the way things work"--too vague
3. The lead: "How her documentary and surrounding events transform these youngsters into a group of passion-driven individuals forms the rest of the story." -- awkward
4. Synopsis:"As these young men learn more about the history of the independence movement during filmmaking, they lose their cynicism and start to consider what they can contribute to society."--confusing. What can they contribute?
5. Synopsis:"They investigate and learn that the crash was due to a corrupt defence minister (Mohan Agashe) who had, through Rajnath Singhania (Anupam Kher), Karan's father, signed a contract exchanging cheap and illegal MiG 21 aircraft spare parts for a personal favor."--how, exactly, did Karan's father cause the crash?
6. Production:"As a result, while his plans of making a film on freedom fighters were dropped, another one cropped up"--cropped up is a bit unencyclopedic.
7. Production:Three sentences in a row start with "He."
8. Production:"Subsequently, he decided to produce the film along with another producer. This producer, according to him, did not spend anything on the film, and with only two months away from the onset of the filming schedule, all looked hazy for Mehra."--who is the producer? hazy seems coloquial. maybe pitch these two sentences?
9. In general, "Mehra said" seems to be too common in the casting and production sections.
10. "She was convinced about the film and said that it was a path-breaking, cult film."--convinced about what?
11. Filming: "Since the film's story was based on the graduated students from Delhi University, who refuse to evolve from the comfort of their alma mater."--what?
12. Filming: "However, instead of filming at the actual locations, other locations were picked for the purpose"--actual locations?
13. Filming: The bit about the possible romantic link seems out of place. It probably could be pitched.
14. Filming: "Coming to the technical department, Lovleen Bains and Arjun Bhasin were the key people in designing the look of the film"--poor transition
15. Filming: "Coming to the special effects in the film, which was handled by Tata Elxsi's Visual Computing Labs, it so happened that the military plane it created for film was so realistic that the Indian Air Force called to check the producer's permission."--again, poor transition.
16. Music: "However, change in producers and other factors resulted in her not being there on it."--awkward
17. Release: "After expectations from the media, the movie premiered around the world on January 26, 2006"--what kind of expectations?
18. Release: "The film, which was scheduled to release two weeks ago, faced ire from several organizations because of certain controversial scenes."--two weeks ago?
19. Release: "Due to scenes of a MIG-21 airplane being shown in the film, the Indian Defence Ministry raised concerns and this prompted the Indian censor board to require the filmmakers to seek clearance from the ministry."--article is unclear as to why the MiG scenes are controversial.
20. Release: "One Indian Air Force official said about the film, which was made without the armed forces' support, that it was "not a review, but a preview"--context?
21. Release: "After this clearance, another hurdle was in the form of the Animal Welfare Board that raised objections on the use of animals in the film"--awkward
22. Release: "Though the filmmakers had obtained no objection certificate from this board, Maneka Gandhi, a well-known animal rights activist and member of the welfare board, found flaws in this certificate"--awkward. also, how can Gandhi find flaws in a certificate that the filmmakers did not receive?
23. Release: "However, after their recommendation to delete a 20 second scene that depicted a banned horse race, the filmmakers chose to abide by this"--abide by what?
24. Release: "With $27 million alone coming from the Indian territory, the film earned $30 million worldwide."--shouldn't these be measured in rupees?
25. Reception: "Praising the film for its performances and the cinematography (of Binod Pradhan), the review said that the film would do good business in multiplexes alone"--poor grammar. also, what does this mean?
26. Reception: "Rediff.com, while appreciating the music, cinematography, dialogues and art direction, said that films like this can easily get into "preachiness". But, the reviewer expressed happiness that this did not happen and Mehra could get his message across well."--awkward. can probably be combined into one sentence.
27. Reception: "While reviewing the film, The Hindu appreciated script writer, Pandey, for writing a story that would have been a difficult film to make, but it said that the transformation of the youngsters into heroes seemed poetic. Besides this, though the screenplay, direction and the cast were also well-appreciated, the review said that Rahman's soundtrack lacked pace."--awkward, could probably be combined into one sentence.
28. Release: "Similar reviews were written by critics outside India as well. The reviewer from The Daily Telegraph said that it was neither a typical Bollywood movie with the song-and-dance routines, nor a Western movie relying on character, dialogue and plot, and this might end up as a film that will please neither audience."--ok transition, except that the very next review is in no way "similar" to the others previously discussed.
29. Reception: "It speaks about Mehra's muddled message of political assassination with poorly developed characters and situations."--awkward

WP:MOS

1. The soundtrack should receive a bit more coverage in the lead. Also, the soundtrack is called "successful" in the lead, but that is not backed up in the Music section.

   I don't think it is necessary to mention Nelly Furtado in the sentence about the soundtrack. Her not being on it isn't that important and doesn't merit mention in the lead.

2. The lead mentions a banned horse race which is not explicitly mentioned in the article.
3. There is an infobox in the middle of the article that seems unnecessary.
4. The first paragraph of the lead is only one sentence. I would like to see it split into multiple sentences and it should also discuss the filming location.

References

1. Just a quick note: it's not really necessary to cite the same source in consecutive sentences.
2. Production: "Thereafter, Mehra and co-writer Rensil D’Silva took over the script and worked on it for about two years"--appears to be unsourced

More suggestions

1. According to this, Rang De Basanti is one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time. This is relevant information, and probably should be in this article.

   It needs to be sourced, by the way.

2. I'd like to see some sales figures for the soundtrack.

Response to GA Review

Firstly, let me thank you very much for taking out time in reviewing the article in great depths. It just enthuses me to improve articles furthermore. Coming to your concerns, my responses are given below:

Prose

1. The word "said" and its synonyms have been reduced considerably. There are a few instances (numbering 5-6) which exist, but I feel that they don't potentially harm the prose. In case, further reduction needs to be done, please do let me know.
2. The lead: Removed it because it seemed like an unnecessary gist to the paragraph. The second paragraph details the plot anyways.
3. The lead: I've changed it for the better, I hope.
4. Synopsis: I felt that this sentence can be left out because it seemed POV from my side.
5. Synopsis: I've changed it for better clarity, I hope.
6. Production: I've changed it for the better, I hope. Used the word "emerged" instead of "cropped".
7. Production: Removed multiple instances of sentences beginning with "He".
8. Production: The name of the producer was not revealed by the director - added this to add a sense of clarity. The word "hazy" was replaced with "uncertain".
9. Production, Casting: "Mehra said" was abnormally common in the casting and production sections. These instances have been reduced by a great deal.
10. Production: Changed to "She was convinced that the film would be a path-breaking cult film."
11. Filming: "Since the film's story was based on the graduated students from Delhi University, who refuse to evolve from the comfort of their alma mater." - Totally revamped the beginning of this paragraph. I hope this appears fine.
12. Filming: "Instead of filming at the actual locations from the script, other locations were selected for picturisation." -- Modified sentence -- and, actual locations here refer to the locations as per the script.
13. Filming: The bit about the possible romantic link seems out of place. -- Added this towards the end of the section. If it still seems out of place, it can be done away with.
14. Filming: "Once the locations were finalized, Lovleen Bains and Arjun Bhasin were hired for designing the look of the film." -- I hope this transition is alright.
15. Filming: "In post-production, the visual effects was handled by Tata Elxsi's Visual Computing Labs. After completion of their task, it so happened that the military plane they created for film was so realistic, that the Indian Air Force called to check the producer's permission of using an actual plane." -- again, I hope the transition is alright.
16. Music: "However, change in producers and other factors resulted in her not featuring in any of the tracks." -- I hope this appears better.
17. Release: "After expectations of its box-office success from the media, the movie premiered around the world on January 26, 2006." -- I hope the sentence clarifies about the expectations.
18. Release: "The film, which was scheduled to release two weeks prior to its theatrical release, faced ire from several organizations because of certain controversial scenes." -- Two weeks ago!? I was surprised to see that I wrote it that way. Has been modified now.
19. Release: "The film contained scenes of a MIG-21, a controversial airplane in the Indian Air Force, which has a long history of fatal accidents in India." -- I hope I clarified as to why the MIG scenes were controversial.
20. Release: "Accordingly, Khan and Mehra screened the film for the then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee along with other top officials from the armed forces. One Air Force official reportedly said that it was "not a review, but a preview. After the special screening, the defence ministry did not insist on any cuts, but upon ...." -- I hope the context of the air force official's comments is clear.
21. Release: "After this clearance, the Animal Welfare Board raised objections on the use of animals in the film." -- Hope this format is better.
22. Release: "Though the filmmakers had obtained No-Objection-Certificate from the board officials, Maneka Gandhi, a well-known animal rights activist and member of the welfare board, found flaws in this certificate." -- A No-Objection-Certificate or NOC is a physical certificate issued by an agency/org. to inform of their "no objection" to a particular action by any organization. I hope that now this sentence makes sense.
23. Release: "However, after they recommended the deletion of a 20 second scene that depicted a banned horse race, the filmmakers deleted this scene." -- I hope the sentence is clear now.
24. Release: "With $27 million alone coming from the Indian territory, the film earned $30 million worldwide." -- The source is Numbers.com and the amounts were given in USD. The prevailing Indian Rupee - USD exchange rate is unknown at the time of reporting on its website. So, it was left as is. I hope my action is justified.
25. Reception: "Praising the film's cast for its performance and cinematography (of Binod Pradhan), the reviewer wrote that the film would be successful with the urban audiences." -- I hope this is better now and provides more clarity.
26. Reception: "A Rediff.com reviewer, while appreciating the music, cinematography, dialogues and art direction, thought that films like this can easily get into "preachiness"; this did not happen and Mehra could get his message across well." -- Is this good enough? I think so. What say?
27. Reception: "The Hindu appreciated script writer, Pandey, for writing a story that would have been a difficult film to make, but it added by saying that the transformation of the youngsters into heroes seemed poetic. Besides this, though the screenplay, direction and the cast were also well-appreciated, the reviewer felt that Rahman's soundtrack lacked pace" -- I hope this looks good. I cannot combine these two sentences together because the first one speaks of two contrasting views and that did not provide scope for me to join the second. Any ideas will be appreciated.
28. Release: "The film received mixed reviews from critics outside India." -- Agreed, changed version to mixed reviews.
29. Reception: "Though the San Francisco Chronicle spoke highly about the film's production values, the music and the cast, it baulks at certain flaws in the film making such as Mehra's muddled message of political assassination and poorly-developed characters and situations." -- Reworded this sentence. I hope this is appropriate.

WP:MOS

1. The soundtrack should receive a bit more coverage in the lead. Also, the soundtrack is called "successful" in the lead, but that is not backed up in the Music section. --- The soundtrack reception was added in the release section. Some coverage with respect to two its tracks being considered for Oscar nomination and mixed reviews were added and backed up in the release section.

   I don't think it is necessary to mention Nelly Furtado in the sentence about the soundtrack. Her not being on it isn't that important and doesn't merit mention in the lead. -- Removed her instance from the lead section.

2. The lead mentions a banned horse race which is not explicitly mentioned in the article. - it is mentioned explicitly in the article: "However, after they recommended the deletion of a 20 second scene that depicted a banned horse race, the filmmakers deleted this scene."
3. There is an infobox in the middle of the article that seems unnecessary. -- This infobox is about a quote from the movie that, I feel, is appropriate in giving the readers an idea of the writer's abilities that secured him an award nomination.
4. The first paragraph of the lead is only one sentence. I would like to see it split into multiple sentences and it should also discuss the filming location. - Broken down into two sentences now and added about the budget and filming locations.

References

1. Just a quick note: it's not really necessary to cite the same source in consecutive sentences. -- Sometimes, it is alright if any further content will least likely be added to the article. But, in case of instances where another editor adds their content in between these consecutive sentences, the first one will lack a reference. So, whereever it is contentious, I add the same source for consecutive sentences as well. I hope my justification is correct.

   That's fine. It's not a deal breaker for me anyway, just an observation.

2. Production: "Thereafter, Mehra and co-writer Rensil D’Silva took over the script and worked on it for about two years"--appears to be unsourced - Same issue as above. The successive sentence has the same reference. But, in case someone adds content between these two, one of the sentences will be left unsourced. Thats why I add references to such sentences that might arise doubts of POV or OR.

More suggestions

1. According to this, Rang De Basanti is one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time. This is relevant information, and probably should be in this article. - Added and sourced.
2. I'd like to see some sales figures for the soundtrack. - Unfortunately, the Indian film industry does not have a good official source for the soundtrack sales. I couldn't find any details from the newspapers or the filmmakers' interviews.

Mspraveen (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit left...

1. Production: "The filming was intended to be done bilingually in English (as Paint it Yellow) and Hindi.[7]" This is redundant to the second paragraph. It should be removed.

   I added this to the second paragraph and modified it accordingly -- "An announcement made at the end of March 2004[9] suggested that the film would be made bilingually in English (as Paint it Yellow) and Hindi.[7] However, the English version was later dropped. In response, Mehra said that the language felt alien and that "one can tell a film in just one language."

2. Production: "Screwvala, the eventual co-producer of the film, who supported Mehra from the beginning, apparently had faith in film." Beginning of what?

   Modified -- "Screwvala, the eventual co-producer of the film, who supported Mehra from the beginning of the film's production, apparently had faith in film."

3. Filming: "Once the locations were finalized, Lovleen Bains and Arjun Bhasin were hired for designing the look of the film" Awkward.

   Modified. In case that you have any further suggestions, please do let me know. --- "Once the locations were finalized, the team of Lovleen Bains and Arjun Bhasin was chosen for designing the look of the film."

4. Filming: "After knowing from the script that it was about ex-students in their late twenties, Bhasin developed the actors' look accordingly" Awkward.

   Modified -- "Since the script dealt with men in their late twenties, Bhasin designed their look accordingly."

5. Music: "Rahman was slated to compose the music at the time of the film's announcement in April 2005 itself." Awkward.

   Modified -- "Right from the film's announcement in April 2005, Rahman was slated to compose the music."

6. Release: "With Rahman's last reported soundtrack success was with Saathiya (2002), there were expectations from the media." This sentence is awkward. Also, the entire third paragraph of the Release section should be in the Music section.

   Modified -- "Since Rahman's last musical success, Saathiya, was back in 2002, there were many expectations from the media."

   Plus, this paragraph deals with how the conditions around release of the soundtrack and the connected facts after its release. The "Music" subsection of the "Production" section revolves only around the production aspects related to the film. Hence, the release and reception facts might be inappropriate there.

   You're right, the paragraph does belong where it is. It looks like I had a brief moment of idiocy when I wrote that bit. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when these issues are fixed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your detailed concerns. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article. Congrats! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...after reading the diary of her grandfather, Mr. McKinley (Steven Mackintosh), who served in the British Army during the Indian independence movement." Did he serve in the army, or, police? or, was he a jailer?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a jailer as per Rediff.com. I've updated it in the plot accordingly. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was the dead link which had neither a web archive nor a suitable replaceable URL, I've moved the following here:

The reviewer from The Daily Telegraph thought that it was neither a typical Bollywood movie with the song-and-dance routines, nor a Western movie relying on character, dialogue and plot, and this might end up as a film that will please neither audience.^[1]

Thanks, Mspraveen (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/Rang De Basanti. The edit link for the section below can be used to add comments to the review.

Basanti is hindi for yellow and not saffron. The citation supplied has the incorrect translation. Even the alternate international title is Paint it Yellow. Does anyone have a more credible citation? --TheBigA (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/basanti TheBigA (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt this article good enough to be a featured article? What you people think? Bhavitgoyal (talk · contribs) 11:43 a.m 11th september (IST)

Depth is not there yet as per the FA criteria. I spent considerable amount of time in researching citations to get it to A-class. Even that was a huge challenge. Need collaborators to make it an FA. Mspraveen (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Music" section, 2nd paragraph, 3rd line: "Speaking about one of his songs, Luka Chuppi....."- the information provided is not correct. Luka Chuppi is not their (Lata/AR) 2nd collaboration, between Dil Se and RDB they teamed up together for 4 more times: One 2 Ka 4, Pukar, Lagaan and Zubeidaa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.216.166.107 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The format is all over the place and there is no tabulated list of actors and their characters. Right now the sections reads more like a production history. Needs complete revision, current material from the section should move elsewhere.

I will make a start :

• Aamir Khan as Daljeet/ Chandrashekhar Azad

• Atul Kulkarni as laxman Pandey/ Ramprasad Bismil

etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madmonk11 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did this article get GA status without the casting section????????? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section for the same. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 3.2? Thats how the casting was done. It does include the roles which everyone many played. But the current section 2 is just simple and easy. It helps understand roles better while reading the plot. Somethings are better to the point than jumbled in paragraphs. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rang De Basanti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071029113145/http://www.asiexpo.com/festival/download/dossierpresse2006.pdf to http://www.asiexpo.com/festival/download/dossierpresse2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107122012/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=e3446020-b25f-40db-8ee1-b88eafffd885 to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=e3446020-b25f-40db-8ee1-b88eafffd885

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rang De Basanti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=312&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207221602/http://www.iifa.com/web07/showcase/2007-winnerslist.htm to http://www.iifa.com/web07/showcase/2007-winnerslist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rang De Basanti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEE20060211050019&Page=E&Title=Startrek&Topic=-59
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?id=SEW20080315095244&eTitle=People&rLink=0
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEE20060913015910&Page=E&Title=Startrek&Topic=0
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.coca-colaindia.in/media/media_news_releases_detail.aspx?id=137
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111112911/http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Hyderabad_Times/GenX_patriotism_The_new_formula_/articleshow/msid-1400916,curpg-1.cms to http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Hyderabad_Times/GenX_patriotism_The_new_formula_/articleshow/msid-1400916,curpg-1.cms
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/videos.aspx?id=4978

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rang De Basanti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913144222/http://www.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=hub150308prose_is.asp to http://www.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=hub150308prose_is.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]