Mouna Ragam

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, but solve any potential problem before getting there. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed second instance. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, but I'm sure you understood the context. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the meaning, but I was just somewhat uncertain about the phrasing. I am only speaking from my own experience though so remember to take that into account here. Aoba47 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. I'm pretty sure he renamed it after Idaya Kovil's release because the title was derived from one of its songs. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then the company was known as Sujatha Films and I don't know when it was renamed to GV Films. But at the time of release, it was still Sujatha. I've removed the new name from the lead, but in the body do I write "GV Films, then known as Sujatha Films"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to mention the company's later name, GV Films, at all in this article? I would refer to the company's name by what it was during the film's release, but unless the company did something with the film under its new name (like re-release it or something), then I am uncertain if this information is particularly useful to a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is, I cannot find a way to source it in the body. Or do I write, "The final cut measured 145 minutes.((citation))"?
I am actually rather unfamiliar with film articles. I have reviewed several in the FAC space, but I have never done my own nomination. I have two options I am thinking about, but I am slightly nervous about doing something new lol. I have seen some articles just say the running time in the article's prose (like Margarita with a Straw, but others cite the running time in the infobox (like Kal Ho Naa Ho). Since there does not appear to be a right or wrong way, feel free to choose whatever method you feel is best for the article as a whole. I just thought it was interesting, and I wanted to get a better understanding to your approach. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have not looked at the rest of the article yet, but I would recommend that all of the images have appropriate ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the article further, I realized that there are not any images other than the poster. Is there any reason for that? Aoba47 (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful. Since I am trying to limit my Wikipedia time, I will be adding comments section-by-section. The above comments only deal with the lead and the infobox. I think this more piecemeal approach would also be more helpful for me to take more time with each individual section and hopefully conduct a thorough review. I really enjoy romantic films so this article is definitely making me interested in seeing this film for myself. Hope you are having a good start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym is actually for terms like J.A.R.V.I.S. (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System). What you mean is abbreviations. But I can simply say "politician's son" right? I don't want to get too detailed.--Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked because as an American, I have never head of a MP before. I think "politician's son" should be sufficient. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. Because despite Mohan (Chandrakumar's actor) receiving top billing, the story is told from Divya's perspective, so we don't see much into Chandrakumar's life without Divya. Ditto with Manohar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments deal only with the "Plot" section. Apologies for the amount of comments. I found this section to be very engaging and well-done so great work with that. Since the other sections are much longer, it will take me more time to get through them (but I will try my best). I will look at the citations separately (just to make sure there is not any formatting errors) after looking through all of the sections. Again, I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, Aoba47. I re-checked the source and he says, "As a film, it would have probably been better had it remained true to the original concept. It was something I resisted at first. But having made this decision of giving an easier reason for her resistance to the arranged marriage, we thought we'd make the flashback portion light and breezy." So is the sentence coherent and worth keeping? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the large amount of comments. I have worked my way through the "Production" section. I will take a small break here as I know that it will take me some time to get through the "Themes and influences" section as I personally do not have a strong grasp on how these sections should be written for a featured article. I hope this review is helpful, and I hope that I do not discourage other editors from joining in this discussion due to the sheer amount of comments that I have put up lol. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are indeed helpful, but if the process is becoming straining, you may quit. My only aim is to make the article factually accurate, concise and coherent before taking it to FAC and avoid the problems I faced during Mullum Malarum. Unlike MM, most of the sources here are in English, hence proofreading should be easy. Here are the pages of the director's account of the film's making, and the book should not violate WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD since it is an interview. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help in any way. I do not find the process straining so no worries on that part. Actually, I am enjoying the process of reading through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the current wording fine? ...was partially inspired by the "Love Theme from Flashdance" (from the 1983 film Flashdance). Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should be my final comments for the peer review. Since there are pretty short, I have added it to the end of this review. Good luck with the future FAC and hopefully, more editors will participate in this peer review. Since Dr. Blofeld did the GAN for this article, they might look through this too. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just curious if there are any further comments for this? Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a process I'll take slowly. Butt someone with a deep understanding of WP:IPC may step up and comment. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. There is no reason to rush. I was just curious. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category