Talk:Bangalore Days

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

Reception[edit]

This film has received overwhelming positive reviews from critics according to various sources. -  abhilashkrishn talk 13:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is not any source that verifies classification as "overwhelming" critical response. To leap to "overwhelming" from the sources is completely inappropriate WP:OR extrapolating from limited sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Clearly provides the citation for this claim. -  abhilashkrishn talk 02:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"overwhelming response at the box office" that not "overwhelming critical response." what it says of critical response is "Critics gave positive reviews" NOT "Critics gave overwhelming positive reviews"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I have cleaned up the claimed statement that is more suitable according to the review. -  abhilashkrishn talk 02:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.in/box-office-collection-bangalore-days-grosses-8-5-crore-first-week-601734

Film revenue[edit]

Though many sources reported film's estimated first week gross collections, further no reliable gross collections was reported. Then after, no weekend collections or monthly gross was reported. But a user had added a news agency report of collecting near to a whopping life time gross, which is difficult to cover for a Malayalam film, though some films have collected (say Twenty: 20, Drishyam), they have been supported by many additional sources and also with reliable weekend and monthly collection reports. But this site reported a controversial figure with no additional backup sources or confirmed news. So donot add film revenue reports without additional supportive sources. Extra ordinary claims need extra ordinary sources. Thanks 106.66.140.172 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This link says the film's first week collection was 8.5 crore. The same site gives its 12 day gross as 21 crore here. Here's another link which verifies the same (although with slightly different values). And this link puts its total gross at 50 crore. [http://www.bangaloremirror.com/entertainment/south-masala/No-Hyderabad-days-yet/articleshow/45781766.cms This article from Bangalore Mirror newspaper also states the same. And 50 crore does not seem an exaggerated value for a film which netted more than 20 crore in its second week. And the news was published by IANS and carried by many newspapers. As long as we do not have agencies which audit film revenue like boxofficemojo we have to rely on these news websites. I am replacing the content as of now till a consensus is reached here. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the websites available on the internet provides different figures, as far as there is no box office auditing site for Malayalam films, it's better not to include it. Or it should be supported by atleast two or three reliable sources. Bangalore Mirror is not reliable. 106.66.138.50 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'extraordinary' claim is verified by two 'extraordinary' sources. Hindustan Times and Bangalore Mirror both say the film grossed 50 crore in total. And why would one consider Mirror an unreliable source? There is no reason to remove these information just because you 'think' this movie would not possibly fetch that huge amount. Also the Sify link says the film's gross 'may be' around 18 crore in the second week and IB Times puts the figure as 21 crore. Both these sites are reliable and it is suggestible we include both the values, attributing the claim to respective sources. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malayala Sahityam is correct. Mainstream national and regional newspapers are default reliable and there must be actual evidence to consider otherwise. A Wikipedia editor stating "I dont believe them" is not actual evidence. If generally reliable sources differ, then we cite both and state that multiple views are held. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested page protection.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bangalore Days/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have this to you soon. JAGUAR  12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information. I would strongly recommend moving all citations from the lead and into the body of the article
 Done
  • "and produced by Anwar Rasheed and Sophia Paul" - would co-produced sound more accurate if it was produced by two people?
 Done
  • "making it one of the highest grossing film in Malayalam" - films
 Done
 Done

Body[edit]

  • "The film's story revolves around three cousins" - might sound better as just The story revolves around three cousins
 Done
  • "Arjun whose parents are divorced, is a bike mechanic" - comma needed between "Arjun" and "whose"
 Done
  • "Divya had completed her graduation and aspired to do her MBA from IIM" - these initials need explaining
 Done
  • "Her only solace is the time she gets to spend with her cousins Aju and Kuttan.Naive Kuttan," - missing space
 Done
  • "he learns that Sarah is to leave for Australia on a University scholarship" - no need to be capitalised here
 Done
  • I would recommend merging the last two paragraphs in the Plot section to make one
 Done
  • The Production section is somewhat short. Can it be expanded at all? I review a lot of Telugu film articles and their production sections are quite comprehensive. Is information on production scarce for this film? I realise that comprehensiveness is part of the GA criteria, but I would feel at ease if it could be expanded even slightly. The release section mentions that production was delayed, for example
 Done expanded as much as i can, is it enough?
  • "The soundtrack features 5 songs composed" - five
 Done
  • "The film was originally scheduled to release on 9 May 2014" - The film was originally scheduled for release on 9 May 2014 sounds more like it
 Done
 Done
  • "Bangalore Days was distributed in India by A & A Release Through August Cinema" - is this part of the company's name?
No
  • "Star Movie was the distributor in the US, Indian Movies in UK" - United States, United Kingdom
 Done
  • The Remake section is very short. I've merged it under the reception section, if that's OK
 Done
  • Refs 12 and 18 are incorrectly formatted
 Done

Additional comments[edit]

  • What happened to the lead? It isn't organised per WP:LEAD any more, I think that the lead I read before this review was in better shape! The plot section has been severely cut and the latter two paragraphs are now very short. Also, there are still citations in the lead
 DoneI roll-backed those edits and moved some citations to the body
  • The production section is now of good length. However, I spotted a few prose errors:
  • "After the success of Manjadikuru and Ustad Hotel Anjali Menon announced her new project named L for Love" - comma needed in between "Hotel" and "Anjali"
 Done
  • "In later Anjali clarified that the film was titled Bangalore Days." - 'in later'? Could easily be rephrased
 Done
  • "In a conversation to a leading newspaper, Anjali said that most of the film will be completely shot in Bangalore" - this needs to be past tense. How about would be shot instead
 Done
  • "We are looking at shooting here till mid February at least" - what is this? A direct quote? I don't see how this is relevant and it looks like it was copy and pasted. Better off removed
 Done
  • "Anjali Menon announced that the film features" - remove his first name here
 Done
  • "new faces of Malayalam including Nazriya Nazim, Nivin Pauly, Dulquer Salmaan, Fahadh Faasil, Isha Talwar, Parvathy, Nithya Menen and Paris Laxmi. Rafeeq Ahmed, Santhosh Varma and Anna Katharina Valayil " - 'new faces' sounds informal. Be careful of WP:OVERLINK and long lists which don't go well in GAs. I'd recommend cutting a few non-essential names
 Done
  • "Santhosh Varma and Anna Katharina Valayil written the lyrics and Gopi Sunder signed to compose the music of the film, while cinematography was handled by Sameer Thahir and editing was given to Praveen Prabhakar" - this sentence needs to be cut in half. How about like Anna Katharina Valayil wrote the lyrics while Gopi Sunder signed to compose the music of the film. Cinematography was handled by Sameer Thahir and editing was given to Praveen Prabhakar
 Done
  • "The song "Ethu Kari Raavilum" was shot in Mysore and some of the scenes in Sankey" - unsrourced
 Done
  • "Star Movie was the distributor in the US, Indian Movies in UK" - these need to be written out fully and not abbreviated. United States and United Kingdom
 Done

On hold[edit]

Needs a bit of work, but I'm sure once all of the above are addressed then it will have a good chance of passing. I don't like failing articles outright so I'll leave this on hold until they're all clarified. My only concern is the length of the production section. Are there any sources out there? If not, I would recommend expanding it as much as possible. JAGUAR  12:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JO Bieson: I found more issues in the article and have listed them above. The lead doesn't comply per WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded into at least two or three paragraphs. The production section is of adequate length but needs a copyedit and rephrasing. JAGUAR  12:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JO Bieson: the second paragraph of the Release section is unsourced. Once that's done, I think this will comply per the GA criteria. JAGUAR  13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Sourced JØ +TALK 13:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a popular movie and there are lots of sources available in the internet. But still the production section is short. The article is not complete. But hope it will pass.27.97.204.60 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone through it again and decided that this should be good to go. It only just meets the criteria, but I'm right in saying that the production section should be more comprehensive, as I've checked and there are a lot of sources out there for such a popular film. I would strongly recommend checking the article against the GA criteria before nominating and make sure you build it to meet the criteria. JAGUAR  16:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangalore Days. 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:

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) 13:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:M jak miłość which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore_Days&oldid=1205694011"