Talk:Mary Kom (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMary Kom (film) 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
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2015Good article nomineeListed
April 28, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Please mention that, this film is inspired from mary kom's life and also from "Million Dollar Baby".[edit]

Ram nareshji (talk) Please mention that, this filmis inspired from mary kom's life and also from "Million Dollar Baby" 2004 Movie. source: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/features/type/view/id/6829

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014[edit]

Please add ONLER KOM (Mary Kom's husband) part played by DARSHAN KUMAAR Nikita.everymedia (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —cyberpower ChatOnline 09:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014[edit]

Holy grammatical errors batman!

Filming[edit]

After Priyanka Chopra's father passed away, filming started on June 17, 2013 at Filmistan in Mumbai. Prior to that, filming had been postponed for quite a while due to her father's illness. <ref>{{cite web|last=Awaasthi|first=Kavita|title=Priyanka Chopra begins shooting for Mary Kom biopic today |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/priyanka-chopra-begins-shooting-for-mary-kom-biopic-today/article1-1077621.aspx|accessdate=16 May 2014}}</ref> Second schedule for the movie began on February 28, 2014 for 45 days. <ref name=schedule/> To make all action scenes as authentic as possible, the film-makers decided to use real-life boxers.<ref> http://m.ibnlive.com/news/priyanka-chopra-fought-with-real-boxers-in-mary-kom/488232-8-66.html </ref> Snbirdi (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit[edit]

The plot summary seems a bit vague: having been copy-editing this but not having seen the film, a little more detail might be a good idea. LS1979 (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reviews[edit]

As per the review roundup in this source, the film has received mixed reviews, and in no way has been critically acclaimed. The article lists only the positive reviews and has completely neglected the negative reviews that the film received. As such, the "non-neutral" tag is needed here until the corrections are made. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review aggregator site also states that the film received mixed reviews, here, and definitely not "positive reviews" as the article states. I had put a POV-tag to the article for unduly promoting the film, but it was removed by Prashant! without posting anything in the talk page. He instead chose to put up a snarky edit summary, saying, "I ll be putting the same in your every article just wait, I am collecting evidences and then delist from FA". Cyphoidbomb, Cowlibob, Hell in a Bucket, Dr. Blofeld pinging you guys here as well. We need to put a stop to this WP:OWN issue that this editor has. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own any article and no one else. First, I want to ask all of you to look here. He has rated the film one and half stating he was awke in frustration while watching the film. No one care who thinks what, we work here by looking at sources. He has a big problem with Chopra, and her films. I dont care and no one else. It is the case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. We look refrences and not views of users. Right? The above link provided by krimuk contrdicts itself.
Koel Purie gave the film - 3.5 out of 5
IANS gave- 5 out of 5
Firtpost did not gave stars but review was - mixed praising performance of Chopra
Bollywood life gave - 4 out of 5
India.com- 3.5 out of 5
Bollywood Hungama - 4 out of 5
Is it overall mixed or negative? No in fact its overall very positive..—Prashant 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, look at the site that have aggregated reviews [here. Most notable critics have panned the film, only praising Chopra's performance. Also, Bollywood Life, India.com etc are not considered WP:RS. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
India.com is used by the source provided by you dude, which contradicts itself. Now, you have been caught red-handed. So dont pretend to be innocent.—Prashant 07:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rediff gave 2 stars
Mumbai Mirror gave 2 stars
India Today gave 2 1/2 stars
Hindustan Times gave 2 1/2 stars
IB Times gave 2 1/2 stars
Reuters gave a negative review.
Filmfare panned the film, praised Chopra
Indian Express gave 2 1/2 stars
Deccan Chronicle gave 2 1/2 stars
NDTV gave 2 1/2 stars; criticised Priyanka Chopra's casting and the film's direction
Screen Daily calls it "merely dully efficient"
Mint in a negative review, called it "thoughtless filmmaking"
All these reviews from notable critics are not even mentioned in the article. Astounding. Also, comment on content and don't use personal attacks. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These above reviews are mixed and not negative. Are they? Is there a rule to include all the 1000 reviews. So, watching your source of Sahi Nahi, It is clear that the film got 69% of positive reviews. So, what should it be called? It says 33 reviewers gave it a positive and rest 15 mixed. Means overall more than positive. Dont you think?—Prashant 07:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, 15 are negative. Which means mixed reviews. That's basic common sense. And you haven't even included even one of those mixed/negative reviews that I have listed. Why? And you are actually trying to say you don't have an ulterior motive in promoting the subject? Just plain ridiculous! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct your math. Do you think 33> 15. Its more than double. LOL. The overall rating of that site gives 3.5 out of 5. I have not heard anything silly like this.—Prashant 07:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain some common sense to him? Why didn't you include even one of those mixed reviews in the article? You mention only the positive ones and don't even include the 2-2 1/2 star reviews. It's not about maths. If a large number of critics have disliked the film, then you can't say it has received positive reviews; it will obviously be mixed. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Then its surely a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. We all see overall rating just like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic which says above 60 is generelly positive or favourable reviews. The site also says the film is "Sahi" (Right). So I think the discussion is over. Put generally positive.—Prashant 07:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done here. I've made my point for all to see. Don't remove the tag from the article without garnering consensus from other editors. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just checked "SahiNahi" has included all the mixed reviews as negative called "Nahi" (Wrong/No), which means the film still got 69% positive review and rest mixed to negative. I wanted to clear you.—Prashant 07:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[WP:NPOV]] demands all viewpoints significantly covered by WP:RS so if the reviews were mixed then it's ok to note that and some of their comments as long as it isn't WP:UNDUE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We are not review aggregators. It is not our duty to attempt to summarize critical response. I opened a discussion at the Indian Cinema Taskforce a while back to try to gauge the interest in considering either Cinechicken or SahiNahi as reliable. The response was "meh!" for both. At Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road, a film that received (at one point) 99% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, there was a dispute about whether or not to use summary language "the film has received universal critical acclaim", "...near universal critical acclaim", "...critical acclaim", "...mostly positive reviews". Eventually it was decided to omit the summary, but to leave in the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores along with their summary statements. I support Krimuk's removal of content here. At the very least a reliable source would have to be cited, but given the level of corruption in Bollywood cinema and in Indian entertainment reporting, I'd probably avoid summaries all together. And we should absolutely include negative reviews in the response section. The western film Citizen Kane regularly makes the "Top 10 Best films of all time" list from various periodicals, yet negative reviews are present in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree on adding negative reviews. I will do it myself. But, his point it that it should be added that the film received mixed reviews, which is not the case . The film has got more positive (double) and mixed reviews = generally positive or well received. But, he want to add that it received mixed. —Prashant 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We certainly can't use the current phrasing as it implies only positive reviews. The source itself is speculating "according to on going trends if the positive reviews and a good word of mouth keeps flowing in,". We also can't summarise critical response by numbers of reviews as that's original research. It would be arbitrary. We can cite review roundups as they often wait until the hype has settled. Here's another one from Wall Street Journal blog [[1]] which certainly doesn't indicate overwhelming positive reviews for the film. Chopra's performance however has seemingly received generally positive reviews. The review section certainly requires more representation of the negative reviews as well as actually telling the reader what aspects the reviewers didn't like with only the Business Standard and Hindu reviews actually elaborating on this. Anupama's and Shekhar reviews only tell us the positive aspects of their review. Cowlibob (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roundup? Please tell me if anyone notes only three reviews for rounding up? LOL. Roundup is definitely not for Bollywood. Coming to nagative reviews, yes there should be negative reviews in the article.—Prashant 10:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Cyphoidbomb and Cowlibob. To continue where Cowlibob left off, it was much worse before I made this edit. Sarita Tanwar and Rajeev Masand criticised the film and only praised Chopra's performance in it. However, Prashant chose to write this: "Sarita A Tanwar of Daily News and Analysis rated the film 3 stars (out of 5) praising Chopra's performance and the supporting cast, calling it "[b]rilliant"" and "Rajeev Masand reviewed the film, stating that the film was [only] perfectly watchable." So he took the one or two good words in the review and completely skipped everything negative that was written about it. That's a complete misrepresentation of sources. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look who is talking. The person who uses a sexist term "female hero" for a heroine. I think other should read your articles and they will know what actual manipulation means.—Prashant 10:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can SchroCat or any of the admins look into the blatant personal attacks directed towards me? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack? Where? You are the one who has always attacked me taunting about my bad english, saying I work for Chopra, and other stuffs. I never called an administrator. Please tell me why would you do that?—Prashant 12:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me manipulative and sexist is a personal attack. Also, can you provide a link for when I said you worked for Chopra? Don't say stuff without proof. And fyi, saying that you have poor English language skills is not an attack, but a fact. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why calling a Black, black is referred as racist? You discriminate so much. And, yes it is a fact that I have a poor english. At least, Im still trying to work on it. And, offcourse there are proofs in the talk page history.—Prashant 12:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prashant, knock it off. Your comments are moving away from the matter in hand and are directed at Krimuk90. In terms of the matter in hand, trying to force a positive opinion based on the number of stars a film receives is WP:OR. You need to find a reliable source that summarises all the reviews if you want to use something similar. – SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Indian films are not reviewed by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritics. You have to ask Krimuk as he was the one who raised a question. It was a good move to include negative reviews and I have done. The SahiNahi says 69% reviews were positive so I guess its positive or well received. The source was provided by Krimuk himself.—Prashant 12:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, if a source says 69% were positive, it does NOT mean we say the film was positive. If a news report says the film received mixed reviews then we reflect that. I'd ignore Rancid Tomatoes and the other aggregators: they are worse than useless. – SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source says mixed but conyradicts itself with all reviews (except one, which was mixed) were very positive (3.5-4). So first it only aggregate 5 reviews and outcome is positive but shows mixed. How can we believe it?—Prashant 13:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krimuk90 and User:Prashant!. Let's dial it down just a little. I've worked great with Krimuk and I've heard positive things for Prashant too. If you guyys can realize we are here for the same things we will be ok. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? HITB, Is that true that you have heard positive things about me? But, Krimuk keep on saying to me that everyone makes fun of me and I dont make any contribution here. Plus, I am a joke in the name of a wikipedian. —Prashant 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prashant yes it is true. Frank does think very highly of you and I've seen the other comments of people supporting you in most things on your page. Btw if you are abbrievating my user name it should be HiaB. It's actually a name of a song [[2]], your english was still correct just not for a proper noun ;)Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Despite repeated warnings, Prashant! has reverted three different editors, Cyphoidbomb, Hell in a Bucket and me, within 12 hours. This comes despite the above discussions on the obvious neutrality issues in the article. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as expected, he goes on to post this personal attack and this passive-aggressive edit summary towards me. SchroCat, you had warned Prashant against attacking me in the previous threads, but he is repeating the same old stuff again. Could you or another admin such as NeilN look into this? Sorry to be bothering you guys, but this has been going on for a while now. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This user has revrted me countless times, is partial towards her favorite heros and heroines. He is trying to make me feel small since beggining, has always insulted me, abused me through Facebook, Twitter and Emails. He has anonamously abused me here and evrywhere. Plus, he is the one who doesnt beelive in neutrality and keeps on blaming me.—Prashant 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and the same-old rant starts again. Admins, please? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody has told you to spare me. Right? I have been told to not attack you but, everyone has given a right to you to attack me and revert my edit, all sourced. So my posts are making you sick. You want me to stay quiet so that you can manipulate things up.—Prashant 14:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My objections center on the attempts to summarize critical response, particularly through the usage of vague statements like "the film was released to positive reviews". Was the film also released to negative reviews? Yes, it was. So what do we mean exactly by that? That it was released to generally positive reviews? Well who decided that? We're not review aggregators, so we can't just count all the good reviews (good is subjective) and then make a determination. That's synthesis. Even if we used review aggregators to arrive at this conclusion, it's still an opinion. And "Chopra’s performance received widespread critical acclaim." Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Who's deciding that? Us? That's not our job. I could see us summarizing the content of the reviews, a la "Criticism was focused on a slow storyline, though several reviewers noted the strength of Chopra's performance." As I said in my revert, even in western films where we have reliable aggregators like RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, care must be employed when attempting to summarize critical response, and as it says clearly in MOS:FILM#Critical response, "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." So again, who's decided that the film opened to positive reviews? They would need to be directly quoted, although I don't particularly see the need to summarize the response. Presenting a representative sample of reviews is fine in my eyes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the article for two days to stop the edit warring. Please look at WP:DRR for options you can try to resolve this dispute. --NeilN talk to me 15:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, no one is trying to manipulate anything. There are valid concerns to be addressed, two important ones on the [FA list] is that the article be stable and that it be neutral. Reading through the tp I can see the concerns about the reviews being provided. Positive and Negative reviews should be included. The box office section needs to be rewritten almost completely. A 3 sentence paragraph on budgets and who bought what isn't all that notable. I understand that you want to present everything but everything isn't notable and some of it sways the article to WP:UNDUE and some NPOV problems too. They can all be fixed though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Kom (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Lead
  • "with Darshan Kumar and Sunil Thapa supporting as her husband and mentor, Onler Kom and M. Narjit Singh respectively" — "with Darshan Kumar and Sunil Thapa in supporting roles as her husband and mentor, Onler Kom and M. Narjit Singh respectively".
  • "Chopra underwent extensive training for three months to attain a muscular physique like a boxer" — "Chopra underwent extensive training for three months to attain a muscular physique". Just this would do.
  • "becoming the first Hindi film to be screened on the opening night of the film festival". — References 81 and 82 simply state that the film will be premiered at the film festival. Is there a reference which states that the premiere has happened? If so, please add it.
Done.—Prashant 03:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • " "When Omung came to me [...] I was surprised why he would want to make a movie on me and thought he was joking or gone mad! Boxing, especially in women's section, is not so well known in India as it's hardly reported, and no one recognized me as Mary Kom." — Can be used in a quotebox.
Done.—Prashant 03:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manipur would be well received by an audience" — "Manipur would be well received by the audience".
  • "However, he could not do the film for unknown reasons." — Source?
Done.—Prashant 11:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ssven2 thanks for taking up the review. I would like to point out that this article has been subjected to a few disputes (have a look at the talk page). And some editors have questioned the article's neutrality. While, it seems OK in the present form, I would appreciate if you looked carefully in the issue and determined if it is neutral. I had one quick go and I neutralized wherever I could but the article still may have content that puts the movie in a more positive light than it should. One of the many long discussions (which I just read) was about the "Critical reception". The article uses "generally positive" for the critical reception while there were many mixed reviews from reputed sources. The movie was panned by various significant and notable reviewers who only praised Chopra's performance - hence the "mixed" review. After reading through various discussions, the reception section, their sources and other sources, I strongly believe that it should read "mixed to generally positive", if not "mixed". I would appreciate you taking a closer look in this matter. Regards, — Yash! (Y) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yash!: Thanks for that, Yash. I'll look into it. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
Done. I have replaced all the dead links. So, there should not be any problem.—Prashant 08:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of critical response...again[edit]

Prashant! seems adamant to include a summary of the film's critical response, and a very specific one at that, which other users like Ssven2 have disagreed with. (I'm not a big fan of Ssven2's use of "mixed to positive" language, which has historically irritated numerous members of WikiProject Film.) In articles on Western films, we have two critical response aggregators that are considered reliable sources, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Even with these resources we tend to present their evaluations as opinions, not as facts. Often we will not summarize the critical response, preferring instead to provide the aggregator ratings and summary sentences. Part of this is because Rotten Tomatoes has a pass/fail (fresh/rotten) rating system, where Metacritic is more of a spectrum, (universal acclaim --> generally positive --> mixed to average --> generally unfavorable --> overwhelming dislike). What I notice in the discussion above, is an attempt to dig through all sorts of cherrypicked reviews to arrive at a conclusion about how the film was received. I don't think that's our job. For one, any conclusion can be arrived at by cherrypicking the right references. Secondly, the Indian cinema task force has not agreed that any of the Bollywood aggregators are reliable. I think the most prudent approach is to eliminate the summary sentence about overall critical response, and focus on specifics instead. As an example, Jurassic World. There is no summary of the critical response, rather, editors have decided to focus on specifics. "Jurassic World received praise from critics for its visuals, score and Chris Pratt's and Bryce Dallas Howard's performances, but drew some criticism for its tone and writing." Critical response summaries have no impact on GA evaluations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Highlighting what aspects the critics liked or didn't like generally would be better. More useful to the reader than an arbitrary summary sentence. People generally get too fixated on numbers out of 10 or stars and fail to actually read the review. Cowlibob (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Why don't we compare Indian personalities like Vidya Balan and Rani Mukerji to that of western celebrities like say Meryl Streep? This "Her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in Bollywood." and this "She is known for portraying strong female protagonists and has been acknowledged in the media for pioneering a change in the concept of a Hindi film heroine". I am sure Merly Streep has more name like "Godmother of Acting" and all. But i don't see @Cyphoidbomb: hitting the articles of neither Balan nor Mukerji. Those fluff phrases are not even mentioned in Streep's page, despite that those things are true for her in world cinema. But, you are creating a drama for a film article? I know who is guiding you through e-mails. I cannot waste my time arguing with you.—Prashant 08:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am touched that you've spent time developing a paranoid conspiracy backstory for me, you should get your facts straight before throwing out absurd accusations like "I know who is guiding you through e-mails." This is a normal discussion that I've had numerous times at articles under the scope of WikiProject Film. Look it up, I'll wait: Talk:Jurassic World, Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road, Talk:Jupiter Ascending to name a few. Even when we have the benefit of film aggregators like RT and Metacritic, I personally feel it's better to let their aggregator totals (their opinions) speak for themselves instead of applying our own opinions and thus, our own personal biases to the article. Here, we don't even have the reliable aggregators to lean on, so we either have to rely on our own subjective judgment, or we leave the summary statement out. Thankfully, as I pitched, there is another way to summarize critical reaction, which takes the shape of the green text in my first paragraph. Meryl Streep? What was that all about? If you have a problem with fluff in other articles, you are welcome to recruit more people from WT:FILM. I'm only one person with 5000 pages on my watchlist. I can't work according to your schedule. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to talk again but i want to make it clear that the film has received mostly positive reviews and those who have given the film a positive review, praised the film for everything. And, those who gave mixed reception (less as compared) have said that the film ia average, watchable and Chopra was Outstanding. If all the reviewers had said that the film is bad and this, then it was fine to add your summary. Almost all critics criticised Jurrassic Park for those thiings and all praised Visula effects. So that made sense in that artyicle. But brother all fingers are not alike.—Prashant 13:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is reoccurring theme with you Prashant!. Please do not take everything personally by throwing baseless accusations around, the world doesn't revolve around you. People can have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with you and you are capable of being wrong on things as every other user. The fact that you're really trying to claim that not a single review of the film was bad indicates to me that you have a perhaps subconscious bias to show a certain POV. Here are some I could bring up in quick search: [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. So yes there were aspects of the film that critics didn't like. Even in the reviews that are "positive" they criticise certain aspects. We need to show all viewpoints to be NPOV that doesn't mean we're asking for the reception section to be hacked up to be "This film is the Transformers of boxing biopics" but rather here are things critics generally liked and here are things they generally didn't like. For articles that users may have a personal bias, users must be able to step back and consider the bigger picture. Cowlibob (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't see your concerns here at Tanu Weds Manu Returns. Why? That film also received some criticism and some mixed reviews also, but you don't have any problem there.—Prashant 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, my favorite: "If you disagree with something at this article, let's change the subject and talk about a different article". You've already pulled this on me and I addressed it above. "But i don't see @Cyphoidbomb: hitting the articles of neither Balan nor Mukerji." You should probably be sure to check that the user you are accusing of being inconsistent has actually edited the other article(s) you are accusing him of being inconsistent about. I "don't have any problem there" because I've never looked at that article. I'm not omnipresent and I don't immerse myself in Bollywood articles. Spend a few hours poking through my 47,000 edits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: I think you should look at Kahaani, there the critical reception also speaks about negative aspects of the film byut i don't see anything mentioned in the lead. When 70% critics gave the film a positive reception and rest mixed. I think your math is very weak 70>>>30. Majority is positive and they all liked the film. So please don't waste my time. You know this was my first article in last two years and after burning my hands with this, i dont think i can (or want to) write another article just because of people like you. You people are so annoying that its better to write blogs than writing wikipedia.—Prashant 09:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another article I should be looking at instead of this one. Who decided that the critical response was 70% positive? You? Surely you've read WP:OR. I'm not sure why you're personalizing this and directing your frustrations at me. I don't have a problem with you individually, I have a problem with your summaries of critical response. This is a normal discussion to have at TV and Film articles. Maybe you feel that Bollywood articles are a lawless land unto themselves? They are still under the scope of WikiProject Film and MOS:FILM. If you'd like to get other opinions from people familiar with editing film articles, please feel free to do so at WT:FILM. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prashant, you have been told multiple times not to bring other articles into this discussion. We are discussing only about this article right now, so ... —Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

A look at the article's history clearly indicate the conflict of opinions that the principal contributor has had with other users. Further, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page pertaining to the neutrality issue, which I think is yet to be resolved. It's quite surprising the reviewer had completely ignored it and passed the article. I'm not sure if criterion 4 and 5 of WP:GACR are met. —Vensatry (ping) 11:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: First step would be to ask Ssven2 what he thought about the neutrality issue when he reviewed. If you still feel the GA review wasn't conducted properly, you may open a good article reassessment and invite users including the nominator and original reviewer to comment. Cowlibob (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought directly going in for a GAR would be a little too harsh. As you say, it's good to know what the reviewer feels. —Vensatry (ping) 18:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: Prashant wants to take the article to FAC. I felt like cutting some slack and that the article would be in better shape during PR and FAC. I did find some portions that were biased, like the "Critical reception" section of the soundtrack and the film, but I thought they can be dealt with post-GA (i.e. during PR and FAC). — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: First of all let me tell you, what its like to write an article like these. It takes so much of time and when people like you threat for things like GAR, this hurts so much. It's relatively very easy to work on flc and get them to fl status. But it is very tough to write an entire article. If you have so much problem why don't you go and fix the problem. but please do so by providing ample sources.—Prashant 09:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: The neutrality of the article is clearly disputed as you can see the discussion above. Because the nominator is in a hurry to take this to FAC, I had to pass is not an excuse. "I did find some portions that were biased, like the "Critical reception" section of the soundtrack and the film, but I thought they can be dealt with post-GA" – So as a reviewer why didn't you object then? Is there a rule which states GA's need not adhere to WP:NPOV?
@Prashant!: Wikipedia is voluntary and everybody contributes out of their own interest, so stop behaving as if you are the only one who is striving hard to build this encyclopedia. If a polite talk-page discussion sounds like a threat to you, what do you have to say about WP:GARs? Seeing your behavior of totally disagreeing with almost every single user who are well-versed than me in this topic, I don't think I would be treated in a different way. Finally, I don't understand your point about FLCs, what are you trying to convey? —Vensatry (ping) 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solution for review roundup[edit]

I've been going through this talk page, and it seems that most users are unaware of a review aggregator for Bollywood movies like Metacritic/ Rotten Tomatoes. I chanced upon this site called 'Review Schview' a year ago. It's modelled on the lines of Metacritic, and I've found it VERY helpful as it's usually the one I consult before hitting the theatres. Now, this site says that Mary Kom, with an overall score of 55, from a total of 25 critics, received 'mixed or average reviews'. The highest rating was 4.5 stars and the lowest was 2. I think we should include 2 reviews each from each division, to keep it completely neutral. Here goes the link: http://reviewschview.com/mary-kom/ Like I said, it's modelled on Metacritic (even says so in the FAQ), and COMPLETELY unbiased. So, I hope you sort out the difference of opinion, because I don't want this article to get demoted because of edit warring or whatever. :) Cheers Semanti 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semanti Paul (talk • contribs)

Semanti Paul There are a number of wannabe review aggregators (Cinechicken and SahiNahi come to mind) for Bollywood movies, and none of them have been deemed suitable for inclusion by the Indian Cinema Task Force or WikiProject Film, so your unilateral offering of permission to use this site is contested. How exactly did you determine that this site is "COMPLETELY unbiased"? That's a ridiculous assertion because at some point there is subjective human opinion picking through the reviews and deciding "mostly good, mostly bad, neutral". I will also remind you, if you're not familiar with aggregators, is that even if an aggregator were to say that a film received generally positive reviews, that still represents an opinion, not a fact. Case in point: RottenTomatoes and Metacritic are often at odds with one another both in their relative ratings and their summaries. RT might determine a film is rotten, where Meta might find it "Mixed or average". None of what these aggregators say is unimpeachable fact. This is another reason why the inclusion of critical response summaries are met with opposition at WikiProject Film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb Okay fair enough. But Mary Kom certainly does not have mostly positive reviews, as stated in the article. I do think it should be given a 'mixed review' status. And I only mentioned Metacritic/RT because their ratings are valued to the point where they are mentioned in the Wikipedia articles for films. So, I thought something along the lines of them would be more acceptable than the others (I know about CineChicken and SahiNahi by the way). Anyway, I request you to check out the site once. But still, I kind of find it hard to digest the mostly positive reviews thing. You can just remove the critical response summary instead, you know. Semanti 20:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semanti Paul I think the aggregators are very useful when trying to find a mix of reviews to present a neutral perspective. The RT/Meta values are included in a lot of articles, but we typically are very careful to attribute their summaries appropriately like, "On Metacritic, the film received 40/100, indicating "Mixed or average reviews", however on Rotten Tomatoes, the film received an approval rating of 62%" instead of saying "Critical response was rotten." Anyhow, as I've said far above and more recently, I'd prefer that these summaries be removed altogether and we just stick to good writing to balance the perspective in the article. There are far too many people with promotion on their minds--I had a problem with a guy at one of the Drishyam articles last week who kept deleting any negative reviews... Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that no legitimate Indian equivalent of Metacritic/RottenTomatoes exists. But The IB Times frequently does a "Review roundup" after the release of a film. I can never find anything on IB Times so I dont know if they did Mary Kom. But that would be the first place I would suggest looking. Next would be in "year end" reviews in news sources where they frequently sum up the critical and financial reception of a selection of key films and Mary Kom is likely to be one that is mentioned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the summary seems like a much better idea, to be honest, atleast for this page. End the warring once and for all. Semanti 20:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semanti Paul (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Mary Kom (film). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Errors[edit]

Someone(User:Krish!) has been trying to remove the factual errors section. If they have concerns lets talk here Iprathik (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Kom_(film)&oldid=1208847711"