Talk:Mary Kom (film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]

"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]

" "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]

Prashant, I came across a few dead links. Archive them. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
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]