Talk:Rudaali/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Expect comments very soon.
- Lead
- "Raakhee, Raj Babbar, and Amjad Khan appear in supporting roles." I think this could be included after you introduce Kapadia as the lead and her role, unless it is one of "the common elements of mainstream Hindi cinema" as they are popular actors.
- After reading the themes section, I see that it's mainly because of the "mellifluous musical performances" and not the cast as well.
- "..where Bhupen Hazarika was awarded for his music." WP:OL of Hazarika and just mentioning his surname would suffice.
- I don't think you really need ref. 5 in the lead as it is already cited in the body, per WP:LEAD.
- Plot
- "Bhikni stays with the widow Shanichari, who lives in the Thakur's village" - is Thakur used to refer to Ramavtar Singh? If so, it should be clarified.
- "50 rupees" - I think we might need an WP:NBSP here.
- Cast
- The plot calls Khan's character "Ramavtar Singh" while the cast says "Ram Avtar Singh".
- The plot suggests that Rakhee's Bhikni was in fact Shanichari's mother, Peewli. Maybe this could be mentioned her as well? Something like "Rakhee as Bhikni / Peewli"?
- Production
- "According to author Priya Kapoor, "Lajmi's preference for popular.." I think this quote can easily be paraphrased, especially the beginning part.
- Release and reception
- "Im spite of this" - a typo?
- The first two paragraphs mention the praises the film has garnered, then the third one is about a mixed review. Then we have a fourth para which is about foreign reviewers appreciating the film. Perhaps the third and fourth para could switch places so it would be a little more structured?
- Awards and honours
- "Screened at the International Film Festival of India, 1993, and the San Diego Film Festival, 1994." This is not a complete sentence.
This is very well-written and well-sourced. With some work, this could be nominated for FA. Once these comments are resolved, this should be good to go for GA. FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)