Talk:Yevadu

File:Yevadu.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yevadu.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Yevadu.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Yevadu 2012.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Yevadu 2012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Yevadu 2012.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception

We only use professional reviews from reliably published sources. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Critical response. with a half dozen professional reviews already in the article, we by no means need to bloat with repetitions from marginal sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Nice, i too read that, but, those are not at all Marginal (means not important) Sources. They are also Professional film news sources because Some times TOI source is using Gulte, Greatandhra as a Reference and 123T, IB and some other Sources also are needed because each Individual site will give their Own Review and Rating regarding any Film. So, we can found a lot of Difference between Reviews and Ratings from Individual sites. So, we can't say that it is Bloating (or) Repetition. So, you're Wrong. If you think that you are not Wrong then please Welcome the Editors you may Know. I am ready to discuss with them. Raghusri (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

huh? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah ! Raghusri (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you are not able able/willing to clarify any articulate reason we should ignore our WP:NPOV plan and the film reviewer guidance, i have again removed the non professional critics. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You and me are not the Only one's in Wiki. I've already Posted here the Content as far as i know, Lets wait for the Consensus. You've Objected the usage of Some Sources means you have to invite users, you may know. Thank you :D Raghusri (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not in any way how a discussion is supposed to work (quite the opposite, in fact), and as a reasonably long-term editor here you should already know that. You should also know that your opinion doesn't trump Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which TRPoD has already linked to above. In addition, one would expect you to be aware that slapping inappropriate templates on other users is tantamount to making personal attacks. Instead of doing so, please explain why you think your sources meet Wikipedia's requirements for critical reviews. Then perhaps a discussion can actually take place here. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Being an Admin, i didn't Expected that how can you Blame me ! 123telugu, Idlebrain, etc., that user Removed are indeed Reliable because they are Publishing Reliable content when Press notes are Once available. From so many years they are Providing Reliable film news Info., The Sources are Surely Reliable per Wikipedia Policies & Guidelines. No doubt. Of course he also gave me a Three Level Warning for overcoming WP:3RR. Please check his contributions. I gave a Warning to him because the Consensus doesn't reached here and it won't depend upon two user's Opinions. We have to wait for a lot of user Replies. Because this is not a Small Issue. Thank you :D Raghusri (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Being an admin means that @Yunshui: has a pretty good grasp on what the community considers reliable sources. that fact that you are the only one supporting the content should tell you something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Rotten Tomatoes. We do not indiscriminately include reviews. Pick a few representative ones that accurately and fairly portray how the film was received. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. A content removal spree is observed by many in many articles on the name of lack of reliability and professionalism in the sources cited and it can be supported to an extent. If that is the case, we can use the reviews of sites like The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Sify and The Times of India when it comes to this article. But we may not be successful in searching reliable sources like IBN Live, DNA India, Rediff, NDTV, Hindustan Times. They are not reviewing Telugu films these days and we are left with very less options. And moreover, why idlebrain.com is not considered as a professional source these days in Wikipedia is my question. idlebrain.com has its existence since 1999 and is considered as one of the most earliest and reliable Telugu film website. Its reviews are considered to be reliable along with the likes of Sify and IndiaGlitz which some of The Wiki users consider reliable. Similar is the case of 123telugu.com also. Since i can't tell them reliable since many Wiki users use them in many articles considering they are reliable, i request the protesting people to prove that they are not reliable. Even then there is no guarantee that we may reach a conclusion about their reliability. This, i feel, is a never ending process.Pavanjandhyala (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're kind of missing my point here. I'll give you an example. A film like Gravity has 300+ critics reviews, with 48 of them being "Top Critics". We're not stuffing excerpts from 48 reviews into that article, let alone the 300+ Rotten Tomatoes deems notable enough to count. As for what can be considered professional reviews, why not start a discussion on the appropriate Wikiproject and come up with a list? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The WP:V /WP:RS guidelines are not "Content must be sourced to reliable sources.... unless reliable sources dont exist or are hard to find, then you can use non-reliable sources." If there are not reliable sources, we dont cover it.

But, there are reliable sources and we are already using them and so there is no reason at all to even think about using non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, i accept your explanation is true about the article of Gravity. We cant accept 48 reviews to be featured in Wikipedia. But you are not understanding my point. Forget them and see the regional film Industry of Telugu cinema. Here even the total reviewers never exceeded 48 at least and moreover the scope of finding reliable sources is less but not zero. We have nearly 7-8 sources in which nearly 4 or less than 4 are considered reliable by the protesters. So giving a list of them is not a big deal. But all of them will not be accepted reliable by many Wiki users. It needs a good deal of discussion and team work among us to find reliable sources and come to an opinion. TRPoD, i am not saying to use non reliable sources in the field of critical reception. I just want to explain that all sources which the protesting ones feel non reliable are not non reliable ones. Some of them are reliable and with reference to the opinion of NeilN, you should help in creating a list of reliable sources. You have 75000+ edits to your credit and with respect to your experience, the other wiki users need your help in framing a list. So, i request you to help in this matter.Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

*Support* : I Accept & Agree with Opinions / Replies that, the users Nei1N, Pavanjandhyala posted above. One must think about this Complicated issue that has been Facing by a lot of Users in Wiki. Thank you so much :D Raghusri (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yevadu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article, thank you. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Image Review

• In the filming section, can you crop the Ramoji pic to Vizag's size? You can also enlarge the Vizag pic to Ramoji's size. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done I changed the direction from horizontal to vertical and i believe that should be the better option. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• Can you create a notelist and explain what Sankaranthi means for those who might not understand waht it is? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added the note for Sankranthi. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot

• Look fine. No noticeable change here. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Production

Development

• "He said, "Since I produced Vamsi's earlier two films, I was all eager to score a hat-trick with him. Vamsi narrated to me an exciting plot and I was hooked to the unique script that also had a commercial angle. We approached Ram Charan and Chiranjeevi and got their nod in just one sitting"" — You can insert all of this as a grey block quote. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Devi Sri Prasad was confirmed as the film's music director in early November 2011, marking his first collaboration with both Paidipally and Charan." — Insert the source for this sentence. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We already have a reference from Sify there. Check number 8. It was used for "Devi Sri Prasad was confirmed as the film's music director in early November 2011, marking his first collaboration with both Paidipally and Charan. The music sittings were held at Goa". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok then. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Casting

• "During the film's launch, Charan said that the film would not have been possible if Arjun had not accepted the part." — Looks more like puffery (peacockry). Remove it. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• "who was reportedly paid a remuneration of ₹ 6 million," Is the info there in reference no. 28? If it is then leave it as it is. If not, find a RS for it. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is in the ref no. 28. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• "It was rumored that" can be rephrased as "It was speculated that". — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• ", he explained, "I am super excited because of the script. It's a superb narrative and I have a great role in it too. For a change, I am not the bad cop, but an honest one."". — Just the phrase, "Murali Sharma was selected for a supporting role" would suffice. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Filming

• "After this first round of production, Charan would go back to Bangkok" — Rephrase it as "After this first phase of production, Charan was scheduled to go back to Bangkok" — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• "The film's team left for Switzerland on 20 May 2013, in order to film a song" — Add "sequence" after "song". — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Wikilink Peter Hein. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• "under the supervision of Shekhar", "under the supervision of Johnny" — Who are they? Choreographers? if so rephrase both the sentences as " Later, a song choreographed by Shekhar, and featuring Charan and Haasan was shot at Annapurna 7 Acres Studio.", "The song Freedom which was choreographed by Johnny, was shot in early July 2013 at Ramoji Film City." — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done All Rephrased. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Release

• "its complete collection" — Please specify what collection the sentence refers to. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It prefers to the collection of the paid premier show held on 11 January 2014. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Write that info. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 11:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal Issues

• "Vamsi called the charges baseless, "We have no clue which poster he is referring to. If he is talking about the one featuring Amy Jackson in a two-piece bikini with Charan, it was from a song. There was absolutely no obscenity in it. We will handle this legally."" — explain Vamsi's defence. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Just before the release of Race Gurram (2014), stills of Shruti Haasan from the song Pimple Dimple, taken from obscene angles, were leaked on the internet. Shruti received huge criticism for the photos, while some called it a cheap publicity stunt. Regarding them, she said "What really bothers me is that these stills were not preapproved by the production house or me. Those pics were shot on location while I was shooting for a song. And like it happens with most pictures that are shot when you are dancing, some of these were taken from unflattering angles. They were never meant to be released and should have been deleted right away." She added, "I am filing an FIR in Hyderabad. I want to get to the bottom of this issue and I want to know who uploaded the pictures. Someone has to take responsibility. I don't know a world beyond cinema. This is where I have grown up and I trust people here like I would trust my own family. This is a breach of trust."" — Explain the sentences rather than placing them as quotes. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to rewrite them? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: I meant that you must write about the news rather than just quoting. Yes, rewrite. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 11:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Rewrote it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reception

Critical response

Can you reduce some of the quotes as per WP:QUOTEFARM, and explain the critics' statements in your own words? You can do that for the newspapers. Reduce especially Oneindia, and IndiaGlitz should not be in italics. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: I did it, but i am not sure. Have a look and give suggestions if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pavanjandhyala: Looks better now. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you address these concerns, then the article is passed. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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:

@Pavanjandhyala: Congratulations! Yevadu has passed. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 14:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thanks for reviewing. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2: How the fuck did it pass NPOV check with this claptrap included, highlighted in a pull quote none-the-less "I was all eager to score a hat-trick with him. Vamsi narrated to me an exciting plot and I was hooked" ???-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: You are right. Missed out on that one. I removed it myself. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Yevadu (2012 fim)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yevadu (2012 fim). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)