Talk:Agneepath (2012 film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see this article being put up for a GA review. I just read the lead section and found a number of problems, listed below :-


 * The film is described as an action thriller. Not sure about this; it would be better to call it an action drama film instead.


 * "It is an adaptation of the 1990 film of the same name" Huh? An adaptation means adapting from a book or some other source. The correct word would be "retelling" (since you have commented that the film's isn't an exact remake).


 * " with several unceremonious accidents taking place on the sets" Peacock word. There is no need of "unceremonious".


 * "became a major commercial success, unlike the original," Unnecessary bit (unlike the original). In 1990's the standards for deciding a film's success was different. Just say that Agneepath (2012) was a major commercial success. Also, write the Box Office India verdict in the lead ("super hit").


 * "The film, also met with large appreciation from critics and is currently the fifth highest grossing film of Bollywood." Remove the comma after "the film". And replace the "currently..." part. After 6 months, the ranking will become obsolete. Just write that the film became one of the highest-grossing films of all time, and (at the time of release) became the highest-grossing film of 2012.


 * I saw the critical reception section. Acting on good faith and assuming that all necessary reviews have been added, you could say that the film received universal critical acclaim. Sounds more encyclopedic.


 * The infobox states the film's gross as ₹200.06 crore. Improperly sourced.


 * Chikni Chameli should not be italicized. Instead of Chikni Chameli, write as "Chikni Chameli".


 * Size up the two images in the Casting section so that both have the same height.

This is just one part. More to come. Hopefully these issues can be fixed in a day or two. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for starting the GA Review. The above mentioned issues have been fixed. Have a look. Smarojit (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Progress :). Now, continuing :-


 * This is up to you, but I would prefer if you change the date format to mm-dd-yyyy rather than dd-mm-yyyy (note: this shouldn't really stop the GAN).


 * In the lead, write the "one of the highest-grossing..." bit immediately after the box office verdict.


 * "Written by Ila Dutta Bedi and Malhotra" this should come in the lead's first paragraph, immediately after the director's name. Similarly you should shift up the music and lyricist credits.


 * "with Rishi Kapoor portraying a newly introduced character of Rauf Lala." Grammar - it should be "portraying the newly-introduced..."


 * "While Hrithik Roshan plays the lead role of Vijay Deenanath Chauhan, Sanjay Dutt plays the role of the antagonist Kancha Cheena" - Change this to "Hrithik Roshan plays the lead role of Vijay Deenanath Chauhan and Sanjay Dutt plays the role of the antagonist Kancha Cheena" to help the next sentence gel better with the paragraph.


 * Btw, a general thing for the whole article: remove all present tense usage. The film has released quite some time back.


 * "Rishi Kapoor as Rauf Lala, an underworld lord, he runs a meat business and simultaneously deals in drugs and prostitution." Change the comma after "lord" to full stop. The two bits are separate. Same for all the other Cast members.


 * Btw, you have mentioned the original portrayal of VDC in the lead, so don't repeat the same in the Cast section.


 * "Though the received critical acclaim," Though the... what? Film?


 * "Karan Malhotra was an associate director" Did not understand. Do you mean assistant director by any chance?


 * "Johar told Malhotra his desire to remake the original film and asked him to revisit it again." It should be "...told Malhotra of ...".

In fact, come to think of it, this article needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see a number of grammar mistakes, and I have barely started reading the article. In fact, I am really surprised that there has been no peer review for the article prior to the GAN. I would suggest halting this GAN, having a thorough peer review and then re-nominating the article. If you wish, I could carry out a peer review, but I can't do it here since it will be too long IMO. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to halt the GAN as of now. I do see some grammatical errors myself, though not as many as to hamper the GAN. Working on them, along with the points that you have mentioned above.Smarojit (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Its standard procedure to first go for a peer review and then go for a GAN/FAC. A peer review would have mostly rectified all issues and then the GAN would be quicker. No problem, I can continue here, but it can become long. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I read through the entire article and tried to remove whatever grammatical errors that I could find. I have also removed the use of a copyrighted poem. Have a look. I think its better now. Smarojit (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * More points


 * The themes section should ideally be a sub-section of Production, coming right after the Development sub-section.


 * This is a small nit-pick, but could you find a better photo of Sanjay Dutt from the film? The given photo, according to me, is unintentionally funny. I suggest the photo of Dutt laughing while talking on the phone.

More to come; hard-pressed for time now. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of your points are irrelevant here. A GA reviewer should go by the GA criteria alone. Please see what the good article criteria are not. Secret of success  ( talk )  06:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See, I have included the section "Themes and analysis", which include commentary by critics about what the film tries to represent. Should that be after the development section? How is that related to the production of the film? I can change it though, if you want to.
 * Also, why is the picture funny? I think the picture adequately represents what it needs to. Smarojit (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever one develops a film, the filmmaker always keeps in mind certain themes that run throughout the movie, which are subsequently incorporated into the film. Since a Development lies under Production, therefore even Themes should technically lie under Production. After all, see "production" - making the film. And the themes of a film are an important part of the filmmaking process. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Smarojit (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * I have a strong feeling about the Themes section - it just doesn't look right. Except for the poem and Ramayana bits, nothing else strikes me as a "theme" of the film. I'd like to discuss more on this.


 * Is there a wikilink for dahi-handi? Or any article that explains this ritual of Ganesh Chaturthi? The ritual, though well-known in India, has no context for the rest of the world, and we have to take care of that. Additionally, italicize the word dahi-handi, and for that matter, any Indian names and things appearing in the article, like kohl, sari etc. with proper wikilinks.


 * More wikilinking required: in filming, link principal photography, union territory, body double. Additionally, why is "Ganpati festival" linked to Ganpati? Its Ganesh Chaturthi.


 * "Priyanka Chopra faced difficulties while shooting for the film, as she was simultaneously shooting for Anurag Basu's Barfee." By any chance, was this difficulty due to the fact that cell-phones were banned on set? Please clarify.


 * "Roshan once again suffered from a major back injury, while lifting a man weighing 110 kgs, while shooting for an elaborate action sequence." - "once again"? You have mentioned a back injury only once. Besides, there is lack of reading flow. There shouldn't be so many "would"s. Write it as "Roshan suffered from a major back injury while lifting a man weighing 110 kilograms, which was a part of an elaborate action sequence."


 * "While Ravi K. Chandran was signed as" - signed -> assigned. Same for Sabu Cyril


 * "he begged out of the film after filming certain portions" - What? He what? Begged out? Please change the wording.


 * "The official You Tube channel of Dharma Productions live streamed the event on the Internet" - it should be "Dharma Productions streamed the event live on the production house's YouTube Channel".


 * "Sony Music, revealed that the soundtrack would consist of extensive use of live instruments." - re-word it to "revealed that live instruments would be extensively used on the soundtrack."


 * Am I missing something, or is there no information regarding the film's music rights? Ideally, that information must be present in the soundtrack section.

More to come. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See, that's the reason why I wanted the themes subsection to come after the production section, because the section talks about what the critics felt the movie is about. For example, see the article on The Dark Knight. The article has a subsection on "themes and analysis" in the release and reception section. We can do something like that. Smarojit (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The themes section should not deal with what critics felt about the film, but what the filmmakers wanted to convey through the film. As per the title, the Themes section should highlight the running theme(s) in the movie. And let's avoid comparisons to other film articles since there will be an unwanted amount of lecturing based on WP:OSE (one of the worst-utilized policies on Wikipedia). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. Lets not compare. But since we want to incorporate critical commentary in the article, we can rename the subsection as "Themes and analysis" and place it in the "Release and reception" section. What say? Smarojit (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, good idea. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. :) Smarojit (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments

I guess this will be the final batch of comments :-


 * Wikilink U/A certificate.


 * "due to a high content of violence in the film." I guess you meant "due to a high proportion of violence present in the film"


 * I would remove the large quote from The Birmingham Mail in the critical reception section. It is leaning strongly towards WP:UNDUE.


 * That brings me to this: The Birmingham Mail is an overseas publication. I am quite sure a film like Agneepath has more overseas reviews that just this one. I suggest you find more overseas reviews, group them into a paragraph (or two) and create a new sub-section titled "Overseas". P.S. - reliable overseas reviews. Have you checked Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic?


 * Box Office. Something I am very strict on, since I follow BOI and BOM very closely. I distinctly remember the opening day to be reported as 21.76 crore. Yes, it may seem like a small nit-pick but I wish to maintain perfect accuracy, especially since the source is right at hand.


 * "on Thursday, 26 January," No need of this. Just write "on its opening day".


 * "It additionally netted 62.11 crore" It should be "subsequently, the film netted..."


 * "The film's collections held very well on Monday" Make it encyclopedic - "the film's collections sustained well on its first Monday"


 * Distinguish between first week and fist extended week. The paragraph left me confused.


 * "The film has netted around 30.50 crore (US$6.08 million) internationally." WRONG. Its only overseas, international refers to worldwide. Besides, in overseas it is GROSS, not NET. Change that, and change "internationally" to "in overseas markets".


 * "As of April 2012," Always avoid this. Write "At the time of release".


 * And last, for readability's sake, split the references section into three columns using colwidth=30em.


 * In all references having newspaper names, always italicize the newspapers. Always.

Other than this, I see no problem left with the article. Its well-written, quite comprehensive and interesting. Rectifications are done promptly, and I can see eagerness to push this article to even higher standards. In short, excellent work. Keep it up :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, I guess.

I have gone through the article one last time. All I see is a small problem regarding the italicization of references, and I will assume that this aspect, with a little guidance, can be overcome.


 * Well-written

Prose is pretty good, engaging, flowing.




 * Factually accurate and verifiable

Sources of good quality, properly cited using accepted templates.




 * Broad in its coverage

Covers all aspects of the film (as far as I am aware). Reveals quite a bit to uninitiated readers.




 * Neutral

Neutral in tone. No vandalism-based fanboyism/hatred which is so common in Indian film articles.




 * Stable

No edit-warring visible. Time elapsed since release is quite a lot. Very remote possibility of sudden spurt in vandalism or other unwanted editing.




 * Images

All images non-free, but have necessary and valid rationales. Though a bit high in number considering the length of this article, I'll let this be.



In short, this passes all the good article criteria and is certainly ready for higher standards. Congratulations. Article -

~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)