Talk:Don 2

Comments
This is an unofficial review. I have obtained the GA1 reviewer's prior permission to cross-check the article once. I'll be posting comments below. Thanks.  X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

General

 * Replace "movie" with "film" wherever possible.  X.One   SOS  13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * References need assiduous formatting. There is a erratic mixture of dmy, mdy and ymd in the date and accessdates. Authors are missing in almost all references. Please see WP:CITEHOW for further information.  X.One   SOS  14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the first one is a good suggestion, so I've done it, as for the links, most links in this article are formatted using reflinks which is very acceptable for a criteria of a GA.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but use only one. All the references must be in one format. A mixture of reflinks and manual formatting is not acceptable.  X.One   SOS  14:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, its not been done yet. All references using cite web and cite news must have these six fields : Title, url, publisher, author, date and accessdate.  X.One   SOS  05:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to WP:CW: If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references.
 * Since I am the main content contributor, the format that should best suit the article (and the most frequent as it is) is : url, title, publisher, date and accessdate.--Meryam90 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:CW says no such thing. Where exactly is it and could you quote it as it is?  X.One   SOS  15:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I quoted the wrong policy. It is WP:CITE and it falls under the Variation in citation methods section: to change existing citations to make them follow a consistent system and style, if there is currently inconsistency within the article. If there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor or start a discussion on the talk page; It is also found in WQ:CITE in When there is a factual dispute section.--Meryam90 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And simply saying it cannot make it accepted. Please provide a valid rationale for your style.  X.One   SOS  09:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Look,Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles. you thinkthe order you have given is best, I disagree and according t wiki if in disagreement, refer to the style most used in the article or the one used by the mane contributor. which is both for the one I have stated.--Meryam90 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors cannot chose whatever they want, that is a statement which arose from a strong misunderstanding of the liberty given by Wikipedia for its editors. Please go through WP:CITEHOW as I have stated above. It says that :


 * "Citations for newspaper articles typically include the name of the newspaper (in italics), the date of publication, the byline (author's name) if any, the title of the article (within quotation marks), and the city of publication if not included in the name of the newspaper."
 * "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include the name of the author(s), the title of the article (within quotation marks), the name of the website, the date of publication (if known), the date you retrieved the page, for example Retrieved 2008-07-15. (this is required if the publication date is unknown)."  X.One   SOS  10:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors can chose the style, and if it violates Citehow, then a rationale is needed.  X.One   SOS  10:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, there is no one single style for doing this, in terms of ordering of the information, punctuation, etc
 * The policy states what should be added, not the style or in what order, which means that edits can choose the order in which to classify the information in the citations. What I want to understand right now,is what is your problem with the existing style the main editor has chosen?--Meryam90 (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have no problem with the information to be added, then why do you disagree with it? My problem is, "author" is a necessary feature for references as stated by Citehow. Please give me a reason as to why you feel its unnecessary.  X.One   SOS  12:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Several sources do not mention an author; what is supposed to be done then? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it should be added only to the ones which mention it.  X.One   SOS  13:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And leave it out for the rest? That's also not uniform. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of what Ankit said AND cause according to WP:CITE/ES: webpages, the author is often unknown; you can either omit the author altogether, or substitute something vague like "Open Source Initiative Contributor". Clear enough?! and since most Indian newspapers don't have it, I chose to omit it all together. --Meryam90 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it is absent in a few sources does not mean it can be omitted. Even dates are absent in a few references, does it validate the complete elimination of that framework?  X.One   SOS  16:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And, who says that authors are absent in most Indian newspaper reports, pray?  X.One   SOS  16:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not going any further with this discussion, you're clearly just looking to complicate thing for some reason. the format of the ref in the article are uniform (exp for the Critical reception section which will be done with soon) and do follow a certain specific style according to Wiki rules and as far as I can see, no policy is being broken here (if you feel so, get an admin here). That is all I have to add to this--Meryam90 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC).
 * As far as I can be, both WP:CITEHOW and WP:CITE/ES, two guidelines, are being violated here without a lucid apprehension. I really do not think that my comments were generic in any manner.  X.One   SOS  17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, let's just clarify a few things. If we use the author template, then not all references will be filled because some newspapers title the author as a "Special Correspondent" so according to me, placing the author tag will be non-uniform throughout the article. However, there is no real problem if the author-cited references are duly updates. Perhaps Meryam's concrn is that searching through such a large number of references to put author names for almost all of them is a long and time-consuming process that will delay the GAR more than necessary. A GA doesn't require such finely worked-out details IMO, it can be overlooked. However had this been an FAR then matters would have been different. Hopefully, we can get to some sort of conclusion here. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard work is necessary, no one denies that. That includes the bit for references. We cannot just expect that the house will build itself without any work. I'm talking about ALL GA contributors. Just because it is not required, it does not mean that even though it is available, we should not add it.  X.One   SOS  09:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that was Meryam's concern; you will have to ask Meryam why she isn't willing to do so. I never stated that hard work isn't necessary, read my statement properly "Perhaps Meryam's concrn is that searching through such a large number of references to put author names for almost all of them is a long and time-consuming process that will delay the GAR more than necessary." I never said that was my concern. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Positive to mixed" for Indian reviews? I see 5 critics panning the film.  X.One   SOS  15:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 2.5 stars is "average", not panning. Though I agree that "mixed" will be much more appropriate than "positive to mixed". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 12 reviews giving the film positive reviews and a rating of 4 to 3 stars and 4 reviews gave it a 2.5 stars which as User:Ankitbhat said, is considered mixed an not negative. However, 5 reviews gave the film 2 stars or below. So it is reasonable to say that the reviews were positive to mixed.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I calculated the average score, excluding the two non-rated reviews and the average rating is estimatedly 2.5, which is mixed. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The average score is actually 2.8 but you have excluded one positive review, which created the flaw in your calculation. --Meryam90 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, then. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  13:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The four images in the film require a WP:ALT. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  13:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Alt text is no longer necessary esp for free images. even recent GA articles such as Dabangg, Ra.One and ZNMD don't have them. Exp maybe for the posters.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the remainder. As you can see, ZNMD does have it and if Ra.One doesn't, it should be added before the next GA reassessment. It applies to the poster in the infobox. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  05:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ZNMD only has it for the posters anyway and not for the free pictures which means that not all 4 images needs it, only the poster. And the fact that over a dozen recent GA articles I have checked were passed while there was no Alt Text proves it is not necessary. Even an FA article such as Preity Zinta doesn't have it. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring WP:OSE cases here. An alt text is, after all two or three lines, and that too only for the poster. A BLP article need not have alt text primarily due to the fact that free-images often exist in the infobox. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  10:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well at least now you understand that free images do not need Alt Text. Good. So NOT all four of them need it. And I still stand by the fact that they're not necessary. Shall add one to the poster (only) though. --Meryam90 (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

 * Information about the producers is required in the lead. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Haphazardly organized lead, this one. Please make sure it is well organized in order of the sections. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no specific order to the leads. however, this lead follows the norm for any film and the order of the sections as well: Director, leads, filming locations, summary, release, critical reception, Box office performance and finally awards. Where is the Hazard? --Meryam90 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a followed standard. For example, "It was filmed in Thailand, Germany, Malaysia and Switzerland." is the 3rd sentence? Please make sure it is organized. Basic info, plot, development, casting, filming, marketing, release, reception and accolades. This is the order. Thanks. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. It has been sorted.
 * No, I'm still not satisfied. Such a large article requires a nicely summarizing lead. Go through WP:FILMLEAD for more instructions. Or follow Ra.One, which has a nicely constructed and properly summarizing structure. The lead normally does not have references, and if the present references are used elsewhere in the article, they can be removed from the lead. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  16:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * according to WP:FILMLEAD the lead must cover what is considered milestones or major achievements regarding the film. Ra.One is a special case because it had many firsts and was a big film and I alway believed it had a lead which is way too long. You can check any other GA article and most lead you'll find have elements which are present in the lead of this article. No more work will be needed for the lead because it is long enough as it is and covers enough ground regarding the film.--Meryam90 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What about stuff like Hrithik Roshan's cameo, which received quite a lot of attention, promotion budget, brand tie-up's, video games, controversies, notable places where it was shot, delays in release and some more about the 3d conversion the reports about Don 3? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  05:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Brand tie-ups aren't very notable because they were in the norm of any other Bollywood film (just a couple) not like Ra.One who had a huge number of 52 brand ties ups. promotional budget is again in the norm, just like the money for distribution. Cameos are sure not gonna be mentioned in the lead esp such a small cameo which was denied till the time of release and therefor was not part of the promotional drive and wasn't given an importance by the makers of the film. It is already mentioned in the lead that the film was released in both 2D and 3D. Don 3 is speculations, we can only mention a sequel if it has been officially announced, which is not the case for this film. Like I said before, Please don't state Ra.One as a ref point or example because that was a really huge and special film.--Meryam90 (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why do you say that the 3d conversion was so special, if the brand tie-up's are not? If not anything, they, by all means deserve a mention in the lead, irrespective of their stance compared to Ra.One, because 22 crore was a record marketing budget, and I think, the highest after Ra.One till date. I don't see what problem you have with that. AND, if DON 3 is speculation, then it should not at all be in the article. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation and rumors. Thanks for pointing that out. What about the other points which I said deserve a place in the lead? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? odd enough that ZNMD has a sequel section (of 3 sentences) talking about a sequel that will never happen and is absolute speculations. However, the reason why the sequel section in this article exists is that there was that scene at the end which hinted to its existence and that all of the team of the film insist that a sequel is in the cards but do not comment on the "when", but it can not be added to the lead unless it is OFFICIALLY announced. Like I said, the lead will remain as it is. something being second or third highest isn't an achievement, Bodyguard had a similar promotion budget, so it is nothing special. and the film was never delayed in release, when it was announced in Feb 2010, it had a xmas 2011 release all along.
 * I wont be filing the lead with unnotable informations just so it can look big. Sorry, but "size does not matter"--Meryam90 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead section should mention Roshan's cameo; its very important in the film's story-line. The marketing budget is not really necessary, a ₹22 crore cost isn't eye-popping and similar marketing costs are borne by most major Bollywood films. Don 3 speculations are just that - speculations; they certainly have no place in the lead. We should ideally mention that the film was 3D converted. There were no delays in release at all. Controversies must get a mention, just a sentence like "The film faced controversies regarding ... ". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I did some re-working of the lead and added necessary info. Hopefully its alright. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was filmed in Thailand, Germany, Malaysia and Switzerland." - Wasn't it filmed in India? Goa? Others? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Added India even though it was only for a promotional music video not included in the film.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "criticism has been generated regarding its pace and music." Have they been the only major aspects criticized? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you would check the source provided and most of the reviews, the slow pace and mediocre music have indeed been the only consistent problems critics had with the film. So the answer is yes.'' :)--Meryam90 (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I see many criticisms for the script and storyline as well, including in the mixed and some of the positive reviews. Please add that. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The script has never been a major issue (not the same way Rock star or Ra.One).Stated in the lead are only teh aspects which were heavily criticized. --Meryam90 (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please indent your posts properly and the script has been criticized. Even Taran Adarsh, in his review says "But the film could've done with a tighter script" and "There's no denying that a cohesive script would've made a world of a difference to the film." <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one critic's review, there is a difference between something having mixed reviews (liked by some, hated by others) and being over-ally panned. The elements stated in the lead are the latter. Some reviewers (esp overseas) loved the Storyline/script. The Pace and the Music, however, were almost universally not liked by critics.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, as far as I can see the plot wasn't universally criticized, just a few did. But music was not appreciated that much (however, in the film, critics praised it as it flowed well with the movie). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it has been criticized by a significant percentage of the reviews (even if not universally), it should be added. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  06:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What has been criticized by critics is the pace in which the action flowed,most said the film was slow, they didn't criticize the technicality or the writing itself. So the script or screenplay has not been criticized in itself nor did it have major problems for critics to be added to the lead.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, then. I looked at the reviews, and around half of them criticize the story and screenplay, but nevertheless. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  10:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Don 2 has been widely appreciated for its action, direction and cinematography with Shahrukh Khan receiving accolades for his performance" - Shahrukh is the lead actor, and connecting the statements of him winning accolades and critics praising something he was not involved sounds quite absurd. Please reword it. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well normally I wouldn't mention his name, but reading the reviews, most critics used expressions like "the film belongs to Khan or watch it for Khan or see it if you are a fan of him...so he has been praised heavily for his performance.--Meryam90 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the question of accolades here then? The prose must be clear and concise, according to GA criteria. The lead needs a lot of work. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the question of accolades here then? because he has won over 4 major awards for best actor for his performance as Don.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you mix the accolades and the critical reception? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)ù
 * There is no mix, in order to know an actor has been receiving accolades for his performance, you read praise of his performance in reviews by critics and you notice he has won many awards for it. Which was the case for SRK in Don 2. Pretty simple.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅I think this is sorted as well major-ally favorable critical reception + many awards won for best actor justify the presence of that sentence in the lead.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Box Office India declared the film a "hit" in India, and a week later" - Change it to "in the second week" for easier understanding. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "popular award ceremonies" - "popular ceremonies"? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "popular award ceremonies" will be the best option as far as my concern. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I share the same view as User:Karthikndr--Meryam90 (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Development

 * The second para has a loonngg quotation which is totally unnecessary. It should be removed and re-written with minimal quotes. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅Shortened it a bit, as for the second quote, I see no use of removing it...it has valuable informations.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Sidhwani revealed that he had the idea of converting the film into 3D after seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2." - This sentence speaking about the inspiration is not really necessary as Hindi films are increasingly being converted to 3D, as of late. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But this has been only the second film ever to be converted (Hunted-3D was shot in that format) so it is quit significant to state that.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if conversion and direct shooting is different, no issues. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the "Casting and filming" section could be moved to "Development" and the section can be renamed as "Filming". Two sentences do not merit a section. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Filming

 * "According to Khan, the city was chosen because it demanded a more realistic backdrop, unlike some of his other films shot in more fairy-tale-like environments of countries like Switzerland." - Eh? Either add quotes if it is present in the source, or re-word it. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅Removed it all together, it didn't add much to the article anyway.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Link "unkempt hair" and "stubble" if those entries exist. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅I actually found a Wiki page for stubble, beats me, but I added it :P--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Chopra prepared her body for at least two months" - Specify how many months or use "more than" or "around". <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Though I still don't see the difference between more than and at least.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "specially shipped from Korea" - Remove it. Or explain how it is so special. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pointless, the fact that it is shipped from Korea makes it special. It's one of those things that explains itself.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is subjective in the first place and what is so special about something being imported from another country? That too cars? Like I said, you need to explain it in the article or remove it. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove it, its really not something worth mentioning. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. If you both think so then fine by me.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "47 points out of 60" - What does that mean? The quote does not explain. The second quote from Sidhwani in the para is absolutely not needed. It should be removed. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅I've removed it. It's pretty vague indeed.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "they have opted to visualize the song as an action sequence." - Who has opted? And is the first time. What about Raaftarein from Ra.One. That was also action sequence and a song. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Well contrarily to Raaftarein which simply showed SRK standing there just singing or making his typical moves in addition to some sequences of the making and behind the scene, professional choreographer has been invited to create the entire scene/sequence of the song. Have you watched the song? then it shall be very clear to you the difference between the two songs.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Soundtrack

 * "The film's original score and soundtrack has been composed by Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, who composed the music for the first installment of the series, with lyrics penned by Javed Akhtar." - Even Javed Akhtar was part of the original, ain't it? Please re-phrase the sentence. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Add a sentence about the reviews received by the soundtrack, whether they were positive or negative or whatever. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅: -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pre-release revenues

 * Overlinking of Euro has been found. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ removed.


 * "The distributors, Reliance Entertainment have bought the rights of the film from Excel Entertainment for 85 crore (US$18.7 million) and spent another 22 crore (US$4.84 million) in prints and marketing." - Better in promotion as it describes the amount spent on marketing? Or better, the sentence can be separated into two parts, the first part in this section and the next part in promotion. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "the highest satellite amount as compared to other films released by Reliance Entertainment in the same year." - Does it really deserve a mention? It accounts only for a single year and a single company. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ However, the the 2nd point, promotion sections is mostly for the promotional activities/deals. So the money spent on the film by the distributors is better kept at the Pre-release revenues section.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Money spent on promotion is like a summarizing point of the promotional activities. It needs to be mentioned as the first or second sentence of the section "Promotion". <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make much difference since the info is included in the Marketing section overall plus the money has been used for the video games as well. so keeping it in the per-revunues section wont create a sort of confusion regarding the other 2.--Meryam90 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you remove it? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's valuable informations to the article. How can we remove the promotion budget?!!--Meryam90 (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC
 * You just said its already mentioned elsewhere. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it has been mentioned elsewhere :P I said the money for print and marketing has been used on both the promotion AND video games (both which have separate sections) and thats why I can't put the 22 crore figure in only the promotion section because part of that 22 crore has been also used for video games . --Meryam90 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅I think this one has been sorted as well, unless it is still not clear enough for the editor and further explanation is needed.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Promotion

 * "The first theatrical trailer of the film and its poster were released along with Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara" - Uh, how were they released? Were they incorporated into the prints of ZNMD or released in a separate function? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ As for every film. Through the prints of course. It's common info anyway.--Meryam90 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Using technology to innovate film marketing has gone unabashedly high with Don 2" -subjective. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * sourced, not an editor's words. can be found in the newspaper article itself.--Meryam90 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the source and its a clean copyright violation. It needs to re-written in own words. I suspect similar problems linger all over the article. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  06:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use the duplicate director on this article (I have before). and there is minimum matches between any source and the text in this article exp for obvious quotes. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, newspapers don't adhere to NPOV, we have to convert it. Copy-pasting is not right, I'm afraid. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tweaked.--Meryam90 (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "meet Khan himself - Remove that as it is a clearly biased word. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "quite popular worldwide" - Remove the "quite" as it unnecessarily confuses the reader. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Meryam90 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "various non-metropolitan centers" - Indian English spelling "centres" and what is "non-metropolitan"? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. All last three issues sorted. --Meryam90 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comic and video game
Well written section, I must say. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS 
 * Only issue I could find = "Sidhwani while speaking about the game, said "This is the first time a game is based on an Indian film that will be launched on four platforms. When I saw the creative of the game, I was very excited because the visuals were as real as the characters in the film. For an iconic character like Don, I think this was the best way to keep the hysteria going amongst his fans."" - Again, a long quote. Please convert only the relevant info to indirect speech. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice - I shall check the other sections in the remaining part of the article, at most by the next 48 hours. If I do not do so by that time, I request Ashu to find out whatever issues possible, and if fixed, to take appropriate action. Thanks. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  16:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Shortened it, it looks very decent now. I am unfortunately off as well. :D --Meryam90 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Release

 * "Don 2 released worldwide on 23 December 2011, in 3,105 screens in the domestic market, including 500 prints in 3D and 650 screens in 40 countries overseas.[50][51]" — Synthesis. The first source says 3105 screens and the second 2850. However, only the second gives the overseas data. Screen count may not be accurate, but I suggest that you look out for a source which gives both in the same report. Ah....I got one, this can be substituted for 51. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The second phase of international release is scheduled to begin on 11 February 2012 when Don 2 will be showcased at Berlinale in Germany." — The bold info is not verified by given source. All it says is that the film will be screened at the film festival, but nothing about a second phase release is mentioned. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the second phase was suppose to begin in January according to this but it was postponed to Feb (there are sources to confirm that, but unfortunately, they're not RS-according to Wiki)...There is no reliable source to verify that because it was only announced on Twitter and no newspaper picked up on it. However, I will keep it because it's very much true and it is not a vital info that necessarily needs a source.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, all subjective claims, regardless of their level of subjectiveness need a reliable source for verification. If you cannot find a source, please remove that. Its just a part of the sentence anyway. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fixed--Meryam90 (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversies
No issues. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

India
No issues. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Overseas

 * Rearrange rated reviews before un-rated reviews. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Domestic

 * "By the end of its eighth week, the film has grossed 106.03 crore (US$23.33 million) from it's Hindi version.[105]" — Not verified by source. Plus, I think its "nett", not "gross". <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it was verified last week when Don 2 was still on that table :P. The archives give an error when I want to get back to previous dates. I'll try later, I guess.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ It has been removed. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  09:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

International

 * User inr for "Rs." and link "$" once for US$, Australian $ and New Zealand $. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The film became the highest grossing Bollywood film overseas of 2011 and was declared a blockbuster by Box Office India after collections reached around 63.18 crore (US$13.9 million)" — Not verified completely by source. A blockbuster, yes, but the report says that $12 million is "expected". <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't link New Zealand cause it's mentioned in a combined gross with Fiji and others but linked all else.
 * As for the second point, I've removed it since I still stand by the fact that if inbfo are not available at all, it's better ignored. --Meryam90 (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can retain the blockbuster part. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can retain the blockbuster part. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know. I didn't delete that.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, then. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  13:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Accolades

 * Needs uniform formatting. Put all the wins from one ceremony together and similar vice versa. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove stuff like "Also for ...". They won the award for this film right? Then its good enough. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Even tho "Also for ..." would make the information accurate. but since it can be found in the respective section of the other films, it doesn't really matter then.--Meryam90 (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sequel

 * Two long quotes present. Please remove it, and explain it in indirect speech, as short as possible. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what source claims that the sequel is not happening? Browsingman (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide gross
I am making this section because when I am gonna file an other GA nomination, I don't want an other childish and absurd discussion filled with illogical reason to fill the review. We're going to AGREE on what will be put in the article regarding the worldwide gross and if the parties involved ('you know who you are) start an other stupid discussion like the ones in Bodyguard and Ra.One's talk pages, I should kindly request you to step away from the next GA review because your presence shall be pointless. Thank you.

Now, I understand that we have all been through this before, but something Ashu has pointed out has made a lot of sense to me, we're not gonna be picky, if things are unknown they should be ignored till further informations are available hence it is pointless to state Hindi version only or not. So it would be best to keep the 210 cr ONLY in Info box and then we can agree of what to clarify in the Box Office section in the article. I hope you can manage to keep this SHOT. --Meryam90 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Prior to next GA nomination
I suggest that the main editors of this article work in the issues listed above in the "comments" section before nominating the article for the next GA process. If you find any objection, please leave a note in my talk page. Thanks and regards. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  05:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The issues addressed have been worked upon, those who were not significant enough or has been agreed to not be changed has been kept in their current state. Thanks for your contribution.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure not. Let me tell you, if the needful for a concern has been done, place ✅ template below my comment and sign. In that way, we'll know which has and which has not been worked upon. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you have eyes? It's pretty possible for you to see words such as DONE written bollow suggestions without the need of a lil green symbol. However, I am ought to remind you that as a regular editor (and not a GA reviewer) not all of your suggestions will be taken in consideration if they're found not to be valuable to the improvement of the article. Thank you. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Some of my major concerns like the reference formatting has not even been addressed at all. The article is unfit for GA otherwise <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it look like I am nominating it now? and does it look like that concern has been tagged as done? if no then it will be addressed.--Meryam90 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you completely misunderstood me. I said that if you have done it, please add the template. If you haven't, please take your time. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see so many done templates and pardon me, what is the duplicate detector? A tool? <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a tool that shows how many matches there is between the content of two web pages. It's normal to find words or one or two sentences. When it surpasses an entire paragraph then it's a Copy vio. Like I have said, I've already checked the article. It's all good.--Meryam90 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

People! I loved reading this GA Review and comments more than the article itself. Please take it as a compliment to the efforts put by all. Good work going on! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have listed out all possible flaws I could find in the article. If these are fixed, I believe that it can be nominated and soon, promoted. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  11:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And Animesh, the "comments" were not a part of the GA review. It was just an unofficial feedback. :P <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  12:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

GA can wait
Seriously, the BO section has so many peacock words like "It posted an extraordinary second day of etc." I mean, what? The article needs quite some work before we can even think of going for a GA. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary a peacock word? Maybe. I still doubt it, though. <font face="Comic Sans MS"> X.One   SOS  15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If its in a quote, then no. But in a plain sentence, yes. How would you feel if you saw something like this : "Don 2 had simply extraordinary action scenes. The locations were extraordinarily breath-taking"? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Last hurdle
The article looks absolutely fit for a GA review now. Except for one thing: the overseas critical reception section. I would like to point it out that the section seems to be indulging in WP:CHERRY and is inaccurate, not to mention incomplete. The overseas general reception was not "praise", Don 2 received a mixed critical reception overseas as well. This is also evident in the Metacritic score for the film (49), which is missing from the section. Some reviews have been placed with only positive-sounding portions to make them look like positive reviews; in reality, they are negative/mixed (LA Times). These are serious issues and I'd be happy if we can collaborate to remove these errors. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this. Tried to correct some misquotes. --Iateyourgranny (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not the only problem. The issue with references still persists, and most of them are not formatted properly. I have no problem with omission of author, but the other five fields must exist in each and every one of them, news media should be italicized, not overlinked and uniformity must be maintained. Some questionably reliable ones include 31, 50 and 118. Their reliability must be proved, or they must be replaced with better ones or must be removed along with their content. If that is looked into, I would say that GA's not far off, but otherwise, it is a fail. <font face="Batik Regular"> Secret of success 10:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not done with the article in term of expansion...There are much more info I'm going to add to various sections...So, it's not gonne be put up for GA anytime soon. I just want to point out that if and when I will put it up, I will actually ask for it to fail if M.Secret of success decides to deem himself as the GA reviewer. Iv' noticed teh trend going on in Indian projects there days of passing an article for a GA when it has lil to minimum coverage for the topic, and I'd like this article to actually be FIT for a GA in an actually real terme. So, mind you, Don 2 has a while before going for a GA review. --Meryam90 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright Meryam, we can understand :P I just pointed out that there is one obvious hurdle to a GA. Of course, you can carry out any expansions. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The citations actually do not have to be perfect for GA; that is for FA. See What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not. It says not to require "consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" BollyJeff  ||  talk  12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has sufficient content. In fact, a bit more would make it eligible for FA status. As for my status as reviewer, I thought of being so because I'm quite familiar with the article despite not being a major contributor. And Bollyjeff, the references must be even because a bit more content would make the article eligible for FA status, if the major contributors are interested, not because of the GA review. That's a completely different issue. <font face="Batik Regular"> Secret of success 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Images included in the article
A discussion regarding the images included in the Filming section of this article is going on at Wikipedia_talk:INCINE. Please give you views there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:SRK jump.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * It won't be deleted. See commons:File:SRK jump.jpg. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 05:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...are you aware that the above comment was made by a bot? <font face="Batik Regular"> Secret of success <font color="#29AB87">(talk)  15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Box office of don 2 film
Don 2 was made in a budget of Rs 70 crs It collected a net profit of Rs 113 crs from India in Hindi, Tamil and Telugu versions ( this information is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2#Domestic URL ) Then it made a profit of $11700000 ( Rs 58.5 crs ) from the overseas market ( this information is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bollywood_highest-grossing_films_in_overseas_markets URL ) So don 2 made a profit of Rs 171.5 crs over the budget of Rs 70 crs So don 2 grossed Rs 241.5 crs in India and overseas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashlalwani1993 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Box Office disputes
With all the constant changes to the Box Office figures here, it may be time to go the same route as Enthiran and Ra.One with a statement like this: "Do NOT add budget and gross figures here. It is being left out due to a dispute. All estimates of the data are present in the .... section below." Comments please. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. There is a dispute regarding the box-office, not the budget. So it can be like this:

"Do NOT add gross figures here. It is being left out due to a dispute. All estimates of the data are present in the box-office section below." <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 ✉  16:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to create separate article for boxoffice section.Please suggest me the source from where i would take worldwide gross(or better say whole gross of other versions) figures. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the infobox gross getting changed nearly every single day? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don 2 is not a highest grossing bollywood film of all time.
Ram nareshji (talk) Don 2 is not a highest grossing bollywood film of all time. Chennai Express is the highest grossing bollywood film of all time. pls correct it. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram nareshji (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Don 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110817020205/http://www.filmfare.com:80/articles/priyankas-kicking-some-serious-ass-2524.html to http://www.filmfare.com/articles/priyankas-kicking-some-serious-ass-2524.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111228155753/http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/28/movie-review-don-2.html to http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/28/movie-review-don-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Don 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxnewsdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=5303&nCat=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Don 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110502082603/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/entertainment/bollywood/Boman-Irani-loses-12-kg-for-Don-2/Article1-690743.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Boman-Irani-loses-12-kg-for-Don-2/Article1-690743.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113034706/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Entertainment/Cinema-Interviews/Lara-Dutta-super-excited-about-new-character-in-Don-2/Article1-602083.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Cinema-Interviews/Lara-Dutta-super-excited-about-new-character-in-Don-2/Article1-602083.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208095043/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/showbiz/bollywood/don-2-review-what-yawn-2-879 to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/showbiz/bollywood/don-2-review-what-yawn-2-879

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)