Talk:Drushyam

Comments
At first glance I can see a lot of rambling prose and several grammatical issues. Here are some of my comments.
 * Lead
 * Is "marking the golden jubilee of the former" necessary in the lead?
 * Not sure what it means to outsource production work.
 * Too much of the plot is detailed in the lead. A simple line or two summary should be enough.
 * "...took charge of the film's cinematography and editing respectively". Quite unnecessary to say "took charge of..". Simple stating "xxx provided the cinematography and yyy edited the film" is sufficient.
 * Instead of saying "...commenced on 8 March 2014 and lasted till 8 June 2014", isn't it easier to say that the principal photography lasted for three months? Remember the lead is a summary of the main article, and shouldn't have too many excessive details.
 * Why do you provide the distributor's share in the lead and not the total money earned?
 * "..in it's lifetime". Redundant.


 * Plot
 * The very first sentence in the plot makes little sense to me. Commas are missing, and the word Rajavaram is repeated twice.
 * Never heard of someone "earning fluency" in a language.
 * Why capitalise the first letter of nature in "nature camp"?
 * "...photographed naked in the bathroom by a hidden cell phone" Someone gets photographed by a person with a cell phone, not by a cell phone.
 * What's a "police inspector general"?
 * You mention one profession and yet associate it with two individuals in ".. the son of police inspector general Geetha and Prabhakar"
 * Without some punctuation this makes no sense: "Varun is accidentally killed by Anju when he comes to blackmail her and Jyothi after which Anju breaks Varun's cell phone."
 * "They hide his body in a compost pit made for manure, which Anu watches." Watches what, the manure?
 * "Rambabu removes the broken cell phone and disposes off Varun's car, which is seen by a corrupt constable Veerabhadram, who holds a grudge against him.". Not sure who the "him" refers to.
 * "Rambabu, predicting that this would happen, teaches his family how to change their alibi at the time of murder." How does someone "change their alibi at the time of murder"?
 * "on the 2nd of August in the morning". Is "the morning" really necessary in the larger scheme of things?
 * "When questioned individually, they replied the same thing and they had also shown the bill of the restaurant, movie tickets and the bus journeys' tickets as proof of their alibi.". Why do you change the tense suddenly?
 * "The statements of the owners of the establishments they have been.." Umm, what?
 * Sorry, but the next few sentences make no sense to me.

I'm going to stop here, because the article doesn't seem to have been written by a native English speaker. Nothing wrong with that, and the article can surely improve in time. I strongly suggest you make a request at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and buzz me once a coordinator gives it a thorough copy edit. Good luck! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 09:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the comments. And yes, i am not a native English speaker. I've made a request at the GOCE for a thorough c/e and :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have started the copyedit. I will let you know when it is ready. ← scribble ink  ᗧHᗣT 09:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My once-over copyediting is complete. I hope it helped. ← scribble ink  ᗧHᗣT 06:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the c/e. It helped me a lot. However, i would like to point out that ten million is preferable to one crore. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. While I agree with the general consensus of MOS:COMMONALITY, I went with Manual of Style/India-related articles, which I believe applies as a more specific case. It states that "for monetary figures, you may use the Indian numbering system but also give their US dollar equivalents in parentheses." By employing Template:INRConvert, my intentions were to: (1) adhere to that guideline, (2) provide a wikilink to what crore and lakh mean, and, (3) use the exact same units from the cited references to make it easier for future verification. ← scribble ink  ᗧHᗣT 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course i am aware of them. But, the specific case you mentioned says "may" while Commonality says "preferred". When i am supposed to choose between may and preferred, i shall go with the latter. I shall retain the INRConvert template. But, crores will turn millions. Anyways, i would like to thank you for your valuable help in the form of a copy-edit. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that these are guidelines, not meant to be taken literally. Hypothetically, an editor can go in and change the word "may" to "preferred" tomorrow. Rather, an agreement is arrived upon by a process of consensus. In this specific case, there are two of us and I am not opposed to changing it back to the million-based system, so please go ahead. ← scribble ink  ᗧHᗣT 08:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced picture
The picture "File:Daggubati Venkatesh.jpg" was removed from the article and placed here for the following reasons: ← scribble ink  ᗧHᗣT 08:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a picture of the actor from an unrelated event (IPL).
 * The poster of the movie clearly depicts Venkatesh, so there isn't a need to add another image of him without a specific reason.
 * The caption is more suited to be in the text of the article, by virtue of a claim made regarding an actor's role. If the sentence is added back to the article, a reliable source is needed to make it verifiable.
 * Its okay to remove it. Let it not be in the article. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Hitchcockian" and unexplained removal of content.
I'm opening a perfunctory discussion because an IP editor has referred to the film as "Hitchcockian", without any references or context to explain what is meant by that. Barring any explanation or analysis from reliable sources, this sounds an awful lot like someone is trying to equate this film with the works of Hitchcock's, which sounds promotional. On that basis, it should be omitted. Additionally, this editor has removed content that the body was buried under the police station, however they have not explained their rationale for removing this content. I presume they might have an issue with it being a spoiler, but as I have instructed them on their talk page, Wikipedia does not remove spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)