Talk:Loham/Archive 1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lingering language loss at Loham
I'm sorry but the entire article body text needs lots of work.

Just curious,, what is your level of language at Category:User en ?

Strongly suggest you find multiple copyeditors previously uninvolved with the article or topic to copyedit and improve syntax and diction.

Recommend you find people of language level Category:User en-N or Category:User en-5, or both.

Good luck,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time
Quite sorry to say that upon revisit after Seven Days, unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time.

I sincerely hope that the recommendations from the GA Review, above, will be helpful to editors in the future to further work on the Quality improvement process.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:


 * 1) Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
 * 2) Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
 * 3) Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality.
 * 4) While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
 * 5) While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs
The Production part is written in single paragraph sections. It should be splitted into para's. The whole article also needs a copyediting. --Charles Turing (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Loham
I have just made some edits to the lead.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and some edits to the plot but it is still very confusing and needs more information from the film to make sense.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Marketing section
I have a question about the marketing section you deleted and overall importance of including it at all. I am still in the process of tweaking this article (I'm a slow tweaker), and had already deleted some of what was previously included in that section. When I began reviewing a couple of the cited sources, the reviews were a bit confusing, perhaps because of the translation and different terminology, so I had planned to find a few more to make it more consistent with our accepted style. However, I'm now wondering if it's even worth the trouble of adding it back. Your input wiill be greatly appreciated. Atsme 📞📧 21:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, WP:TRAILER is fairly clear with the bolded print Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. The content must be distinctive in some way as to warrant it. Obviously, the guidelines present the whole picture better than I can in a few sentences. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cyphoidbomb - I support leaving it out, unless of course another editor believes they can write something that will meet the guidelines set forth in WP:TRAILER Atsme 📞📧 22:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TRAILER is something that I just became aware of today after researching the utility into some of the marketing sections in Bollywood films. It is a wide-spread practice to add this trivia, but it is obviously not of value to the Film community and I'm going to start cutting it where I experience it. Indian cinema articles are already grossly misused for promotion and advertising, as I'm sure you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I found it curious that a Marketing section was even allowed as it clearly appears to be an invitation for exploitation (and further marketing). Perhaps it warrants further consideration? A Distribution section could include a bit of info about the trailer or better yet, it would make more sense to have a subsection titled "Trailer" in the Reception section.  Atsme 📞📧 02:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value of detailing any of the marketing unless there's something notable about it. After all, everybody produces a trailer and a poster, blah blah. That's the crux of what the guideline appears to be saying. At least MSG-2: The Messenger (apparently a self-indulgent propaganda film produced by a leader of a religious sect to glorify himself) went out of their way to make a spectacle of their marketing efforts: World's largest film poster, allegedly achieving 100,000+ people at a trailer release (if memory serves me), other large-scale events that were promotional in nature. That's more noteworthy than, "The 'first look poster' was released on 12 October. The trailer was released on 23 October and received 6 million views on YouTube within 12 days. That's just moronic, and that's typically what we get in Indian cinema articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct quotes
There are three direct quotations in the article that I have not changed, but that I plan to either paraphrase or remove. Two of them contain grammatical errors from the original sources: (subj/verb agreement:) "The socially relevant message . . . sprinkled very often are really effective and needful at present" ; (article missing:) "movies like Loham are many laps behind in race to this glory". The third seems OK grammatically, but does not make sense to me: "If Ranjith hadn't made a batting side with 20 instead of 12, and not gone overboard with the star adoration, maybe the metal would have at least looked spray painted". Perhaps this last one just needs more context within the article, but I think it would be easier to give the gist of the review by paraphrasing. Comments anyone? If I hear nothing, I'll proceed with removing/paraphrasing. --MattMauler (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you. Your collaboration is most welcome. Atsme 📞📧 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So irritating when the "reliable" sources that presumably have a clear editorial policy, do not actually have a clear editorial policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Production
Do we need so many subsections in the Production part? Some of them contains just two or three sentences. 122.174.192.91 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, thank you. I combined development and filming into the main section under Production. Atsme 📞📧 16:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: 85th Oscar Nomination for Best Original Score - ok, so Meno composed 1 of the 104 original scores that were eligible and advanced for nomination as Best Original Score at the 85th Academy Awards -,. Looks like India Today got it all wrong when they claimed it was nominated, [ ]. Anyway, it got some press coverage which makes it notable for mention in the article. Agreed? Atsme 📞📧 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)  Atsme 📞📧 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Normally hundreds of films and persons are considered for the Oscars every year. That deserves a mention in respective film articles but is too irrelevant here in my opinion. 122.174.193.255 (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also WP:MOSFILM suggests to include recruitment of the artists (both cast and crew) in a single section. 122.174.193.255 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Atsme 📞📧 20:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing
I am a Keralite and I saw the film. There are some mistakes and misinterpreted statements in the article due to a major copy editing. I think the editors lack the subject knowledge. Let me start from the beginning. The main points in the film's development are missing. There was three phases in development of Loham.
 * Ranjith initially planned a film with Aashirwad Cinemas starring Mohanlal-Manju Warrier and Prithviraj. But the project was cancelled due to resemblance of script to another film.
 * Now he announced another film starring Mohanlal. That too was cancelled as the writer-Director Ranjith was unconvinced with the screenplay.
 * Ranjith revised the screenplay and retitled as Loham - This is the development of the film.

Now coming to Casting section, there are some misunderstanding in the casting.
 * Aju Varghese, Pearle Maaney, Srinda Ashab and Manikkuttan for a musical performance were confirmed.

Aju Varghese was not part of a musical performance. He was a cameo as an Auto rickshaw driver. Pearle, Srinda & Manikuttan appeared in musical performances. But the songs are different. Pearle was featured in a Christian wedding song while Srinda and Manikuttam was featured in a Hindu wedding song in two different occasions in the film.
 * Several media outlets reported Maaney was to perform an item number at the wedding after a selfie she took with her and Mohnlal dressed in a wedding outfit was leaked online. The Hindu wedding song was shot in Kozhikode (misinterpreted statement).

Here, actually Maaney was reported to perform an item number. But the news was revealed to be false after a photo of her dressed in a wedding outlet was leaked. Here also she appears in Christian wedding song not the Hindu song which featured Srinda and Manikuttan.

--27.97.202.115 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Malayali - thank you for your input. Describing the trials and tribulations of Ranjith and the all the fumble bumble things that happened beforehand are considered trivial perhaps even gossipy and better suited for a magazine not an encyclopedia. See Filmmaking Better yet, brought the following guideline to my attention, Manual_of_Style/Film, and I agree that it's a better format to work from so we'll be on the same page as to what is notable and relevant for inclusion.  Perhaps a tighter, more lucid version of your suggestion would work if it focused on the initial concept.  You are certainly welcome to correct any inaccuracies you find but please be sure to cite RS.  Thank you for your collaboration.  Atsme 📞📧 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Added comment by Atsme 📞📧 20:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dubious
re: your question about dubious smuggling operation. I thought that since things didn't turn out as originally planned by the co-smugglers, the fact that the gold came up missing either before or during transport, and then the final ending all contributed to suspicions about the operation itself, unlike the more predictable smuggling operation where you have bad guys smuggling illegal contraband then getting caught. The whole plot is based on dubious intentions which is magnified when the gold goes missing. Atsme 📞📧 16:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. There has to be a better way to explain that. I haven't seen the film, so it's hard for me to pitch an alternative. Maybe something like, "The film centers on a band of smugglers who become suspicious of one another after 100 kg of gold mysteriously disappears en route from Dubai to Kerala." ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds rather dubious. 😆 Atsme 📞📧 17:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's your counter-proposal? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let Corinne do a little magic copy-editing, and see what happens. My suggestion is to not mention the other film(s) - it's confusing and well...trivial.  Atsme 📞📧 05:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (Thanks for the compliment.) Are you referring to the fact that the detective/taxi driver who seems to be investigating the case turns out at the end to be a criminal himself? I think it's all right to delay mentioning that fact until the end of the plot summary, which is the way it is worded now. If you give that away right at the beginning of the article, you remove some of the enjoyment of reading the plot summary. Perhaps you will have seen by now that I changed "dubious smuggling ring" to "elusive smuggling ring" at the beginning of the article. Are you not satisfied with that? If you don't like "elusive", then perhaps just "smuggling ring" would be sufficient. I don't know what you mean by the other films. Corinne (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GOCE Copy-edit of November 4 - 5, 2015
In response to a request for a copy-edit of Loham at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have just reviewed the article and made a few small edits. The article was fairly well written as it was. I have a question about the following sentence, which appears in the middle of the section Loham:


 * Ranjith explained it was dropped because the film's story resembled that of another film in the same language released during its pre-production time.

The placement of "its pre-production time" at the end of the sentence creates a bit of ambiguity since two films have been mentioned just before it. I assume "its" refers to Loham and not to the other film. If this is correct, the phrase "during its pre-production time" (which I would change to "pre-production phase") should be moved to earlier in the sentence:


 * Ranjith explained that Lohan was dropped during its pre-production phase because the film's story resembed that of another film in the same language.

Can you say, instead of "another film in the same language", "another Malayalam film"? Corinne (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I re-arranged the sentences in the Loham section. I decided to take the one sentence about the film's budget out of that section and put it in the production section. I couldn't find any section specifically on production costs, so I put it at the end of the filming section. I think the sentence about the budget would only belong in the box office section if the actual profit was being given: box office receipts minus production costs equals profit. Corinne (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence is about the pre-production time of the dropped film, not Loham. --Charles Turing (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cast
Can we please follow MOS-FILMS a little more closely and trim down the Cast section? Atsme 📞📧 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good suggestion. But all the cast members in the Principal Cast is notable except Pradeep Chandran and Mohan Jose, also Mythili and Joy Mathew are actually cameos misplaced in that section.--Charles Turing (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, - I didn't mean to suggest the current list needed trimming.  I posted that comment after I trimmed several non-notable names in the cast that were added by IPs a week or so ago. Atsme 📞📧 20:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation, please?
, is there any way you can get a translation for the source you just cited? ചാർളിയോ ലോഹമോ മുന്നിൽ ? If not, we should consider citing a different source. Atsme 📞📧 15:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You can use google translate, but there may be some mistakes in translation. --Charles Turing (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , it would be best if you would add the English translation or a different source. We shouldn't expect readers of the English WP to translate articles, including cited sources.  Somebody needs to translate it (I was unable to get a translation) or we will have to replace should consider citing a source with English titles.  It will not pass a GA review. I wouldn't want it to not pass a GA review because of a simple translation. See WP:NONENG, and WP:NCF <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC) struck and reworded 23:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Removed. I think the article is ready for GA.--Charles Turing (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Me, too - but because of all the IP activity and the fact that it's PP, we should probably wait until the PP runs its course and hope the IP vandals don't become active again. A stable article is a must for it to pass a GA review. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016
i want to edit this page with reliable source kindly grant me to edit Mobish369 (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.