Talk:Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara!/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Will review later.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Soham 11:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can start now. Soham 17:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are ready we can proceed now. Soham 08:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

✅. Not specified in the film, nor does any source exists for the naming. Soham 11:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Plot
 * "where its predecessor ended" - link the film here.
 * Is it Jaaved or Javed?
 * I say this because you spell it Jaaved in the cast section. Pick one spelling for both..♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ changed to Javed, in light of two sources - . Should I mention it in a note? Soham 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, as long as the spelling is consistent and the most common.
 * Filming
 * Please don't start this with quote boxes, much less two of them. Find a way to disperse them into side boxes like on the Clint Eastwood article as it affects flow. In looking at them I think you'd be best writing them in your own words into the prose or at least only quoting part of them.


 * "The remainder of the film was shot on location in Khala, on the Sassoon Docks and at Mukesh Mills in the Mumbai area to give the film a retro look." - Not sure why this gave the film a retro look..
 * ✅. Removed.


 * Effects
 * "Scenes in the Sharjah Cricket Association Stadium in the United Arab Emirates" -you should probably mention in the filming section that UAE was also a location.
 * That was created digially.
 * OK♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Casting
 * "for Luthria as well who shot her first song Sambhala hai Maine in the 1994 film Naaraaz." What do you mean, Luthria didn't accept fees too?
 * ✅, ha ha, Luthria charged a lump-sum, Bendre did it for luthria. Change wording.


 * What is Eid? I think you should put time of year in brackets at least.
 * Soundtrack
 * Delink Eid


 * Can you find a way to avoid that big gap and move the track listing into it?
 * I beg your pardon, please explain. I collapsed the track list. Soham 16:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's better.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Rajiv Vijayakar reviewed each song for Bollywood Hungama:onwards to the end of the section is far too excessive and poorly organized/worded and the bullet points are unattractive. Can you rid of the bullet points and perhaps pick the most important reviews and condense into a decent concise paragraph or two. I'd probably nuke the entirety of it or at best only use a couple of further quotes nicely written into the prose.
 * If I was you I'd create a soundtrack article and nuke the bulleted section and review in the main.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of it too, but thats of laters, I summarised the review section in one befitting para. ✅ Soham 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * "deewana dons and their dilrubas." what on earth are these?
 * ✅. Changed wording. Soham 16:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you should neatly reorganize the quotes, the worst first and then the better reviews rather than 1.5 out of 5 and then a 3.5 out of 5 etc. One paragraph for more negative and one for more positive as a counter argument I'd think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be expanded a little to summarize whole article. Mention film locations etc...
 * Lead

Looks good for GA, but before I pass you need to significantly cleanup the organization and structure of the reviews in both the soundtrack and reception sections. Try to make it less convoluted and flow better. Soundtrack section especially needs to become visually more attractive....♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the improvements. I've helped you out with some of them and although this could still be polished further I think it is now passable. Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)