Talk:Paan Singh Tomar (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

 * A lot of copyediting is needed for grammar and tone. Mixed verb tense is a recurring issue.
 * There is only a single image in the article. See if there are any appropriate ones to add. If there is an available photograph of the historical Paan Singh Tomar, I would suggest at least adding that.

Lead

 * The WP:LEAD will need further work at a later stage since the body requires a lot of work (see below) and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
 * but was forced to become a rebel against the system – hardly WP:NPOV.
 * shoestring budget – should be sourced.
 * The film was released domestically on 2 March 2012 – avoid using the word "domestic". The meaning of the word is context-dependent.
 * emerged as an average at the box-office – copyediting needed. "An average" is an odd phrasing. How does one emerge as such? Box office should not have a hyphen when used as a noun.
 * a domestic net of ₹201.80 million – according to the cited source, that's not the domestic net but the worldwide gross.
 * The film won the Best Feature Film and Best Actor – either remove the definite article or add "awards" after this.

Plot

 * Verb tense is not consistent throughout. There are even several instances of mixed past and present tense in the same sentence.
 * dacoit – replace, gloss, or at minimum link.
 * Answering questions about himself, the story goes in a flashback from the year 1950. – copyediting needed for grammar.
 * He forms a gang of people some of whom are his relatives and are in conflict with Bhanwar Singh. – anacoluthon.
 * As an act of revenge for his brother's death – unless there's something I'm missing, this is the first mention of the brother's death.
 * had become police informers and had informed the police – seems rather redundant, no?

Cast

 * I would suggest glossing the characters.
 * Who does Paras Arora play?

Production

 * This section is rather thin.
 * Dhulia researched the film's background – the film's background?
 * But that would need a lot of money. This caused Dhulia to work on it for 10 years. – conspicuous use of short declarative sentences. Not an appropriate writing style in this context.

Soundtrack

 * freewebmusic.co appears to be a spam website; even the Wayback Machine link redirects my browser to some random webpage.
 * Since the film [...] classical influences. – unsourced.
 * The music of this epic film stands out for its authenticity, originality, and the perfect blend of central Indian folk with western classical influences. – hardly WP:NPOV.

Release

 * This section is quite the WP:QUOTEFARM.
 * Paan Singh Tomar achieved universal critical acclaim among the critics. – this is a very strong assertion that is not backed up by the cited source.
 * grossed ₹65.0 million (US$810,000) nett – "gross" and "nett" are contradictory terms.

Awards and nominations

 * This entire section is unsourced.
 * There is a lack of consistency with regard to linking recipients.
 * What's with the bolded "Winner" above the table?
 * I would suggest rethinking the formatting of the table. The WP:Good article for the film Jab Tak Hai Jaan, another Hindi-language 2012 film, provides an example of how this can be done.

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * See my comments above.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * See my comments above.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction. The excessive use of direct quotations in the "Release" section may however be a problem in this regard. Because the article will need to be extensively rewritten before it can be promoted to WP:Good article status, I have not checked for WP:Close paraphrasing at this point.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * As noted above, the "Production" section is rather thin. There may be other significant omissions as well.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * The "Release" section goes into way too much detail about individual reviewers' opinions.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * See my comments above.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The only image is the poster, which would seem to be an acceptable instance of fair use.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.
 * This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL.

I'm closing this as unsuccessful. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. I don't think this can be brought up to WP:Good article standards within a reasonable time frame. I gather that you are fairly new to this, and I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. To that end, I'll suggest WP:Peer review as a a more appropriate venue to bring this article to at this stage to get feedback and suggestions for improving the article. You may also wish to consult the WP:Guild of Copy Editors. For specific guidance about writing film articles, I would suggest reading MOS:FILM and you could of course always ask for help at WT:FILM. I will add some maintenance templates to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)