Talk:Santosh Subramaniam/GA3

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * Doesn't really need sourcing aside from "unreleased".
 * The second source does not mention that It's My Life is a remake, contrary to the first.


 * Bommarillu -year in brackets?


 * At the end of the film, the father repents his foolishness and the happy marriage of the protagonists. Santosh Subramaniam was released = - Paragraph break needed


 * "dotes on his son, who resents his father's dotage." -repetition
 * ✅ I have written it differently.


 * No mention of production and the shooting in New Zealand and of the award nominations?


 * Plot
 * "even after he is 24 years old. The son, Santosh (Jayam Ravi)—who is now 24 years old" -repetition of 24 years old, not needed in second instance.
 * ✅ written "grown up".


 * "begins verbally abusing all the fathers in the world" - eh?
 * What do I write, when that is just what the hero does?
 * I don't understand what you mean? How can he verbally abuse all of the fathers in the world?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I recollect watching the film, he was ranting away while drunk. Guess I'll just write that.


 * "When inquired about his disgust" -awkward wording
 * How about "asked/questioned"?
 * "When questioned about his strong reaction"?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Seeing her chirpy nature" -doesn't fit, reword.
 * How about "jovial"?
 * Perhaps "Noting her jovial, vibrant personality"
 * ✅. Written as "Seeing her jovial and vibrant personality" because "noting" is a word to watch.
 * Nothing wrong with it in that context!! I've used the word in FAs. Maybe if you're referring to somebody as being a "notable" person. Its use as an adverb to describe people is frowned upon on here, not when writing about somebody surveying something. I really don't know why some editors here swear by the guidelines as if God himself ordered them anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "He tell her that he is " -informs?
 * ✅ Ok, informs written.

Remove full stops.
 * Cast


 * Production
 * "300 talking invitations" -oral invitations?
 * I don't know, the source reads "talking invitations".
 * That doesn't make it superior to oral invitations or 300 invitations by word of mouth in good English! The invitations don't actually talk! Shoddy journalism, he'll soon be hired by the Daily Mail LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have now written it as just "invitations".


 * Why is mention of the launch before casting?
 * ✅ casting now comes before the launch.


 * Soundtrack
 * "'santhosham'(happiness)" -gap needed
 * Shouldn't track listing be sourced too?
 * Comments: I am maintaining SIC, and the tracklist does have a source.
 * santhosham vs santhosam in second instance. Which is more widely used? Also you can remove happiness in brackets in the second instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Santhosham" (also called Santhosam) is a Tamil term meaning happiness. Because non-Tamil speakers won't know that, the translation is necessary, also because it appears in a quote. WP:SIC states that "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced" which I do not wish to violate. However, I will remove "Santhosham" in the soundtrack section in order to cut short the quote.
 * The spelling should be consistent, and if you explain what a term means once you don't need to twice really, although if it is quoted I suppose it's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Release
 * Why are "[w]ell and [o]verall bizarrely worded like that? Surely the review didn't call it "ell" and "verall". If it was a typo then you don't need to do that.
 * ✅ don't know why Baffle Gab put the brackets anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Refs
 * Ref 4 -publisher?
 * ✅ The site is baradwajrangan.wordpress.com


 * Put film years in brackets in footnotes

Not great to be honest. But I think we can get it through with a bit of effort.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , these comments have been resolved. Anymore? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 13 May 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:

This one is a weak pass I think. The quality of prose and the sources aren't exactly great, but I think it's just about passable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)