Talk:Talvar (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 04:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "Produced by Bhardwaj and Vineet Jain, the film is based on the 2008 Noida double murder case involving a teenage girl and her family's servant. Starring Irrfan Khan, Konkona Sen Sharma and Neeraj Kabi, the film follows the investigation of a double-murder case of a girl and a servant from three different perspectives in which her parents are guilty or innocent of the murder charges." — You've already mentioned that its based on the double-murder case, so don't need to mention it a second time. Also, what are the three perspectives? A little bit summarising there is needed.
 * "Bhardwaj and Meghna did not obtain permission from the Talvar family for the film" — You mean "not yet" obtained permission as they approved the film afterwards.
 * "At a screening, lawyer and politician Ram Jethmalani, said that the trial depicted in the film inaccurate." — "in the film was inaccurate".
 * "Bhardwaj and Meghna researched the case for nearly two years, and found" — At what period of time. At a later paragraph you mention they "began researching the case in mid-2012, during the trial." So which one is correct? Just clarify this bit.
 * It started out in mid-2012 but when it was finished, I could not really find and which is why I didn't include it in the first place. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Earlier entitled Nyodda, the film was renamed Talvar. The title was initially registered with Pritish Nandy Communications (PNC), but was purchased by Bhardwaj. PNC was the film's initial co-producer, but the company withdrew from the project." — You can move this up to right before "About the film's title, Meghna said that it referred to justice"
 * The surname of "Arushi Talvar" should be changed to "Talwar".
 * In the critical reception section, talk more about the technical aspects in one separate paragraph rather than just stating the same kind of thing about the film.
 * All reviews mostly talked about the film's treatment and performances, which I have tried to cover in the reviews, and not very much the technical aspects. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In the critical reception section, there are lot of times where "called" and "calling" is repeated. Show some more variety.
 * Wikilink the names of the websites, magazines and newspapers on the first instances of them being mentioned.

That's about it from me,. Resolved my comments and the article is passed. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest has been resolved. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing my comments,. Congratulations, the article has passed. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 03:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)