Wikipedia:Peer review/Jab Tak Hai Jaan/archive1

Jab Tak Hai Jaan
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I strongly feel that the article has a definite chance of becoming a GA. But before a straight nomination, I thought that the article needs a peer review, because I fear that certain features of the article may not meet the GA criteria. It also underwent a thorough copy-edit by Miniapolis.

Thanks, --Plea$ant 1623  ✉  13:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Pleasant. I am reading through the article. I will start posting comments here (in batches) as soon as I am done. Cheers! -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  09:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Note: Technically, there should be no references linked in the lead. So use these references in the main text, no need to repeat them here.
 * Comment: Sorry, didn't got you. What references? Links?
 * What I mean is there shouldn't be any references in the lead, unless it is a very tall claim or a quote. Read WP: LEADCITE.


 * Done: Moved references to somewhere else.
 * "The film features Shah Rukh Khan, Katrina Kaif and Anushka Sharma[4] in lead roles, making it the first film to pair Shah Rukh Khan and Katrina Kaif and the second collaboration between Shah Rukh Khan and Anushka Sharma after Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi." As a general rule, after mentioning the name of a person, use only the last name for any subsequent referral.
 * Comment: Well, the sentence was vandalized by an IP, who mentioned the first names of the actors (it wasn't mentioned before), and since then it was reverted.
 * A few changes to this line would be better, such as this: "The film features Shah Rukh Khan, Katrina Kaif and Anushka Sharma in lead roles; this is the first collaboration between Khan and Kaif, and a second pairing for Khan and Sharma (they previously featured in the 2008 film Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi)". [Note: Always mention the year in which a film has released].
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * I am not sure what this means: "For Chopra's fourth film featuring Shah Rukh Khan in the lead role, he returned to directing eight years after Veer-Zaara". Can you change this? Preferably merge this with the next line that talks about this being Chopra's last film.
 * Done: Re-worded. Also removed the first line "For Chopra's fourth film featuring Shah Rukh Khan in the lead role".
 * Note: Since the first line mentions both Yash Chopra and Aditya Chopra, it is difficult to understand which Chopra is being referred to here, so use either the first name or the full name.
 * Done: Mentioned full name.
 * "was" composed sounds better.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * "It received positive-to-mixed reviews from critics in India and positive reviews from overseas critics, opening well at the box office." ==> Safe to just write this as: "It received positive to mixed reviews from critics in India and abroad". The "opening well" part is redundant as the box office success is discussed later.
 * Half Done: Re-worded. Well, the film did received positive-to-mixed reviews in India, but overseas response was positive. This source proves that.
 * The line about Graham Greene's novel is jarringly out of place. (The source provided for this is unreliable too). If a better source is found, replace this statement in the first paragraph.
 * Done: Removed the whole sentence. The EOTA-JTHJ similarity was merely a co-incidence, and no legal action was taken.
 * "Jab Tak Hai Jaan is the third highest...."; replace "is" with "emerged as"
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * "... although the film's script and predictable plot were criticised". Either say plot or script.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * The last line of the lead can be written better. See Kahaani or The Dirty Picture for instance. -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  09:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done: Re-worded.Plea$ant 1623  ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine now. :)

support himself and his roommate." ==> "...street musician who also performs other menial jobs to support for himself and his room-mate". Is this room-mate pivotal to the plot? If so, who plays him?
 * Plot
 * "The diary recounts Samar's earlier years as a struggling immigrant in London, working as a street musician and at other menial jobs to
 * Done: Re-worded the sentence. Mentioned his name and the actor who plays the roommate.


 * "...at her engagement party to her fiancé Roger" doesn't make sense. You mean the name of her Meera' fiance is Roger? Surely there is a better way to put it across.
 * Done: Reworded like this: "at her and her fiance Roger's engagement party."
 * Why is it "Central London" and not simply "London"?
 * Done: Removed "Central London".
 * "Samar notices that Meera often prays". It will probably be easier to mention that the first time he sees her is when she is praying at church.
 * Done: Mentioned.
 * It will be better if you mention who plays the estranged mother.
 * Done: Mentioned.
 * " In exchange for English lessons, he agrees to teach her how to sing in Punjabi." It is not mentioned that Samar cannot speak English properly, so this statement sounds weird.
 * Done: Removed the whole sentence. Not a major plot point.
 * "The same day Meera is supposed to confess her relationship with Samar to her father" => "On the same day that Meera decides to confess to her father about her relationship with Samar, ..." (Question: I don't understand this plot development. Why does she have to confess to her father? And what happened to her fiance? Needs clarification for people who haven't seen the film).
 * Done: Re-worded. Meera's main intention for confessing to her father was to break her engagement, so mentioned that.
 * "Meera prays for God to save his life". We don't pray "for" God, but "to" God.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * "She asks Samar for help, becoming acquainted with him and his team." Not "becoming" ==> "and becomes" Also, what help does she want from Samar? Unclear.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * "romantic feelings" sounds cheesy. You can say that she has a crush on him or something.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * "Akira makes a successful film, and leaves for London with praise for her work.". I didn't understand what "...with praise for her work" meant? Needs clarification.
 * Done: Re-worded. Also removed "with praise for her work". Not needed
 * Last line of the plot section. "proposing to her on the spot". Which spot?
 * Done: Re-worded.--Plea$ant 1623  ✉  10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's it for now. Will be back when these comments have been addressed. Cheers! :) -- smaro jit  (buzz me)  10:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More points:


 * Production


 * "...coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the start of his Bollywood career." No need to mention "start of"..just mention 50th anniversary of his career.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * "released for the Diwali 2012 weekend." ==> Released "during" the...
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * The development and casting subsections are very small, wouldn't it be better to merge both of them?
 * Done: Merged.
 * Remove overlinking of Yash Chopra.
 * Done: Avoided overlinking.
 * "Aditya Chopra wanted his father, Yash Chopra, to make another film in 2011". What do you mean by another film?
 * Done: Changed to just "Aditya Chopra wanted his father, Yash Chopra, to make another film and approached him..."
 * The casting section has only one source. No other sources or information on this one?
 * Done: Added another source.
 * "There was also public demand to see Khan and Kaif together in a romantic film.". Emm....not a very encyclopaedic statement.
 * Done: Removed it.
 * In the characters subsection, please use last names of the actors.
 * Done: Replaced first names with last names.
 * Why the huge quote of Khan in the character subsection? Read Wp: QUOTEFARM.
 * Done: Shortened it.
 * "She reportedly worked hard to make her character believable..." Why reportedly? Not confirmed?
 * Done: Removed "reportedly".
 * "She is on the quest to discover the truth behind the story of The Man Who Cannot Die in the film" Firstly, it's "a quest" and secondly, who is the man who cannot die? No explanation provided for this one.
 * Done: Re-worded. The Man Who Cannot Die is Samar Anand, so mentioned that in brackets.
 * "The film's principal photography was expected to begin in November 2011 but was delayed because Khan wanted to take a break after his two previous films, Ra.One and Don 2." Isn't this information mentioned before?
 * Half Done: Yes. It is mentioned on the "Casting" section. I re-worded the "Casting" quote, though, to avoid repeating.
 * No source for "Shooting ended on 27 October 2012."?
 * Done: Removed the statement.Plea$ant 1623  ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Marketing
 * What's a preliminary trailer?
 * Comment: Here, the preliminary trailer means the teaser trailer.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this section looks fine.


 * Soundtrack
 * The first sentence is confusing. You can split it up into two parts. One mentioning that it was Rahman's first collaboration with YRF, and the second talking about when he signed on for it.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * Any soundtrack review? A summary maybe? A source for "positive to mixed reviews"?
 * Done: Removed the statement "positive-to-mixed reviews".<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Release and Critical reception
 * Looks fine at first glance.
 * Any reason why the certification of the film was delayed in Pakistan?
 * Done: Removed the statement. Not really important.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Again, whenever you mention a film in the text, put the release year of the film in brackets. Both 3 Idiots and My Name is Khan is mentioned in the lead without their release years.
 * Done: Mentioned.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Making some minor changes in the text myself. -- smaro jit  <sup style="color:green;">(buzz me)  12:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Final points:


 * Box office
 * " 95-to-100-percent" does not need to be hyphenated.
 * Done: Removed hyphens.
 * " It earned about 125.0 million (US$2.2 million) on its first day, despite the Diwali conflict." What do you mean by "Diwali conflict"? I understand that this means the clash with SOS, but for unfamiliar readers this will be hard to understand. In my opinion, the "Conflict" subsection should be merged with the "Domestic" subsection.
 * Done: Removed "despite the Diwali conflict". Also merged the Conflict section with "Domestic".
 * "The earnings of Jab Tak Hai Jaan and Son of Sardaar were affected by their conflict with Diwali." ==> "...on Diwali day" is better.
 * Done: Re-worded.
 * Not sure why this is mentioned: "While both films were certified "hits" by the website, it noted that Son of Sardaar failed to join the 100-crore club".
 * Done: Removed the whole sentence. Not really relevant here.
 * In the "Release" subsection: "At its release, Jab Tak Hai Jaan became the all-time highest weekend-grossing Bollywood film overseas." Phew! ==> "At the time of release..." The latter part of the sentence made no sense to me. What is "weekend grossing"? Please change that.
 * Done: Re-worded. Also removed the latter part of the sentence, didn't make much sense to me, too :)<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that the references have not been formatted properly.
 * References
 * Most important: Please ensure that only Wp: reliable sources are used. For example, Apun ka Choice, BollySpice, Parda Phash, Dat News etc are not reliable ones, so please find better sources.
 * Done: Removed all possible unreliable sources.
 * Ensure that all the newspaper names are italicised in the refs.
 * Done.
 * Ensure uniformity of website names in the refs.
 * Comment: Errmm... what do you mean by uniformity?
 * Done: Never mind.
 * Take a look at the ref formatting in some GA's and FA's (Kahaani, Priyanka Chopra, Vidya Balan, 7 Khoon Maaf etc..) to get an idea about this.
 * Done: Though I'll try to re-check.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  16:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's about it from my side. It would be really nice to get inputs from some other editors too. Thanks. :) -- smaro jit  <sup style="color:green;">(buzz me)  13:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Smaro, thanks for reviewing the article. Your comments are greatly appreciated. The article is in much better shape then before. I think we can go ahead for the GA nomination after a few days. Regards! <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"><span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000">Plea$ant 1623 <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> ✉  16:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. All the best with the GA process, Pleasant. :-) -- smaro jit  <sup style="color:green;">(buzz me)  14:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)