Talk:Karnan (1964 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I am taking up the GA review and will list comments shortly.[reply]

Generic

Dab - there is one for Karna
Deadlinks - one for Deccan - can an alternative be found?
follow uniform UK/US English style - digitized, criticized (US) to armour (UK).
there is no section on filming. The lead described locations, which are not described in sections.
can follow some style from Pather Panchali.
some book references needed to fill the missing pieces.

Reply: pls check production section, they contain more locations than the lead. Coming to deccan chronicle link, the tamilkey source contains it's info (ditto copied), but does not credit deccan. guess i should talk to the editor of DC concerning the dead links. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done all above requests fulfilled. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

multi/common links can be avoided like mythological, charioteer.
"The film is based on" - use Karnan in the start of the para.
"It stars Sivaji Ganesan in the title role" - "It stars Sivaji Ganesan in lead role"?
avoid peacocks - "magnum opus", "opulent"
"milestone for Tamil cinema" - "milestone in Tamil cinema history"?

the source (Times of India) says so, and let us be according to it. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"since it cast Ganesan and Rama Rao, both who were then leading actors of South Indian cinema" - rephrase to something like "bringing together two leading actors for first time".
"A digitized version of Karnan that released" - "A digitized version of Karnan released"

Done ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - most comments remain. Remove peacoks and avoid quotes in the lead unless heavily notable.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"father only, therefore heartbroken" - rephrase.
"at a contest" - "in a contest".
"Armour and Ear-rings" - "armour and ear rings"
"as a means of weakening him and stopping him from overpowering Arjuna" - "to weaken and stop him from overpowering Arjuna".
"Karnan, aware of Indra's intention, yet gives away both items which he was born with, and which made him invincible." - rephrase.
"When Parasurama witnesses Karnan enduring a bee sting, he realizes that his student is a Kshattriya, a tribe he opposes. Enraged, he curses Karnan that as he had learned through deceit, he will not be able to use the Brahmastra when most needed." - rephrase. Also doesn't this come early in his life? Should be placed earlier in chronological order.
"but eventually they accept, so Karnan and Subhangi are happily married" - "but eventually they accept and the couple get married".
all sentences after this needs rephrasing. Break sentences and have simple present and simple past in narrative.
is there a reference for the plot - seems totally unreferenced.
a parallel and minor variations with the original theme would be fitting like the edukavo korkavo sequence and mention of songs - this need not be part of plot, but some section like filming.

Done some facts taken from here [1]. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneSsriram mt (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

character description is repetitive. A mention of character and the actor who donned would be sufficient.
also details on support cast "long scene in one take", "couple of scenes" - undue.

will work on that. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i think this section is clear, just one thing to say: inspiration for this section's structure was taken from here: Jab Tak Hai Jaan#Cast. Are they right or wrong? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed the section. Some details were undue. Ssriram mt (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Production

rephrase - use simple past tense.
politician Jayalalitha - she wasn't politician then, so mere mention would do.
avoid peacocks.
"A few shots involving Ganesan and Rama Rao took 4 days to can, because of a "huge number of extras involved"." - ??

will be done. director Panthulu's son said the last claim, i'll improve it. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think the section is clear of errors, except that maybe more details can be added. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Soundtrack

the critic review is done for the recent release - a caveat can be added.
"The film's soundtrack," - "The soundtrack of Karnan,"
"iravum pagalum" - it is "iravum nilavum".
"Kannuku Kulam Yedu" is missing - there are 15 tracks in the original version.
avoid over linking of Viswanathan - Ramamoorthy in the section(infobox, lead).

will be done. soundtrack's new source [2] shows 17 tracks. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I believe this section has been well-edited and completed, of course I worked well on it. does sriram sir agree? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release

rephrase the lead - "much-hyped affair" and "It was an answer to the "rationalistic"" - undue.
""One of Sivaaji [sic] "- ??

will be done. Behindwoods has wrongly spelled "Sivaji" with an extra "A", so therefore maintaining sic. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this section is complete? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneSsriram mt (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

why are the theatre names italicized?
"The film was reportedly removed " - rephrase.

will be done. BTW, theater names are italicized, same reason why film names are italicized. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre names need not be italicized - check Sholay. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done All above requests fulfilled. BTW, if Twitter (a social networking site) can be used as a source on wiki (that is if the tweets are by celebs), then Facebook should be equally usable. the FB source is by Mohan Raman, a film historian and occasional actor, who also writes for The Hindu. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine if we don't have collection records rather than having unreliable sources (no fb, twitter, blogs pls). It is just natural that Tamil films of the time dont have box office records.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-release

rephrase section.
Santhi - Shanthi - use one.
""Even with `100 crores" - remove the quote before 100.

will be done. bcoz Shanti's name is spelled differently in different sources, so i am trying to maintain sic. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

need not.. try avoid sic for more than known ones like Sivaji, Shanti.Ssriram mt (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ssriram mt (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

remove unreliable ones like facebook, Apamnapat.com.,Experiencefestival.com,Tamilkey.com,Saavn.com. Also is behindwoods reliable?
cite news - have the parameter work populated so that the newspaper is italicised. Ssriram mt (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
follow single pattern for access date.

Reply: some will be removed. but tamilkey contains the same content as the deccan chronicle source, which is a dead link. sadly, it does not give credit. behindwoods is a reliable source, many tamil film articles use it. saavn.com will be replaced with a source that shows the film's complete soundtrack, with extra details like duration and lyricists. the Facebook source is used, bcoz it is historian Mohan Raman's official page. the other sources serve as evidence for out-of-plot details like "Duryodhana the eldest kaurava" and "Arjuna the third of five pandavas". but if they are needless, i'll remove them. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can't take fb, though it may be the official page of his. I remember reading Sivaji by Kizhaku Pathipakam having lot of details about the film. I am not insisting using it, but any book on Sivaji would have details that can replace the above unreliable refs. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also, details abt original storyline of Mahabharatha has many outside refs, you can use them. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir if u have the book, pls photograph some portions of the film's details, i'll add them. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have it handy - will try to find. Ssriram mt (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in the meantime I've done some changes in the article. Pls review them. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All peacocks and undue items still remain. I have cleared some from the cast. The soundtrack section is fine, but other sections still need lot of improvement.Ssriram mt (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see some portions like box office are fully copy-pasted from the sources. While quotes need to be the same, text copy can never be entertained. I tend to seek opinion from the nominator before taking this further.Ssriram mt (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Ssriram mt (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]