Talk:Businessman (film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Businessman (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 18:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Pavanjandhyala, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I assess that it meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should be addressed. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala, thank you for your responding to and implementing my below comments and suggestions in such a timely manner. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status. Thank you! -- Caponer (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the film, establishes the film's necessary context, and explains why the film is notable.
• The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
• The image of in the info box is licensed as non-free media data with proper rationale.
• Please bold the alternative name The Businessman.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence "He eventually emerges as the biggest mafia leader of Mumbai and kills a national politician Jai Dev for cheating and killing his parents." should maybe be rewritten as "He eventually emerges as the biggest mafia leader of Mumbai and kills national politician Jai Dev in retribution for cheating and murdering his parents."

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Plot

• The image of the Dharavi slum in Mumbai, the film's setting, is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore free to use here.
• This section is well-written, but are there any inline citations for this section?

As per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cast

• While formatted properly, are there any inline citations for this section?
• This section is otherwise well-written, but are there any inline citations for this section?

 Done Added. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Production

• In the first paragraph of the Development subsection, the sentence should be rewritten as "Jagannadh stated in an interview that principal photography would begin in September 2010."

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The images of Shruti Haasan and Kajal Aggarwal are licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and are therefore available for use here.
• The image of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and can be used in this article.
• This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Music

• CD should be spelled out as compact disc.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is anything known of the soundtrack's digital distribution and sales? How about including a brief mention of the soundtrack's notable chart successes or rankings?

Unfortunately, except for the fact that two lakh discs were sold on the first day, nothing else was known. The soundtrack was more famous for its plagiarism allegations. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Release

• 2,000 should be spelled out as Two thousand as it is the beginning of a sentence.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Consider rewriting as "It was released to 92 screens across Hyderabad..." and "which was released to 70 screens..." I would also suggest making a similar edit to the next sentence regarding the release of the movie to 200 screens across Tamil Nadu.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Youtube should be written "YouTube" and wiki-linked accordingly.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Consider rewriting as The Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce....

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bajrang Dal lodged a complaint with which police? A Federal police? State police? Municipal police?

 Done They complained to Hyderabad city ploice, thus i assume it as Municipal police. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Rewrite as "The police confirmed this and stated they would seek legal opinions for taking further action."

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wiki-link Tarnaka and Osmania University.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• First look should be consistently written as either "first look" or "first-look" throughout the prose.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The image of Osmania Arts College is released into the public domain and is therefore free for use here.
• This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Reception

• The images of Mahesh and Jagannadh have been released into the public domain and are free for use here.
• Businessman should be italicized in the review quotes.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Indo-Asian News Service should be spelled out.

 Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The Accolades template is well-sourced and properly structured.
• This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Remakes

• This section is well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no suggestions or comments regarding this section.

Possible sequel

• This section is well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no suggestions or comments regarding this section.