Talk:Dil Dhadakne Do

Cast order

In this edit, an IP user reordered the cast with no explanation, so I reordered the cast per normal film guidelines in these edits. For the infobox Template:Infobox film we order the cast per the poster's billing block. Since there is no standard billing block, I used the order of the cast at the top of the poster. I also ordered the first five members of the cast in the Cast section the same way, for lack of any other clear ordering system. Since cast order should not be a matter of "Well, I like Anushka Sharma better than Priyanka Chopra", we need a clear reason to reorder the cast, so if someone wants to discuss that so-and-so is the main character and appears in most of the scenes or whatever, that's fine, and we can order the Cast section based on that, but unexplained and undiscussed reorderings will be reverted, like these edits, which seem completely arbitrary and ignore the embedded note. Also, there would be no reason to reorder the cast in the infobox since the guidelines seem to be pretty clear that we would use the poster. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained reordering of reviews

In this edit I noticed that Abbynaive reordered the critical response section, effectively putting the negative reviews at the bottom of the section. There was no edit summary, so it's difficult to gauge intentions. However, I don't see the value of sequestering the negative response at the bottom of the section, which is what it looks like was done. We're here to write objectively and present a neutral point of view not to promote the film. To that end it makes sense to me that we incorporate bad reviews among the good ones. I've reverted to the previous version. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cyphoidbomb. The majority of the reviews the film received are mixed/negative, so it makes more sense to represent the majority point of view in the first paragraph. Thanks for the restore. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the majority is mixed/negative, but I am interested in presenting a balanced viewpoint. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it does so now. Simply stating how many stars a movie received serves no purpose. The positive and negative aspects of the film that the critics highlight are the ones of real value. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ordering and content of reviews

In this edit, I have realized that Cyphoidbomb has yet again reverted the critical reception section to the previous version, from my reorganized version. It has been assumed that my intent is to push negative reviews to the bottom, yet that is not true. I was simply trying to organize the reviews, and I have chosen to do so from positive to negative reviews. If this not agreed with, it can be changed, but from what I've seen from many Wikipedia film articles, this seems to be the case. What I was intending to do was provide both the good and the bad reviews this film has received. This film has been received both positively and negatively, however, the critical response section has been focusing mostly on the negative reviews, and provides very few positive review, when I'm sure that there are more. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know. Incorporating bad reviews among the good ones is alright, but just focusing and having those while excluding the good reviews (again, whether this is intentional or not, I don't know) is not. When I reorganize the reviews, I am solely trying to provide a balanced viewpoint. If how I reorganize the reviews is not appreciated, it can be reverted, but I request the reviews I am adding (or at least those which there are no problems with) be kept in some way or form. Also, I would like it if starting the section was the sentence, "The film received mostly mixed to positive reviews.", as this is the case, and it is present in numerous critical response sections of film articles. I am not trying to promote this film, but I do believe that both positive and negative reviews should be provided, as this film has received both, and not mainly negative reviews, which seems to be the present case. 107.15.211.247 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There should absolutely be a balance of perspectives. There's no reason for us to start with good reviews and work toward the bad ones. That format seems like it would inadvertently promote the subject, since people (especially ones who are interested in seeing the movie) may not be very likely to read a second paragraph if the first paragraph is full of all the positive information. "Wikipedia says it's great!" I think the content should alternate between good, middle-of-the-road, and bad reviews, which will help to present a balanced perspective, and you are correct that the current format is very negative-laden in the first paragraph. I'm also not a fan of the "mixed to positive" summary sentence you are proposing. We are not critical response aggregators, and so far there are no Bollywood aggregators that have been accepted by the community. I feel it's best to omit these summaries and let the reviews speak for themselves. The summaries can become problematic, especially when aggregators like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes don't see eye-to-eye on the critical response. If one aggregator says "mixed" and the other says "generally positive", smashing them together and saying "mixed to positive" is WP:SYNTHESIS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand what you are getting at. It does make more sense to alternate between good, mixed, and bad reviews, and that way, there can be a balanced viewpoint. As for the "mixed to positive" summary, it is alright if that isn't added, because what you're saying also does make sense. Also, thank you for considering my thoughts of the negative-laden first paragraph. As you said, we are not here to promote the film, but if the film has received positive reviews as well, we should incorporate those as well, and not neglect them. 107.15.211.247 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum - Okay, so in this edit, what I did was attempt to organize the reviews, focusing on the film's direction at the top, comments about the cast performance in the middle, and then the comments about the film's length at the bottom. We could probably get one or two more balanced (i.e. good and bad) reviews about the cast performance in the cast section. I cut several reviews that were redundant of other opinions expressed—they were taking up space in a section that was already long. I hope this helps satisfy our mutual complaints. Rather than focusing on score, focusing on the elements of the film affords us an objective way to present a fairly balanced picture and I did try to alternate the good/tepid/bad reviews. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, Cyphoidbomb! :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a better way of organizing it, so yes, it looks good. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb. 107.15.211.247 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. So thus far, we have consensus for this layout. This will help us manage new additions. Do we feel that we have a decent representation? I'd like to prevent the section from getting bigger if unnecessary. The cast performance section, as noted, could use a couple more reviews, but I don't think we're really going to gain anything by more reviews complaining about the length or praising/criticizing the director. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have gone back and specifically added more to the middle paragraph focusing on performance and story. And yes, I feel that we do have a decent representation, thanks to your suggestion, Cyphoidbomb. I believe that this way, we can truly provide a balanced viewpoint for the film's critical reception. Also, this is just me, but I do feel that our critical reception section is just fine right now, as it is after my edit, with enough reviews concerning direction, story and performance, and pacing, and that it isn't too short or lengthy. Do we all agree on that? Thanks anyways, everyone. 107.15.211.247 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the middle paragraph. Good work. I've removed one review from that section because it didn't seem focused on the actors. Not sure if you did that or not. I'm too lazy to look. Also, yes, I think it's a well-packed section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dil Dhadakne Do. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150801042129/http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/dil_dhadakne_do to http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/dil_dhadakne_do#.VeNXg_aqqko/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dil Dhadakne Do. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160330062839/http://www.mirchimusicawards.com/hindi-2015/Nomination/ to http://www.mirchimusicawards.com/hindi-2015/Nomination/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160522181239/http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-zee-cine-awards-2016-here-are-the-nominations-for-the-jury-awards-2178867 to http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-zee-cine-awards-2016-here-are-the-nominations-for-the-jury-awards-2178867

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dil Dhadakne Do/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "Akhtar, an avid observer," — Looks like praise. Best to remove it for neutrality's sake even if Akhtar's an avid observer or not.
• "was partly fiction and partly a fictionalised version of people around her," — repetition of "partly" and "fiction/fictionalised" in the same sentence and at close proximity to each other. Do tweak it.

• Done.Krish | Talk 13:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aside from a few minor issues which I myself dealt with, the article looks good enough for meeting the GA criteria. Once these comments are addressed, the article is promoted.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Krish is still active as of yesterday, so I'd leave these to him. But I'd suggest he remove the character names from the plot section to avoid bloating the plot, and overlinking. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks guys Kailash29792 and Ssven2.Krish | Talk 13:36, 13 January 2018 (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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing my comments, Krish!, and congratulations. The article is promoted.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)