Talk:Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Secret of success (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Hello. I shall be reviewing this article for the GAN in the coming days. Overall, the article is in a good shape, but it might require some work on the styling and prose. However, I will hold the review for longer than a week, as I would be quite unhappy if this failed. The issues can be found below :

Lead and infobox

• "2012 Indian romantic comedy film" - "Indian" redirects to India. Perhaps, Cinema of India or Bollywood would be better.
• "The film was produced by Karan Johar under the banner of Dharma Productions, while worldwide distribution was handled by UTV Motion Pictures." - The infobox lists out more producers. Please check with sites like Bollywood Hungama to verify it.
• BO report of 40 crore seems to be estimated from 39.75 crore, listed by the source, and it is not the gross, but the nett.
• "The plot centers around...over a period of two weeks." - Does not seem to summarize the entire plot. Needs to be worked on.

Plot

• Plot should not exceed 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT. This one comes close to 790, so please remove the less important details.
• Insert Ram Kapoor into the section, as he seems to be a major character, given his mention in the infobox.
• "over achieving father" - What does that mean?
• "socialite mother" - Consider linking "socialite" to its article if it exists.
• "However, he suddenly loses his job" - Does not seem clear. "However" contradicts what? Requires a re-wording.
• "mental pressure breaking him down" - What does "breaking him down" mean?
• "go to a therapist, where he meets" - "Where" is used to depict a place, and "therapist" refers to a person.
• "a lot of loosening up and craziness" - What is "loosening up"?

Cast

• "Khan added" - Added to what? The quote only describes his character. I believe it can be removed. The same can be said for Kapoor's role.

Box office

• "grossed about 5.25 crore (US$1.05 million) nett" - Its either gross or nett. The entire section needs to be revised on this.

Soundtrack

• I'm under the impression that File:EMAET album.jpg does not pass WP:NFCC#8. It should be removed.

References

• Do not apply italics to BoxofficeIndia.com and dates.
• What makes reference 8 (FV Current waves) a reliable source?

comment

I think the article is being nominated prematurely. It doesn't cover up much aspects of the film making at all. --Meryam90 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be pleased if you could elaborate. I find it has everything needed. Lead, plot, cast, production (development, casting and filming), release, critic response and box office. I don't see what else is needed. Secret of success 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

comment

I have made the changes that you asked for, except in the plot section. I'll look into it in some time. I have a question though: In the lead section, what change exactly do you want in the sentence "The plot centers around...over a period of two weeks." ? Smarojit (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Summarize it well. You can have a separate para for the plot in the lead. See Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara for instance. If you need a draft, I'll do it. Secret of success 14:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Summarized the plot in the lead section, and removed unimportant details from the plot section. Smarojit (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the cast section, I have re-worded it, so that no information is repeated. The actors describe the characters themselves in the quotes, so I don't think that they should be removed. Smarojit (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the best, but good enough. There is one more issue in the plot section, which I have noted above. It needs to be fixed. Secret of success 06:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Production

• "Pre-production work on the film began in July 2010 when Karan Johar announced his plans of making a new project with debutant Shakun Batra." - Source does not verify this. Secret of success 06:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Tweaked the production a bit, and provided a source. Smarojit (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Final analysis

I shall pass the article with the understanding that it satisfies all the points given below.

1. Well-written:


(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:


(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:


(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

References