Talk:Hum Aapke Hain Koun..!/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit sparse on production isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a long time for production info. There are millions of articles, books, etc, on how wonderful it is, and how much money it made, but next to nothing on the making. BollyJeff | talk 18:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pity that, there's not one of the British Film Institute short books on it like the others?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"It tells the story of two Indian families and the relationships between them as their children are married to one another. It celebrates Indian wedding traditions. Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan played the lead roles." It is a bit repetitive, try. "Starring Madhuri Dixit and Salman Khan, it celebrates Indian wedding traditions by relating to the story of a married couple and the relationship between their families."

Soundtrack

"featured veteran playback singers. " -Such as, I know they're linked in the hidden box but mentioning Lata etc here would also be appropriate.
"The song became one of the most popular film songs ever, and was on the charts for over a year.[4] The soundtrack became very popular " - rep of popular
"It is ranked number 29 all time best by Planet Bollywood" -awkward, please rephrase.

Reception

No link for Liberty Cinema?
It became the highest grosser of all time.[16] Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! is one of the biggest grossers -rep of grosser
"e, and is considered one of the greatest blockbusters ever in Hindi cinema,[17] and Box Office India described it as "the biggest blockbuster of the modern era." -rep of blockbuster, superfluous prose here, you can simply say it was cited as one of the biggest blockbusters of the modern era.

Reviews

Is that really all the critical commentary that exists on the movie? It's rather meagre. Surely there must be reflective Times of India. The Hindu. Rediff etc reviews on the film? Filmi Geek doesn't strike me as an ideal source, at least if you haven't got any credible reviews from the customary ones to support it. Merging analysis into reception would at least strengthen it, both are weak on their own.

Legacy

"The film was so success that " -successful?

References

Convert digits to words for dates to be consistent.
Ref 36, a book should be placed in bibliography and page numbers given, and if there's any others like it (ref 6 etc) do the same.

Aside from the lack of content in parts (especially reception) which you'd expect, the prose is a bit sloppy in parts. I copyedited it a bit but it could use further polishing. It's quite weak considering the status of the film which surprises me given your previous excellent FA quality work Jeff but I think we can squeeze it through GA. I doubt it can ever be brought to FA status without more detail though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely more to be found for the analysis section, but I wanted to leave something for a possible future FA upgrade. I will look again for reviews, but most that I saw just rehashed the plot, and did not provide much useful insight. I will work on your other points shortly. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 21:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you think you've finished.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it looking now? I found a recent article that had some production information and added that. I fixed most of your points, but I cannot for the life of me find any new reviews. I found a small amount of text in an existing source to use. I may merge the 'reviews' and 'analysis' sections into a 'critical analysis' section, unless you think it's a bad idea. There exist more sources that I would consider analysis material, not really reviews per se. BollyJeff | talk 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit better. Refs 25-28 need publisher info.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was so successful that it literally gave the term blockbuster new meaning in India. " could use a citation or a rewording as it looks a little POV at present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attempt at engaging writing. The backup statement and source are immediately following. Not good enough; drier is better? BollyJeff | talk 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry for butting in guys, however there is a documentary from Rajshri productions itself about the making of this film. Here it is from their official YouTube channel. Quite a huge amount of info there. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about this, but I do not speak Hindi. Are you willing to help? BollyJeff | talk 17:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Jeff you could watch it and take notes? I'm prepared to pass it as it is but it does badly need some production info so it would be great if you could find more info from that documentary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Jeff, tell me what kinda help you need. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out in part and it didn't really seem all that great. A lot of it just had music and footage and then there was some Hindi discussion but it didn't seem about actual production. Probably though if you watch the whole thing it would contain at least something which can be gleaned. Perhaps somebody who speaks Hindu could watch it and take notes?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it didn't appear that it was going to be a treasure trove of info. Are there any more things for me to do here now? BollyJeff | talk 12:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm going to pass this as it's technically sound, but it's really hard to think that 30s and 40s Tamil movies have a lot more production info than a 90s film which is considered to be a major picture of Bollywood!! About time somebody wrote a book on it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very strange. Anyway, thank you for taking over the review. BollyJeff | talk 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]