Talk:Loham

Paragraphs

The Production part is written in single paragraph sections. It should be splitted into para's. The whole article also needs a copyediting. --Charles Turing (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Writing style is poor. Please try to get someone from Category:User en-N or Category:User en-5 to review and copy edit the article. I guess even Category:User en-4 would be okay. Lots of missing articles, articles are connector words like "the". Example: It holds the record for the highest opening day gross in Malayalam film industry. Why "in Malayam film industry" and not "the" Malayam film industry? Article writing style is not concise. Please try to go through and break up long sentences and make more succinct. Virtually every sentence of the article uses commas to connect together two clauses, when these could be split apart into two shorter sentences. Some use of commas is okay, but I'd suggest reduce that usage by half. From 27 April 2015, there were news reports suggesting Prithviraj Sukumaran is also part of the film in a guest role as City Police Commissioner and there will be a three days shoot for him. there "were" or there "was" ? The character required him to grow beard and shave head. - what does this mean??? These are examples of poor writing quality. This is the major significant hold-up for this article. Needs major copy editing.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	WP:LEAD fails right now, please expand lede intro sect, so it can function as full standalone summary of entire article's contents.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Per WP:LEADCITE, no need for cites in lede, just please make sure exact same info is cited later in article body text.
	2b. 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).	Citations do not have uniform style and lack standardization. Example: "Loham". Bahraincinema.com. Date? Accessdate? Author? Work? Please also archive links using archivedate and archiveurl to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive, especially for problem links displayed a the Checklinks tool in the "External links" link at top right toolbox on this GA Review page.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article relies primarily on secondary sources, throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Um, guys, there's one big thing missing. Plot. The plot section is quite skimpy. Compare with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very good focus and overall structure to article. Article conforms properly to WP:MOSFILM. But please move Box office sect above Critical reception sect.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Please add more info on these mixed reviews to the lede intro sect. Who gave it mixed reviews? Paraphrase what they said?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Please close this open Peer Review, should not be ongoing during GA Review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Loham/archive1. Talk page inspection shows no problems. Article itself has stability problems from IPs - please request semi-protection at WP:RFPP.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I've tagged this one as missing permission - File:Loham Title Font.png, allegedly uploaded by an account called "Loham", but we have no confirmation on who that is. Please remove it. This one - File:Loham film poster.jpg - please have an admin delete the older versions of the files.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for a period of Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lingering language loss at Loham

I'm sorry but the entire article body text needs lots of work.

Just curious, Charles Turing, what is your level of language at Category:User en ?

Strongly suggest you find multiple copyeditors previously uninvolved with the article or topic to copyedit and improve syntax and diction.

Recommend you find people of language level Category:User en-N or Category:User en-5, or both.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

Quite sorry to say that upon revisit after Seven Days, unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time.

I sincerely hope that the recommendations from the GA Review, above, will be helpful to editors in the future to further work on the Quality improvement process.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:

1. Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
2. Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
3. Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality.
4. While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
5. While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Loham

I have just made some edits to the lead.Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

and some edits to the plot but it is still very confusing and needs more information from the film to make sense.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Marketing section

@Cyphoidbomb: I have a question about the marketing section you deleted and overall importance of including it at all. I am still in the process of tweaking this article (I'm a slow tweaker), and had already deleted some of what was previously included in that section. When I began reviewing a couple of the cited sources, the reviews were a bit confusing, perhaps because of the translation and different terminology, so I had planned to find a few more to make it more consistent with our accepted style. However, I'm now wondering if it's even worth the trouble of adding it back. Your input wiill be greatly appreciated. Atsme^📞📧 21:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, WP:TRAILER is fairly clear with the bolded print Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. The content must be distinctive in some way as to warrant it. Obviously, the guidelines present the whole picture better than I can in a few sentences. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb - I support leaving it out, unless of course another editor believes they can write something that will meet the guidelines set forth in WP:TRAILER Atsme^📞📧 22:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Atsme WP:TRAILER is something that I just became aware of today after researching the utility into some of the marketing sections in Bollywood films. It is a wide-spread practice to add this trivia, but it is obviously not of value to the Film community and I'm going to start cutting it where I experience it. Indian cinema articles are already grossly misused for promotion and advertising, as I'm sure you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I found it curious that a Marketing section was even allowed as it clearly appears to be an invitation for exploitation (and further marketing). Perhaps it warrants further consideration? A Distribution section could include a bit of info about the trailer or better yet, it would make more sense to have a subsection titled "Trailer" in the Reception section. Atsme^📞📧 02:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Atsme I don't see the value of detailing any of the marketing unless there's something notable about it. After all, everybody produces a trailer and a poster, blah blah. That's the crux of what the guideline appears to be saying. At least MSG-2: The Messenger (apparently a self-indulgent propaganda film produced by a leader of a religious sect to glorify himself) went out of their way to make a spectacle of their marketing efforts: World's largest film poster, allegedly achieving 100,000+ people at a trailer release (if memory serves me), other large-scale events that were promotional in nature. That's more noteworthy than, "The 'first look poster' was released on 12 October. The trailer was released on 23 October and received 6 million views on YouTube within 12 days. That's just moronic, and that's typically what we get in Indian cinema articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Direct quotes

There are three direct quotations in the article that I have not changed, but that I plan to either paraphrase or remove. Two of them contain grammatical errors from the original sources: (subj/verb agreement:) "The socially relevant message . . . sprinkled very often are really effective and needful at present" ; (article missing:) "movies like Loham are many laps behind in race to this glory". The third seems OK grammatically, but does not make sense to me: "If Ranjith hadn't made a batting side with 20 instead of 12, and not gone overboard with the star adoration, maybe the metal would have at least looked spray painted". Perhaps this last one just needs more context within the article, but I think it would be easier to give the gist of the review by paraphrasing. Comments anyone? If I hear nothing, I'll proceed with removing/paraphrasing. --MattMauler (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

MattMauler thank you. Your collaboration is most welcome. Atsme^📞📧 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

So irritating when the "reliable" sources that presumably have a clear editorial policy, do not actually have a clear editorial policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Production

Do we need so many subsections in the Production part? Some of them contains just two or three sentences. 122.174.192.91 (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point, thank you. I combined development and filming into the main section under Production. Atsme^📞📧 16:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@122.174.192.91: Re: 85th Oscar Nomination for Best Original Score - ok, so Meno composed 1 of the 104 original scores that were eligible and advanced for nomination as Best Original Score at the 85th Academy Awards - [1], [2]. Looks like India Today got it all wrong when they claimed it was nominated, [ [3]]. Anyway, it got some press coverage which makes it notable for mention in the article. Agreed? Atsme^📞📧 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Atsme^📞📧 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Normally hundreds of films and persons are considered for the Oscars every year. That deserves a mention in respective film articles but is too irrelevant here in my opinion. 122.174.193.255 (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also WP:MOSFILM suggests to include recruitment of the artists (both cast and crew) in a single section. 122.174.193.255 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)