Talk:Loham

Copy editing

I am a Keralite and I saw the film. There are some mistakes and misinterpreted statements in the article due to a major copy editing. I think the editors lack the subject knowledge. Let me start from the beginning. The main points in the film's development are missing. There was three phases in development of Loham.

• Ranjith initially planned a film with Aashirwad Cinemas starring Mohanlal-Manju Warrier and Prithviraj. But the project was cancelled due to resemblance of script to another film.
• Now he announced another film starring Mohanlal. That too was cancelled as the writer-Director Ranjith was unconvinced with the screenplay.
• Ranjith revised the screenplay and retitled as Loham - This is the development of the film.

Now coming to Casting section, there are some misunderstanding in the casting.

• Aju Varghese, Pearle Maaney, Srinda Ashab and Manikkuttan for a musical performance were confirmed.

Aju Varghese was not part of a musical performance. He was a cameo as an Auto rickshaw driver. Pearle, Srinda & Manikuttan appeared in musical performances. But the songs are different. Pearle was featured in a Christian wedding song while Srinda and Manikuttam was featured in a Hindu wedding song in two different occasions in the film.

• Several media outlets reported Maaney was to perform an item number at the wedding after a selfie she took with her and Mohnlal dressed in a wedding outfit was leaked online. The Hindu wedding song was shot in Kozhikode (misinterpreted statement).

Here, actually Maaney was reported to perform an item number. But the news was revealed to be false after a photo of her dressed in a wedding outlet was leaked. Here also she appears in Christian wedding song not the Hindu song which featured Srinda and Manikuttan.

--27.97.202.115 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Malayali - thank you for your input. Describing the trials and tribulations of Ranjith and the all the fumble bumble things that happened beforehand are considered trivial perhaps even gossipy and better suited for a magazine not an encyclopedia. See Filmmaking Better yet, Cyphoidbomb brought the following guideline to my attention, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film, and I agree that it's a better format to work from so we'll be on the same page as to what is notable and relevant for inclusion. Perhaps a tighter, more lucid version of your suggestion would work if it focused on the initial concept. You are certainly welcome to correct any inaccuracies you find but please be sure to cite RS. Thank you for your collaboration. Atsme^📞📧 18:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) ^{Added comment by Atsme📞📧 20:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)}

Dubious

@Cyphoidbomb: re: your question about dubious smuggling operation. I thought that since things didn't turn out as originally planned by the co-smugglers, the fact that the gold came up missing either before or during transport, and then the final ending all contributed to suspicions about the operation itself, unlike the more predictable smuggling operation where you have bad guys smuggling illegal contraband then getting caught. The whole plot is based on dubious intentions which is magnified when the gold goes missing. Atsme^📞📧 16:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Atsme Hmm. There has to be a better way to explain that. I haven't seen the film, so it's hard for me to pitch an alternative. Maybe something like, "The film centers on a band of smugglers who become suspicious of one another after 100 kilograms (220 lb) of gold mysteriously disappears en route from Dubai to Kerala." ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds rather dubious. 😆 Atsme^📞📧 17:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So what's your counter-proposal? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Let Corinne do a little magic copy-editing, and see what happens. My suggestion is to not mention the other film(s) - it's confusing and well...trivial. Atsme^📞📧 05:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(Thanks for the compliment.) Are you referring to the fact that the detective/taxi driver who seems to be investigating the case turns out at the end to be a criminal himself? I think it's all right to delay mentioning that fact until the end of the plot summary, which is the way it is worded now. If you give that away right at the beginning of the article, you remove some of the enjoyment of reading the plot summary. Perhaps you will have seen by now that I changed "dubious smuggling ring" to "elusive smuggling ring" at the beginning of the article. Are you not satisfied with that? If you don't like "elusive", then perhaps just "smuggling ring" would be sufficient. I don't know what you mean by the other films. Corinne (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GOCE Copy-edit of November 4 - 5, 2015

In response to a request for a copy-edit of Loham at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have just reviewed the article and made a few small edits. The article was fairly well written as it was. I have a question about the following sentence, which appears in the middle of the section Loham#Development:

• Ranjith explained it was dropped because the film's story resembled that of another film in the same language released during its pre-production time.

The placement of "its pre-production time" at the end of the sentence creates a bit of ambiguity since two films have been mentioned just before it. I assume "its" refers to Loham and not to the other film. If this is correct, the phrase "during its pre-production time" (which I would change to "pre-production phase") should be moved to earlier in the sentence:

• Ranjith explained that Lohan was dropped during its pre-production phase because the film's story resembed that of another film in the same language.

Can you say, instead of "another film in the same language", "another Malayalam film"? Corinne (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I re-arranged the sentences in the Loham#Box office section. I decided to take the one sentence about the film's budget out of that section and put it in the production section. I couldn't find any section specifically on production costs, so I put it at the end of the filming section. I think the sentence about the budget would only belong in the box office section if the actual profit was being given: box office receipts minus production costs equals profit. Corinne (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is about the pre-production time of the dropped film, not Loham. --Charles Turing (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cast

Can we please follow Wikipedia:MOS-FILMS a little more closely and trim down the Cast section? Atsme^📞📧 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. But all the cast members in the Principal Cast is notable except Pradeep Chandran and Mohan Jose, also Mythili and Joy Mathew are actually cameos misplaced in that section.--Charles Turing (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Charles Turing - I didn't mean to suggest the current list needed trimming. I posted that comment after I trimmed several non-notable names in the cast that were added by IPs a week or so ago. Atsme^📞📧 20:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation, please?

Charles Turing, is there any way you can get a translation for the source you just cited? ചാർളിയോ ലോഹമോ മുന്നിൽ ? If not, we should consider citing a different source. Atsme^📞📧 15:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You can use google translate, but there may be some mistakes in translation. --Charles Turing (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing, it would be best if you would add the English translation or a different source. We shouldn't expect readers of the English WP to translate articles, including cited sources. Somebody needs to translate it (I was unable to get a translation) or we will have to replace should consider citing a source with English titles. It will not pass a GA review. I wouldn't want it to not pass a GA review because of a simple translation. See WP:NONENG, and WP:NCF Atsme^📞📧 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ^{struck and reworded 23:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)}

Removed. I think the article is ready for GA.--Charles Turing (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Charles Turing Me, too - but because of all the IP activity and the fact that it's PP, we should probably wait until the PP runs its course and hope the IP vandals don't become active again. A stable article is a must for it to pass a GA review. Atsme^📞📧 17:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016

i want to edit this page with reliable source kindly grant me to edit Mobish369 (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)