sooryavanshi

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add some things to the plot of Sooryavanshi and remove some inaccuracies 43.254.212.78 (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Somebody put this template in the plot section:

This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (November 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

According to WP:FILMPLOT, plot section of movies shouldn't exceed more than 700 words. The plot section is between 500-600 words. I don't know whoever thought of putting this template. We are the Great (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Review Start Hello @ D'SuperHero. I will review this article over the coming days. Please contact me for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
   Article is very well-written; no grammatical errors. I made a few minor changes and corrections. Otherwise, it is fine.
   However, one point of improvement I feel is that the last section (Critical Response), can be improved. While the content is good, it is all grouped in one big paragraph. I have tried to improve it, but more inputs are welcome.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
   a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
   Article is backed by 81 accurate, reliable sources. All are working as of now.

1. It is broad in its coverage.
   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
   Covers all important aspects; infobox is informative. 'Critical Response' section includes reviews from many sources. Article is broad in its coverage.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
   Fair representation without bias:  
   Includes mixed reviews about the movie. Both positive and negative aspects. No indication of any bias. Written from a neutral point of view.

1. It is stable.
   No edit wars, etc.:  
   Page statistics:

     Page created: 5th April, 2019      
      Page has 2296 edits by 832 editors as of now (Kpddg (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC))      
      979 249 page views in past 30 days      
      Majority of edits are in good faith. No recent vandaism or edit wars. Article has been semi-protected as it is about a celebrated movie. This has       reduced cases of vandalism.        

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
   File:Sooryavanshi film poster.jpg = Copyright photo, complies with Wikipedia policies, fair use under United States copyright law, and image is clear and of good quality

1. Overall:
   ● Most of the article is well-written and clear. There were a few grammatical errors, sentence errors, etc. But I have fixed most of them. Please do continue to improve.
   ● I have also improved the 'Critical Response' section as much as I could. Please do improve.
   ● Sources are accurate
   ● No frequent vandalism
   According to my assessment, this article passes.
   Pass:  

I am able to see over-linking in multiple sections of this article, especially lead section require cleanup per MOS:LEADLINK. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is biased, in the sense that it appears to be a mostly positive overview of the film. The Critical response section in particular does not seem to reflect 'critical' response. While the positive reviews have been added here, the somewhat negative reviews have been added such that they also praise some of the film's aspects like in the case of the review on The Hindu or Hindustan Times, or the criticisms haven't been mentioned in as much detail as the fairly positive ones are described. I see several sentences from positive reviews being mentioned (like the one from Times of India and Rediff but the relatively critical reviews being given lesser space.

It's almost funny to see that a review which gives 2.5 out of 5 stars is mentioned such that only the part which talks about the only fun scene in the movie is mentioned here! and not the part about the poor writing or weak portrayal of character's personal life, or "terrible" handling of emotions by the filmmaker, or the part about the actress who "sounds awful while delivering the bland dialogues". I mention these because I think the editor who copied the paras from various websites did not really put a lot of effort and simply picked up whatever was written in the first few lines of the review.

In light of this, Kpddg, I want to ask as to why the edit I made was almost removed in its entirety since I think it balances the section by not only being more critical about the film, but also discussing the humour, the songs and the actress (who is not discussed here at all!) and placing the film in a larger political setting. While I understand that the section has already dealt with targetting of "a particular group", I think the New York Times review would be a welcome addition. I also do not understand why the comparison with films of Nazi Germany was removed by you. Kindly discuss this when you have time. --Indianite (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Indianite I feel that enough has been said about both the positive and negative aspects of this film. But if you feel otherwise, please do go ahead as you have done. However, comparing the film to 'Nazi Germany' is too harsh. Also consider that the reviewer writing this statement seems to be biased (the way I see it). So please go ahead, but I suggest you remove the 'Nazi Gearmany' part. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 08:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you think this specific part should be removed? From what I can see, this hasn't been mentioned by any of the other reviewers. While one can question its veracity, it is obviously a big statement. Indianite (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

49.204.191.38 (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)  I want to change the order of actors 

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)