Talk:Wazir (film)/GA1

GA Review

GA toolbox
  • Copyvio detector
  • Authorship
  • External links
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll get to this shortly. JAGUAR  14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The dialogues and the additional dialogues of the film were written by Abhijeet Deshpande and Gazal Dhaliwal respectively" - add a comma between Dhaliwal and "respectively"
  • "The music of the film is composed by several including Shantanu Moitra, Ankit Tiwari, Advaita, Prashant Pillai, Rochak Kohli" - might sound better as The music of the film was composed by several artists including Shantanu Moitra, Ankit Tiwari, Advaita, Prashant Pillai, Rochak Kohli
  • " The idea of Wazir came to Chopra in the 90s" - 1990s
  • "and he started writing it with Joshi between 2000 and 2004 in English" - rearrange to and he started writing it in English with Joshi between 2000 and 2004
  • "Upon release, Wazir opened to mixed to positive reviews from critic" - missing plural
  • "The film, however turned out to be a financial success, performing well at the box-office" - remove the comma after film
  • "One day, while Daanish is driving with Noorie and his daughter in a car" - it's already been established that he's driving so no need to say they're in a car!
  • "Daanish makes a plan with the SP" - what does 'SP' mean?
  • "to play the role of an 'Anti Terrorist Squad officer" - unlink Anti Terrorist Squad (India) here as it's already been linked before
  • "Post this, she went through three set of auditions: dance, acting and a look test" - post this? Shouldn't it be After this?
  • "Bachchan filmed his last remaining scenes in April, 2015" - no need for the comma

Just some nitpicking, but other than that this is a well designed article. It's clear overall and the sources all check out fine. I couldn't find any dead links or copyvios. Excellent work. I'll keep this on hold until all of the above are out of the way. JAGUAR  14:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Your queries have been fixed, thanks for the review. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them. With those addressed I'll be happy to award this GA status. Well done! JAGUAR  14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Other comments

This needs more work to reach the well-written criterion for Good Articles. For example, these two phrases in the lead's second paragraph that are problematic:

  • after losing his daughter befriends a wheelchair-bound chess player and the events that follow.
  • the script was re-written with several changes according to the Indian audience.

I was also wondering why "dialogues" was used twice at the end of the first paragraph, unless this is a feature of Indian English; in American or British English, it would be "dialogue" without the "s". And, in the final sentence of the third paragraph, I can't see any reason for a "however" unless it's editorializing, which isn't appropriate.

There is more, but I don't have time at the moment for a complete survey. Look for further odd sentences, typos (there's a "tow" that should be "two"), inappropriate capitalizations, and so on. Thank you. Jaguar, I hope you will hold off on giving GA status, given the issues found; I had an edit conflict trying to post this. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the review on hold again. JAGUAR  14:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: and @Jaguar:, I have fixed the issues raised by you and some more that were visible to me. If there are still problems, can you please point me to them? Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher, there are still issues, and it looks like I'm going to have to do a complete review to mention them all. This may take a few days to finish; I'll be as quick as I can.

Lead

Yes they all served as composer for the film.
  • Well, in that case, the credits for the original motion picture soundtrack are incorrect, because Moitra is credited for the music of two of the songs, and the rest for one song each. If they all collaborated (meaning worked together in creating) on each of the songs, then all of them should be credited for each of them. What you've written in the quoted sentence says that all six worked on each of the songs. What I suspect is that "for each song" should be deleted here. Does the film also have background music, and if so, was that all written by Godkhindi? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected.
  • However, its producer died and the script was re-written with several changes. This is misleading in that the producer died and the project was shelved for about eight years. When it was revived, correct me if I'm wrong, but it was completely rewritten in a new language for a different audience altogether. I'm not looking for a major expansion, just the basic facts.
Fixed.
  • Why is "hindi" written in lowercase? Shouldn't it be "Hindi" (see Hindi) here and throughout the article? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • opened to mixed to positive reviews: this seems to be more accurate than the body of the article, which just says positive reviews, but the two should not disagree.
Corrected. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why "box-office" is hyphenated; none of the sources seem to hyphenate the words when used in a headline, and hyphenating is not standard in American or British English. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed hypens. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding one more: he started writing it in English with Joshi between 2000 and 2004: either give the actual year it was started rather than a range, or give the range and just say that it was written during that period. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Plot

There are a few points that aren't clear, and some minor grammatical issues:

  • first paragraph: please add a comma before "and chases him." Alternatively, rewrite as "spots the terrorist Farooq Rameez and chases after him."
Done.
  • second paragraph:
  • daughter of a welfare minister: are there lots of welfare ministers? I would have expected one only (at a particular level of government). Does it even matter what Qureshi's ministerial portfolio is? All that's needed here is to establish that he's a government minister (which gives him a certain level of authority and official protection), assuming that's what he is.
Fixed.
  • Nina mysteriously slipped down the stairs at Qureshi's house and died. The word "slipped" is an odd choice with "down"; a more likely possibility is "fell".
Fixed.
  • I think it might be best to combine the sentences about Daanish talking to Ruhi, and Ruhi being threatened by Qureshi for talking to Daanish.
  • third paragraph:
Done
  • It's a bit confusing who is doing what. I would recommend spelling out "Superintendent of Police (SP)", and then later using "the SP" rather than "he", assuming the SP is the one who detonates those explosives to create a panic.
Done
  • There's also something missing here in terms of time or event flow: Qureshi was somewhere giving a speech, the explosives were detonated to give Daanish time, and somehow Daanish is breaking into a room where Qureshi already is, and it later turns out that Ruhi was there too. Please revise this so the narrative makes more sense.
Rephrased.
  • fourth paragraph:
  • Isn't this Nina's drama (albeit in Pandit's class), which Pandit asked Ruhana to help the children to finish? If it turns out to have been written by Pandit rather than Nina, that should be revealed here. Also, make it clearer (if this is the case) that the (chess-related?) drama is how Daanish figures out the truth. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a play by Ruhana and some kids, dedicated in the memory of Pandit. The play gives Daanish a hint of Pandit's plan through the metaphors of chess. I have tweaked these portions. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

  • I'm not sure why "(Special Appearance)" is added to John Abraham's entry here, but I don't believe it belongs here; instead, something useful explaining what "SP" is might be appropriate. (The same would be useful for "DCP", since it clearly isn't a character name.) Actually, if either is given a name in the film, that name should be listed here.
Fixed, but the character of DCP doesn't have a name in the film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • Nowhere in any of the production section (or indeed anywhere in the article except the infobox) is the budget of the film listed. It needs to be in the body of the article.
Mentioned in the box office section. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • first paragraph:
  • as mentioned earlier, "tow characters" should be "two characters"
Fixed
  • in that same sentence, Rakesh Maria and Viswanathan Anand playing chess is taken directly from the source, and should be quoted.
Done
  • This is also true with more operatic than the English one. later in the sentence, but the real problem here is that there is no context. When I read the source, I'm not sure what is meant by "English one". I suppose it might be the prior English version of the script, but that hasn't yet been introduced in this paragraph. I'd suggest dropping this phrase, or moving it much later in this section.
Done
  • The sources seem to agree that the English script took a full four years to write during the period of 2000 to 2004. I think it would be good to be that explicit.
Done
  • The title of the film had gone through several changes including Fifth Move, 64 Squares and Chess being some of them. The implication by placing this here is that these titles were created and discarded at this point in time, prior to the writing of the script between 2000 and 2004. However, Fifth Move is the title associated with the English version of the script intended for Hoffman, which wasn't even finished until 2004 (according to thehindu.com). So if the many English titles are relevant, this is in the wrong place.
Fixed.
  • In the DNA source, the sequence is very explicit: four years to write the English version, then two years to rewrite it into the final Hindi version after Bejoy Nambiar selected it from Chopra's stash of scripts. So the statement The script of Wazir took five years to complete. is problematic where it's placed. First, four plus two is six, not five, and Chopra actually calls it "six" elsewhere in the DNA source. But more important, at this point in the narrative, there is no Wazir, there is only a shelved Fifth Move.
Fixed.
  • Please rewrite the Chopra quote at the end of the paragraph so it is instead paraphrased. The problem here is that we worked for two more years in the quote refers back to Joshi, not Nambiar (as appears to be the case to the reader). Plus there are unnecessary details about the almirah/cupboard; what matters is that Chopra had a cache of unfilmed scripts, and Nambiar selected this one from it, after which Chopra and Joshi spent two years writing a Hindi version.
Done
  • second paragraph:
  • both the first and last sentences give different accounts of the change in title to Wazir. Please use only one, or combine them into a single sentence. Try not to repeat Mukesh's name in any event.
Done
  • isn't the Development about events prior to shooting the film? The editing and the special effects come in post-production; there should probably be a section for that, and some of the material in the first Release paragraph might fit better here.
There is not much info available about the film's post-production. I've created a small section of visual effects.
  • fourth sentence: "the films story"; "films" should be "film's" (singular possessive)
Done
  • fifth sentence: the implication here (and in the source) is that it's Chopra's first time editing since Parinda (I'd suggest "since" rather than "after), which should mean that he edited Parinda and possibly earlier films as well. So if Joshi was editing for the first time on this film, he's not also a first-time editor, because the implication that Chopra was a first-time editor would not then be valid.
Rephrased the sentence. There is no mention of Joshi here.
  • The wheelchair on which he sits throughout the film was chosen among 40 to 50 wheelchairs. It sounds like they brought in 40 to 50 wheelchairs and chose one from among them, rather than what the source says, which is that they went through that many to find one that would fit him perfectly.
Rephrased. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Casting
  • I don't think it's particularly relevant that Chopra mentioned the film to Akhtar in 2004 since he didn't actually show the script to Akhtar until 2014, after it had been converted from English to Hindi; since the 2004 occurrence was at the premiere of a film Akhtar directed, there's no indication he was thinking in terms of Akhtar taking the lead role at the time, and indeed it was still intended for Hoffman, or at least Hollywood. Further, I think it would make more sense to discuss the initial casting and Chopra's surprise due to the issue with Akhtar's father, and then the work that Akhtar did to get ready.
Chopra wanted the feedback of Akhtar for the script, he did not want to cast him in the film. Also, there is not much detail available on the aforementioned scenario about the fight between Akhtar and Chopra, which would be relevant to the film.
  • I'm not sure what the point is about Patil lauding Akhtar; you'd expect the guy who was used as a basis for the character to be enthusiastic, unless the actor really messed up.
Removed.
  • The film’s scale kept growing by time when it was being written: this has grammatical problems, and also is unclear as to its referent: is this the English version, or the Hindi rewrite? This matters, especially with regard to the protagonist (presumably Daanish), and because according to the article thus far, it was going to be English and Hoffman until the Hollywood producer died in 2005. At what point did they switch from an American protagonist to an Indian one? It would be interesting if they were writing the Hindi script but with an American protagonist initially, but that seems odd—this needs to be clear, and if it can't be clarified sufficiently, it cannot be included.
Removed the sentence. Its mentioned that while they [Chopra and Joshi] re-wrote the film, they realised that the "protagonist can’t be American." It's not clearly mentioned when that happened.
  • Bachchan had also read the original script 12 years ago, but remembered it when Chopra mentioned. This is not a complete sentence. I'm wondering about the usage of "had also"; do we know that Akhtar had read the script previously? I'm also not sure why "but" is used here, and twelve years prior would have been in 2002, two years before the original script was completed.
Fixed.
  • For "look test", do you mean "screen test", to see how she looks on camera? If "look test" is the standard Indian cinema term, please add a wikilink to "screen test"; if not, then perhaps change it?
Fixed.
  • John Abraham and Neil Nitin Mukesh make extended cameo appearances in the film. The source for this is an article commenting on a trailer; there is no evidence in this source of the extent of the appearances. A better source is needed, and I'm not entirely sure why "cameo" is used here, because cameo indicates a short appearance; if it's extended, or a significant role, then I don't see how it can be called a cameo.
Fixed.
Filming
  • Shouldn't this mention more locations, and whether there was studio/soundstage work? For example, Srinigar is mentioned later in the paragraph.
The film was shot in Mumbai, Delhi and Srinagar, which is mentioned. Also, I couldn't find a source that talks about the soundstage stuff.
  • Few scenes in the film were improvised on the set: this means that not many scenes were improvised, which is not what the source says. Indeed, there isn't a sense of just how much was improvised. Chopra does say, "Some of the best lines in Wazir are improvised", and the Russian joke is given as an example.
Rephrased.
  • The phrase "last remaining scenes" is redundant; you could delete "last", but I'd recommend a more concise wording for the two principals. Bachchan's April scenes appear to be pickup shots—he may have been done with his principal photography sequences months earlier—and the story for them ran on April 27. Did principal photography end earlier, with the pickup shots in April, and are you sure they finished the pickup shots by the end of that month? (For that matter, are you sure that Akhtar didn't have any pickup shots in April as well?) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The details that you are asking are not usually covered in Indian media for a film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Please have a look again. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pass this. It appears that the prose has been improved enough to meet the GA criteria. BlueMoonset raised a few points which I had already acknowledged during my first read through of this article but chose not to raise them here as I considered them too minor. I assumed the hyphenated box-office was Indian English for example, as well as the use of "dialogues". I've reviewed dozens of Telugu, Tamil and general Indian films over the years and there is a certain quality I always expect from them—this is one no exception. If anything I would recommend paraphrasing some parts of the reception section so it relies less on bare quotes, but that can be saved for FA if Yash were to peruse that. I've made some minor tweaks. If there are still any problems outstanding then I would encourage that they be worked outside of the GA review; for now I concur that it meets the criteria and there's not enough reason to strip it of that. JAGUAR  09:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, what is your hurry? I was clearly working my way through the article, and had found significant problems already. (Did you really consider the incomplete sentences and failure to quote copied text "too minor"?) Unless you revert this once again, I'm taking this immediately to GAR since this does not meet the GA criteria at the present time. You might want to ask Yashthepunisher if he wants to go through that; he seems quite willing to address problems, though the fixes sometimes need further adjustment, as is true with some of those above: the new Visual effects section is clearly not well-written as yet and needs adjustment. The fact that you passed that sentence just now without comment is telling. Given how much I have found so far in the first half of the article, I am astounded that you think your original review above was adequate and the article truly met the GA criteria as written. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I've reverted myself. Please continue with the review; I was only thinking that the remaining issues would have been too minor to put this on hold any longer. If you think you pick up more prose issues which might make this article shy of meeting the criteria, please go ahead. JAGUAR  17:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects

  • Amitabh Bachchan’s legs were removed from visual effects to show him handicapped. This sentence needs work. It might be helpful to note, as one of the sources does, that he wore long black socks and black shoes because it would make the (computerized?) special effects to remove the legs below the tied-off pants easier to do. Even so, the original version was not good enough; I can't recall whether the release delays were entirely due to the additional effects work needed, but it's in the source material, so I think it would be a useful addition if so.
Rephrased.
The first sentence, in the green above, wasn't touched at all, and remains unclear; "legs were removed from visual effects" is simply not good English. Please work on this. The newly added sentence after it appears to be okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-wrote the sentence. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chopra was not happy initially with the virtual effects work, so he wanted changes. The word "initially" is in the wrong place; he was not happy with the initial virtual effects work. Did he just want changes, or did he have it completely redone?
Fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

  • The first line lists "Gaurva Gokhindi" as one of the composers; a "Gaurav Godkhindi" shows up at the end of the paragraph and the tracklist. I rather suspect these are the same person; if so, please standardize the spelling.
Done
Partially done only. It's important that these be done completely and precisely. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is same everywhere.
  • "Maula Mere Maula" sentence; please delete the comma.
Done
  • "Tere Liye" sentence: please delete the comma. Also, the lyricist is given here as "M.M Turaz" and given as "A. M. Turaz" and linked in the tracklist. These two should be identical, including spacing and number of periods.
Done
Partially done; not yet identical. Also, is there a reason Turaz is not linked here, but only in the tracklist?
Please check again. Yashthepunisher (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the initial paragraph and the tracklist should follow WP:OVERLINK: one link only in the paragraph for each person given (and then only if they haven't been linked previously in the body of the article), and one link only in the tracklist, when first seen. For the tracklist, if the link in the "Music" column takes precedence over the "Singer(s)" if they're on the same line; "Instrumental" should certainly only be linked once.
Done
  • "Critical response" should be an actual third-level header, not just bolded
Done
  • please add an "a" before "mixed to positive response".
Done
  • "Wazir" should be placed in italics in all the quotes, whether the original was italicized or not.
Done
  • If you're going to use Chopra's full name at all in this section, make it the first time it is used, not the second.
Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • earlier set to release in the mid-2015: "initially set to be released in the middle of 2015" (or "originally" rather then "initially")
Done
  • both of which were not finalised: this is not necessary if you put the actual release date next, as should be done. In any event, the actual release date should be in this section, not relegated to Critical reception. It should also be made clear that this was not merely the India release, but a worldwide release (otherwise there wouldn't be box office results from "overseas" for the same weekend as the domestic release).
  • We should certainly know by now that Chopra co-wrote and produced the movie; please remove The writer and producer of the film, from the sentence, and possibly all but Chopra's last name.
Done
  • The second paragraph needs to be revised: it should start out by either summarizing or quoting just what it was that Nambiar said. Because he has not been mentioned as often, you might want to remind people that he was the film's director when his name first appears, since that's why his remarks were controversial. Nambiar later apologised for hurting any sentiments. doesn't convey what it ought, at least to this American—that he apologized for hurting anyone's feelings. I realize "sentiments" is the word used by him; if you want to use it, then put it in quotes. Perhaps the revised paragraph could read something like In pre-release publicity, director Bejoy Nambiar said, "Casting Mr. Bachchan, who has got such a strong persona, and limiting him in a wheelchair, was a big task for us to get used to". This remark was condemned as "disparaging and extremely condescending" by Javed Abidi, the founder of the Disability Rights Group. Nambiar subsequently apologised for hurting anyone's feelings.
Done.
  • I'm not sure how notable this controversy was, so it may not warrant quite this much space.
This incident was covered in the Indian media. Also its mentioned in two sentences. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Screenings
  • I don't understand why this section is here. Pre-release screenings are a normal thing, and while this reads like the screenings were held specifically for the individuals mentioned, only one of the three sources is an actual article; the rest are photos of a number of stars (many more than are listed here) arriving at the screening. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about any of this. The one potentially notable screening, to the distributors (because of how many there were), is properly in the "Release" section before this one.
Removed.

Still working on Critical reception and Box office, after which I'll go back through the above sections and check the various changes in case further adjustments need to be made. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's going to take me longer than I expected. Since there's no rush on GA reviews, there shouldn't be any issue with another day or two; I have a busy couple of days ahead. Watch this space for the rest of the first pass, and a review of what has been done so far. I've made some copyedits to the earlier sections. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: do you have time to finish this review? JAGUAR  13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, sure. There didn't seem to be any urgency since the nominator still hadn't addressed some of the issues noted above, including places where I noted problems with the initial fix. I'll post the rest of the first pass in the next 24 hours, and start on the second pass shortly thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to resolve your queries, please have a look. Yashthepunisher (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new round of edits. I'd still like you to work on the second paragraph in release (see the second bullet); it's also mentioned in the sections below. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked that sentence. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • As noted under Release, the opening date should not be in this section, but prior to it. That hasn't been done yet, and needs to be done.
Done
  • please move the remaining "mixed to positive" comment (now that the opening date is elsewhere) to the start of the second paragraph, and adjust the wording as necessary
Done
  • As was done with the soundtrack reception, please set "Wazir" in italics even in quotes where it hadn't been italicized.
Done
  • second paragraph comments:
  • in general, keep this in past tense: wrote, said, etc. Please don't use "saying" and the like.
  • the Srijana Mitra Das quote is not good English nor easily understood, and should be paraphrased so it is readable. (Since there isn't a link to the source, I can't make a more specific suggestion.)
  • the Ananya Bhattacharya quote is so long that per WP:Blockquote it should be rendered as a blockquote. However, my suggestion would be instead to cut out the "Vidhu Vinod Chopra and Abhijat Joshi's screenplay is tight while the twists are being placed on the viewer's way." and possibly the sentence before it, and replace it with "…", since that conveys the "first half gripping, second half not so good" thrust of the review. Quotes should be the minimum needed to give the sense of the opinion when paraphrasing will lose some of that sense or flavor.
  • Baradwaj Rangan: please remove the comma after "domestic drama"
  • third paragraph comments:
  • please delete "On the contrary,"; it doesn't work in this context, whereas the simple statement that "Many critics felt the film was slow and predictable" stands nicely on its own.
  • for the Rajeev Masand sentence, I think you need to delete "giving it an unfavourable review", since that doesn't match the quote that follows, which calls the film "consistently watchable". Let the quote stand by itself. (If the whole review is indeed unfavorable except for this bit, then you should use a more representative quote.) Indeed, the quote used should be trimmed; "Wazir, starring Farhan Akhtar and Amitabh Bachchan," is something we all know; it could be replaced by "the film" (outside the quote) before the remainder of the quote commences.
All fixed.
  • fourth paragraph comments:
  • In the overseas was a not-clear shorthand; I've replaced it with "Among overseas reviewers", and edited the rest of the paragraph.
Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

  • In the first paragraph, it is not clear when figures are for both foreign and domestic, or just domestic. For example, the second day business seems to be talking about the total receipts, but then the next sentence talks about overseas; is this the overseas portion of the whole, or overseas vs. domestic? The same holds true for the third day.
Both the domestic and overseas collection are already mentioned.
  • The numbers here don't quite add up. The Hindustan Times on the first weekend gives the domestic gross at 5.57 for the first day, but its internal tweet says 5.61, and 5.61 is the number needed with the other two days to give the 21.01 total for the weekend. My suspicion would be that the final number for the first day domestic gross was adjusted upward to reflect more complete data, but it's important that the numbers do add up, or that the article at least notes the discrepancy. (The Bollywood Hungama site also has the 5.61 figure.)
Such minor fluctuation in BO numbers is quite obvious in bollywood. So that shouldn't be a big deal as most of the sources write 'estimate' collections. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weekends" should be singular
Fixed.
  • in the second paragraph, the sentence about recovering its budget, the source does not say that, it just gives the budget as an estimated 35 crore. Indeed, since that source is only talking about the first weekend, it can't know that the budget was recovered in its first week. Please move the citation to after the 35 crore figure. (Is this the production budget, or everything including release advertising and the like? If the former, then the additional money spent on the release may mean that the film still hadn't broken even after the first week.)
Moved the citation. 35 cr is probably the total budget of the film, since their is no mention of marketing budget. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the third paragraph is cited to Bollywood Hungama, which doesn't support the 29-day release number. Where did the length-of-release information come from?
It's mentioned in the table of the BH source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Movie articles typically include DVD revenues and the like, but I don't know whether there is a DVD market in India. Indeed, many American movies have had to wait to become GAs until that information about a movie has been made available. Was this ever released on DVD, and if so is there any data about revenues?
I have mentioned the film's DVD being available but couldn't find further info about it, like its release date. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This completes the first pass. I'll try to go through the article in the next day or two for a second pass, making further edits where practical and asking for edits where not. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: can you please finish it now? It's been a while and the article has been significantly changed since it was first reviewed by Jaguar. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yashthepunisher, I'll do my best to work through it this weekend; I had unexpected calls on my time this week. There are still a number of rough places where the prose falls short of "clear and concise", including incomplete sentences and the like, so it will take a fair amount of time. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: if your review is finished, I'd like to close and promote this now. JAGUAR  11:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, not finished yet; thanks for asking. I have a big bunch of necessary edits from my second pass marked down on paper that I need to complete and transfer here—I'll do most of them directly to the article, as I've done to some sections since my previous post, and try to finish the article this weekend along with a final list of needed clarifications for Yashthepunisher. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review has been on hold for over a month and I'm confident it's already scraping along the edges of the GA criteria. I've made a couple of tweaks to the article, and Yash has already addressed all of BlueMoonset's concerns. In my opinion it satisfies the "well written" criteria and am eager to get this moved along. If anybody feels that there are any outstanding issues then they can be raised on the talk page. At this time I don't think a GAR is appropriate. JAGUAR  15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wazir_(film)/GA1&oldid=1085922819"