Talk:Bommarillu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Bommarillu has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Indian cinema (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian cinema, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Indian cinema. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. WikiProject India (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (see comments) This article is maintained by the Andhra Pradesh workgroup. More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale by the India project. WikiProject Films     (Rated GA-Class)   (Rated Mid importance) Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale. Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. Additional Information: Related task forces (nations and regions): Indian cinema task force
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents 1 Neha Bamb 2 GA nomination on hold - less than 7 days left to make changes - now promoted 2.1 A few more things 2.2 Old messages 2.3 Improvements 3 Bommarillu is wrongly spelled in Telugu

[edit] Neha Bamb

Even if she is credited as simply "Neha" in the movie, her article should be named her complete name, as all the other articles of actors have only redirections of their "aliases". See Jyothika, Surya, Ajith etc. Comments on that? --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 04:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is how it should be (full name) as per WP Biographies guidelines, with redirects for alias names. Hoverfish Talk 09:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider writing a బొమ్మరిల్లు article in the Telugu Wikipedia also at http://te.wikipedia.org/

[edit] GA nomination on hold - less than 7 days left to make changes - now promoted

Images need a fair use rationale as outlined in the assessment comments (see above). The prose needs a lot of improvement, I'll give a few examples when I get a chance later, but be warned, until or unless these areas are fixed within the required time, the article is going to fail in this nomination. Ncmvocalist 06:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture all have a fair use rationale. Is the one currently applied to them not sufficient? Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 13:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

They're sufficient now, yes. Ncmvocalist 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Some details may be available in the assessment comments section of this article. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. Congratulations!! Ncmvocalist 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA assessment! Regards, Mspraveen 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few more things

Below is a reproduction of what was said by Nehrams2020 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC) minus all the parts that have been adaquately dealt with (plus a few editions made by me). Editors of the article are to consider this as a "to-do-list" for the article.

The original messages are available under the heading "Old messages" further below, and will be archived at a later date. Please also note that only #3 on this to-do-list has the potential for having this article delisted as a GA, and the remainder are merely general improvements that should be made to the article. Ncmvocalist 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over the article and there are other issues that should be addressed for the article to maintain its GA status. Good job on your first GA, but some things needs to be fixed or the article will be nominated for reassessment.

1. You have four screenshots of the same two actors in various scenes. I'd recommend keeping two, and removing the rest as they appear similar in nature.
2. The plot could use a better rewrite, consider asking some other editors with good copyediting skills to help you out.
3. The article also has many POV words and the article should be swept to remove them.
   1. "A September 2006 survey done in the United States by a popular entertainment portal revealed that the film was watched by a staggering 65,000 Indian expatriate population." "staggering"
   2. "Many of them pointing out no real flaws from the film." This needs a source and the sentence needs to be reworded as it isn't a complete sentence.
4. I'd also recommend going through all of the sources that were added and add the author of the articles used if available and also add the date that you accesseed the articles. You can see examples on other passed GAs and the templates at WP:CITET.

Altogether the article needs a good copyedit, perhaps from members of the projects the film falls under. If the above issues aren't addressed within seven days, I'll nominate it at Good article reassessment, but I don't think that will be necessary. I've already gone through the article myself and fixed the spacing and punctuation of the inline citations. If you have any questions about what I said here, let me know and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Nehrams2020 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old messages

I just looked over the article and there are other issues that should be addressed for the article to maintain its GA status. Good job on your first GA, but some things needs to be fixed or the article will be delisted.

please avoid threats - what you've outlined is not something that would warrant delisting as the article still does not fail in any of the criteria, so all it would result in is a nomination for reassessment - not a delisting! Ncmvocalist 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

• You have four screenshots of the same two actors in various scenes. I'd recommend keeping one or two at most and removing the rest as they are all very similar. It is hard to argue fair use of the images if you have multiple screenshots from the film showing the same actors in similar scenes.

The scenes are (arguably) of the protagonists of the film (so there's no problem with using the 'same actors') - as for similar scenes, this may be a valid point, but not one that would warrant the delisting of an article. Ncmvocalist 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

• The plot could use a better rewrite, consider asking some other editors with good copyediting skills to help you out. For example, the first sentence "The film begins with a baby taking its initial steps on a beach while the father is supporting it." Instead of "it", do you know the gender?

The answer you should obviously assume is 'no', unless you've seen the film and think otherwise (in which case, you would make this change yourself). Ncmvocalist 04:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• The article also has many POV words and the article should be swept to remove them. "The cast from the film was quite elaborate." You don't need this sentence before the cast section as "quite elaborate" could be considered POV.

again a source was given, like in the case of filmfare awards Ncmvocalist 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Other examples that should be removed or reworded (or sourced if the words are from a quote)

• • "A September 2006 survey done in the United States by a popular entertainment portal revealed that the film was watched by a staggering 65,000 Indian expatriate population." "staggering"

this is something that I agree with, despite the source that is given in the next sentence. In either case of rewording or quoting, the reference should be repeated here. Ncmvocalist 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • "The film received rave reviews right from the story to the performances of the actors." "rave"

the sources are given for such reviews - to call this POV is absurd! Ncmvocalist 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • "Many of them pointing out no real flaws from the film." This needs a source and the sentence needs to be reworded as it isn't a complete sentence.

i agree Ncmvocalist 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • "At the prestigious annual Filmfare Awards for south Indian cinema, the film won the Best Film, Best Actress in a Leading Role and the Best Director awards.[7]" "prestigious"

there is an article on these awards - there is enough in it to infer that these awards are considered 'prestigious'. Please be thorough if and when you do give comments like this. Ncmvocalist 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'd also recommend going through all of the sources that were added and add the author of the articles used if available and also add the date that you accecceed the articles. You can see examples on other passed GAs and the templates at WP:CITET.

Altogether the article needs a good copyedit, perhaps from members of the projects the film falls under. If the above issues aren't addressed within seven days, I'll nominate it at Good article reassessment, but I don't think that will be necessary. I've already gone through the article myself and fixed the spacing and punctuation of the inline citations. If you have any questions about what I said here, let me know and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While these issues do need to be addressed, it wouldn't warrant this article to be de-listed. A GA does not have to follow the criteria perfectly as you would well know. Please note what I've written above, and below, as they in combination, would not warrant a de-listing unless I've otherwise stated.

The minor point on the fair use rationale can be fixed up by you if you wish (be bold), given that the majority of it has been filled out - anyway, I've done it instead. The plot section can still be further improved, but the prose is still reasonably clear, which is enough. The POV contentions you've raised, to me, seem a joke. It's doubtful that this is in fact POV, and not from published opinion. Of course, such opinon would need to be backed up with the appropriate references (this is so far the only point that would warrant a de-listing if there are any examples where appropriate references are not given) but in the case of the examples you've listed - I've struck off the absurd points, and agreed with the parts where a reasonable person would believe there is POV.

Overall, it seems to me that the minimum requirements for GA have been met. So, while I agree 100% that these changes are necessary for further improvement of the article, and while you do have the choice to nominate this article for re-assessment, there is nothing to suggest it can be de-listed based on the assertions you've made. Ncmvocalist 03:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing several of the points, but I please ask that you do assume good faith, I'm not using threats nor trying to keep the article from remaining a GA for several trivial reasons. The article could have been failed in its first review by another editor for the POV statements I raised, the plot, and possibly the fair use rationales (depends on the reviewer). Please see that I want the article to keep it GA status, and that is why I raised these issues. Otherwise, another reviewer in the future could have glanced over this article at its state before my review and brought it up to GAR later when there might not be that much attention on the article. Although not all of the issues I raised are required for GA, I did raise them as most are easy to fix and shouldn't take too much effort.

Concerning the fair use rationales, I could have been bold and changed them myself, but I figured it would be best for new editors to learn more about the policy and learn to do it themselves. Addressing the issues myself would be easy for me, but by allowing someone who has not done it before will help them to prevent it from occurring in the future and help to continue to improve Wikipedia. The POV statements that I pointed out are not all backed up by sources. "The cast from the film was quite elaborate." This had a source, but it was just the cast list from IMDB with no mention of the phrasing "quite elaborate". If this was a quote from a particular critic, director, actor, etc. and it was sourced showing the quote, then it would be fine for inclusion. The use of "rave", again could be considered POV, but if a direct source states that the film received "rave reviews", just source it and it's fine. Otherwise it may sound like a particular editor is trying to state the film is extremely great, even though it may have multiple negative reviews (which may not be the case for this film). It could be reworded to "positive" or something to that effect.

If you have any questions, let me know, and I'll be happy to continue to help you improve the article. At this point, now that the article has addressed most of the points, I believe the article is GA quality, and commend both of your efforts on the article. Please continue to improve the article, making sure all new information is properly sourced. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

With regards to the finer aspects pointed out, I've made the following changes/additions

• The images used were in question for two aspects

1. Fair Use Rationale - Already corrected by my fellow-editor, User:Ncmvocalist
2. The seemingly redundant use of protagonists' images - Has been changed by adding suitable images of important scenes from the movie involving the other two important cast members.

• Copyediting: Necessary and appropriate changes have been made (Updated the baby's gender and a few more sentences have been reworded.)
• POV: Wherever there appeared an instance, suitable referencing has supported the usage.
• References as per WP:CITET: Done!

If there is anything that missed my attention or requires further copyediting/corrections, please feel free to let me know.

With best regards, Mspraveen 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bommarillu is wrongly spelled in Telugu

The word "bommarillu" is wrongly spelled in Telugu. I know the correct spelling, can any one tell me is there any tool to write it in Telugu(how to write a word in Telugu).Vinay h (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Google search with the బొమ్మరిల్లు as the keyword and it yielded so many results that suggest that the title is correctly spelled in Telugu. Any further concerns, please write them here or on my talk page. Mspraveen (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)