Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 24 January 2016

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2014. The result of the discussion was Merge to Sanjay Leela Bhansali.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Indian This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).

Paris attacks

This edit request to Bajirao Mastani (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Paris terrorist attacks)) to ((November 2015 Paris attacks|Paris terrorist attacks))

 Done - although I used the actual article title, without the pipe - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical response summary

In this edit I have again removed the attempt to summarize critical response. We are not critical response aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and it is not our place to cherrypick various reviews and then attempt to summarize all critical response based on those hand-selected reviews. That's original research. If you want to report the aggregator scores (assuming there is any RT and Metacritic info out there) that's fine, but even in that situation, there's no need to summarize what is already a summary, the aggregator values. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge what you are putting forward and I now agree with you. However, please do not assume that I "cherrypicked" these articles. I did not solely pick the positive reviews and ignore the negative reviews. It is not my aim to be in competition on this as I edit articles based on factual evidence and not based on my personal opinion, like many people have been doing to this very article. However, you did make sense and I will refrain from using the terms "critics" when referring to reviews by the media. Thank you Cyphoidbomb, after all, we work together on the articles here, and my edits were in good faith, as are yours. Manor4 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you personally selected reviews to create a biased picture, (I didn't even know that you were involved in the review selection) rather, I was suggesting that any sampling of reviews may not be representative of the entire critical picture, so summarizing that selection is almost certain to be problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, I have added more reviews, as I felt the section was short, and tried to organized all the reviews. I have approached this by keeping the first paragraph mostly focused on direction, the second mostly focused on performances, visuals, and costume/production design, and the last mostly focused on storyline and pacing. I have avoided to push any mixed or negative reviews to the bottom too. Instead, I have spread them with the positive ones throughout the section. With this, my intention was to provide a balanced viewpoint. Is this fine with everyone? I also do feel the section's length is now just right, but is that fine as well? Thoughts? 107.15.215.200 (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The critical response section should be more than a collection of ratings and quotes. Ideally, the way to go is to organize the reviews based on specific areas like acting, writing, direction, and other aspects like special effects, or cinematography, or whatever else. Example with a made-up plot:

Critic A of ABC Newspaper felt that the story lacked cohesion, with specific criticism levied at the main plot between actors X and Y, who "were off running errands by themselves instead of working together to solve the core dilemma." Critic A felt that this writing choice made the three-hour film difficult to watch. He noted, "half the time I was jamming popcorn under my eyelids to keep them open, wondering why I was watching two boring characters pick up their laundry and groceries." Critic B of DEF Times described the story as "a snorer", commenting that "the last hour and a half was a complete waste of an hour and a half." These sentiments were not shared by Critic C of GHI Herald, who praised the story line, explaining, "the main characters start off as co-dependent. By forcing them to work alone, the two grow on their own, so once they are reunited you believe that they've gone through a change and that they are ready to love each other for real this time."

By organizing the reviews by topic rather than randomly or by rating, the prose that we provide has some coherence, can present the difference of opinion in a neutral way, and doesn't read like the back of the DVD case. It is, however, harder to do, which is why nobody does it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Development is misspelled

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015

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

EDITING OF THE CAST ORDER IS REQUIRED WITH DEEPIKA PADUKONE'S NAME AT THE TOP ,THEN PRIYANKA CHOPRA AND THEN RANVEER SINGH AND SO ON..

ALSO THE INTRODUCTORY LINE FOR PAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE "Movie was praised for it's direction,music,costumes,performances,especially of chopra and singh"...is quite wrong....it should also be deepika and tanvi azmi.....most critics and people have applauded their performances too....or it should be just "performances of all cast was applauded".!!! BollyAsterisk (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Partly done Have changed the line to "performances of lead actors" without naming any of them. But I see no reason why cast order should be changed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In agreement that there's no clear reason to reorder cast. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

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

Therr should be a statement that sums up the overall critical reception to the movie, such as "highly positive", "Criticallly acclaimed" et al.

Piyush Pratik1 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Added The film received positive reviews from critics. --allthefoxes 03:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Undone. Summaries of critical response must be attributed to reliable sources, not pulled out of thin air. Summarizing cherrypicked reviews isn't the way to go either. Whose voice would we be quoting when we describe overall critical response? And what exactly does "highly positive" mean? Critics were shouting "Oh my frickin' god, I LOOOOVE this film!"? It's promotional fluff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cast

@Krish!: What is logic behind writing Chopra's name ahead of Padukone's in cast list? Padukone is lead actress and performing titular role in film. Where is link of official credits of film? And Padukone's performance is widely praised, why you are removing her name and keeping Chopra's name? You have made 3 reverts, I will not like if editor like you get blocked for such minor issue. --Human3015  10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As per this edit summary involved editor is not interested in discussing the issue on talk page, so I am restoring appropriate version of article. It is very logical that lead actors have their names first, it is already written in "starring" section of infobox in proper order so no reason why it should not be in same order in "cast" section in body. Thank you. --Human3015  10:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class Indian cinema articles
• Indian cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Low-importance
• Top-importance Indian cinema articles
• C-Class Indian cinema articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian cinema articles
• WikiProject India articles