[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Loham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLoham has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
October 22, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
October 21, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
March 2, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Loham/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have this to you either tonight or tomorrow JAGUAR  13:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • "a 2015 Indian Malayalam thriller film" - optional, but would you prefer to write this as Malayalam-language? It's just that I've seen it in other GAs
 Done
  • "C. Rajamani composed the soundtrack and film score respectively" - comma needed in between "score" and "respectively"
 Done
  • "setting a record in 2015 for highest opening day gross for a Malayalam film" - a "the" is needed between "for" and "highest"
 Done
  • "an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer" - 'IRS' isn't mentioned again in the body, so it's safe to lose it here
 Done
  • "Raju identifies himself as a RAW agent" - what does RAW stand for?
 Done
  • "at the Calicut International Airport, Kozhikode" - might sound better as at the Calicut International Airport in Kozhikode
 Done
  • "The first poster showed an ensemble cast with Mohanlal in the center" - centre (Indian English)
 Done
  • "Ajmal's character's looks were modelled after popular young politicians in the country" - delink this
 Done
  • I think that the third paragraph in the Release section could be merged with the second, to improve prose flow
 Done

Looks very good! I couldn't find much wrong with it. Once all of the minor prose issues are addressed then this should be good to go. JAGUAR  16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That really helped. Thanks for your quick response. I have corrected all the addressd issues. And thanks to all the editors who worked to make this a GA. --Charles Turing (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This looks like it's good to go. JAGUAR  20:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the section development

[edit]

'The announcement of Loham received considerable media attention as it was Manju Warrier's return to the screen after leaving the film industry to marry actor Dileep. The media coverage was further heightened when Prithviraj Sukumaran joined the cast."

This is completely wrong as Manju Warrier and Prithviraj is not a part of this film. Can I delete it or can anyone provide a reliable source to this.Paavamjinn (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced box office section

[edit]

The film's box office details are cited using unreliable sources. This include

Box office details must be sourced using a reliable tracking website or with reputed print publications (WP:FILMBOXOFFICE). The only reference used in the section which could be considered of any value used is from Sify (WP:ICTFSOURCES), which states that the film collected 2.19 crore on the first day. Except for this, I am removing the rest of the details as they fail verification. I am also doubtful whether this article meets the Good article criteria as it relies heavily on unreliable sources. Out of the 65 references, 12 are from International Business Times, 13 are from Filmibeat.com and three are from Indiaglitz.com. I would like to hear inputs from other editors whether the article should undergo a reassessment on the ground of the quality of the sources used. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just add the better sources for the box office if you are disputing it. We don't do a GAR based on that one thing. First of all, CONTEXT MATTERS, and so do corroboration of the numbers, so don't get carried away with the sources. Atsme 💬 📧 20:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It is not only the box office section, but about half the references used in the article are from unreliable sources. And it is not that I dispute the sources. These sources are explicitly categorised as unreliable sources at WP:RSP or WP:ICTFSOURCES. Anyway, I have removed some content from the box office section as they fail verifiability. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To begin, RSP is just a guideline. We dispute the material, not the source - we simply find a better source. There is much more involved than just saying the source is unreliable and I'm going to remove the material - NO, that is not how it works. What are you disputing? When the article was created those sources were fine. If you are disputing the content - you discuss it here, find material that supports your position, propose it, and cite a better source. Quite a few people worked on verifiability when that article was promoted, so you need a good reason to be removing material besides the source that is cited. This is about a movie not a BLP. Atsme 💬 📧 20:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edits were based on the guidelines mentioned in WP:FILMBOXOFFICE, that the information needs to be sourced from dedicated tracking websites or print publications. There have been multiple discussions at WP:ICTF whether sources such as IBTimes or Filmibeat or Indiaglitz can be used for Box office details of a movie and the consensus was a no which is why they are listed as unreliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES. And, it is not upon me to look for reliable sources, but if you need the information to be on Wikipedia, you must look for a reliable source that supports your information. I am removing the information for now as I am entitled to per WP:Verifiability. If you need the information back, please cite a reliable source for the information. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there are discrepancies within the values quoted in some of the sources used before. For example, this IBTimes article puts the figure at 12.2 crore while this report from the same publisher puts the figure at Rs. 15 crore. The Wikipedia article states this 12.2 crore is from Kerala theatres and 15 crore is the combined gross from theatres within Kerala and outside Kerala. Seriously? What's the source for this information? I am sure some user noticed the discrepancy and tried to make up this statement in order to explain the discrepancy. And the source for the first IBTimes article is a blog called Kerala Box Office Updates. Are you seriously telling me that these figures are to be included on this Wikipedia article? Malayala Sahityam (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long standing GA which means back in its day, it went through all the rigors of verification. You don't get to start removing material that was properly sourced - it is not temporary. It could very well be that something happened between 2015 & now that made those sources unreliable but they were RS when first cited, and that includes reliable for CONTEXT. If you don't like the sources now, that is not the fault of the promoted article. I question your claim of unreliability for how they are used in this article. I advise you to not revert again, and to discuss your issues to see if it is possible to help you understand why the article is fine as it is now. Do you have a conflict of interest involving this topic or this article, for whatever reason, and if so have you disclosed it on your User Page? Atsme 💬 📧 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned WP:CONTEXTMATTERS multiple times. Actually it works against your point as box office details clearly gives a context that demands the use of highly reputed sources. The content within box office sections are often disputed and subject to long discussions, especially in the context of Indian films, where there is no reputed box office tracking websites (including Box Office India whose reputation has been questioned in multiple discussions but it is however accepted as a reliable source. This site anyway does not cover Malayalam films). If you cannot find a reputed source (per WP:FILMBOXOFFICE, this should ideally be tracking website or a print publication), the content has no place in Wikipedia as WP:Verifiability supersedes most other criteria of inclusion. How does it matter whether the source was considered reliable when they were first used? If the reliability cannot be established now, then the information, especially contentious information, cannot be sourced using those dubious sources, and can be removed. Definitely, you need to give a reason why these sources I mentioned above can be considered reliable for the claims made in this article. I also pointed out the discrepancies within the sources used and how some WP:OR was made in the article. If these were overlooked during the GAR, it doesn’t mean the information should stay forever just because the article is now a GAR. And why do you accuse me of WP:COI? What possible COI I could have with a film that released many years back? I am being here in Wikipedia for so many years now, and have been involved in several Kerala-related articles, especially those related to films and literature. Anyway, I advise you to please address my concerns, before replacing the content. I believe WP:REMOVAL entitles me to remove content that are not reliably sourced, irrespective whether the article is a GA or not. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. You are not here to improve this article, and your UTP tells a much different story about your activities from how you see yourself. You are edit warring and removing sourced material that you have decided, without checking the article history of this long standing GA that dates back to 2015-2016, that those sources are suddenly not reliable for context. If I were you, I'd self-revert because you've made 3 reverts, one more and you're blocked. The cited sources were RS in 2015, this is a long standing GA that has received a lot of scrutiny. Everything passed in 2015 and it had a lot of eyes on it back then - it cannot all of sudden not pass - nothing has changed. This article has been watched by several admins over the years, because trolls kept trying to change the box office figures. Cyphoidbomb spent a lot of time doing the research and chasing off vandals who were disputing the box office – which is what you are edit warring over. Back in 2017 Anarchyte kept PP in force for that very reason. There are plenty of good editors watching this article, so I'm not going to edit war with you, or waste anymore of my time here. Atsme 💬 📧 23:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Anyway, my intention is only to improve the article as I believe every piece of information in Wikipedia should be verifiable with a reliable source. If you can address my concerns, I would be happy to self-revert. However, unless you can provide a valid reason as to why the sources I mentioned above can be considered reliable despite being listed as unreliable at WP:RSP etc., and why the WP:OR to cover up the discrepancies in the sources should be permitted for the statement I mentioned in my previous comment, I am not ready to do that. I appreciate the time and effort that everyone has put into making this a good article, but that does not mean that I cannot question the details included in this article. You keep on saying that I am having issues with these sources and that you consider them reliable for the context. However, neither mine nor your opinion on the reliability of these sources do matter. What matters is that these sources were subject to multiple discussions, including for their credibility to be used as a source for box office details, and there was a general agreement by most editors that these sources are not reliable for box office information. That is why they ended up being listed as unreliable at WP:RSP or WP:ICTFSOURCES. User:Cyphoidbomb him/herself was also concerned with the use of Filmibeat, as can be seen in this discussion. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loham&oldid=1208047352"