Talk:Mr. and Mrs. Iyer

GA Assessment

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Quite an impressive lead section with the possible exception of one part. I believe that mentioning the language of the film as English is important, however, I'm not sure if it is well placed. If this line is omitted, the lead section is outstanding. So, at the end of the lead section, a mention of the film's language, and the film's release later as a soundtrack/DVD would make this part of the article perfect.

The plot section was well written for the most part. There was one sentence that mentioned 'him' and 'him' in it, when one should have been a 'her'. The image of Raja and Meenakshi should be moved one para. down, perhaps to the right to avoid squashing the text. A mention of where in the plot Meenakshi actually drank water from Raja would make this part a little clearer. That's all I can remember in terms of flaws at this moment - this section was both an enjoyable to read, and effective in conveying the story.

A citation for the first sentence of the Pre-production section is needed, even if it has been used earlier or later in the article. It is a little redundant to mention the full name and the fact Konkana is Aparna's daughter in the third sentence, when this could be cleared up in the second sentence.

The final sentence in the first paragraph of casting should be reworded more effectively. Punctuation (i.e. use of commas) in the final sentence of the second para needs to be fixed up, I think. The final sentence in casting is good in content, however, I (as both a reader and reviewer) can't help but wonder what the significance was of selecting a non-Muslim couple to play the Muslim couple. Was there a reason? (A good test of research)

The first sentence of filming and music should again have a citation. "She confessed that her mother, Aparna Sen, forced her to visit..." - add the comma after Aparna Sen. "She also said that she had learned..." - add the word had.

Check through each of the images again - some don't have full stops at the end of captions, and others could have more detailed fair use rationales that have more than 4 bullet points (that you've used on other images in previous GAs).

I was pleased at the tight expression evident in the Release and reception section. Purely out of curiosity, could you tell me how many other reviews (not already in this article) there were that you'd have, or already had considered adding relevant stuff from where possible? If you have the links, do post them so I can check through them - it's not a necessary for the GA, but may be useful for a grade that is higher. :)

Once you've gone through the above, then all that is left for me to check is the references, after which, the article is likely to be promoted. Although I haven't awarded the grade as yet, congratulations on a fine effort! It was a pleasure to both read, and review this article - thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the GA Assessment

Firstly, thank you for the very quick review and assessment by you! Many thanks for your words of appreciation about the article. Now, getting to some business:

• Relocated the English language towards the end of the lead section. Added a mention about the DVD as well.
• Clarified about the "him and him" part. Since, the sentence involved three characters, it was confusing to you/any external reader. I reworded it now, and I hope it would be clear to anyone.
• Did a mention about Meenakshi drinking water offered by Raja earlier in the bus.
• The first image has been moved lower. I feel, this arrangement is much better than what it was before.
• Pre-production has an extra and much-needed citation now. Konkana's full name has been kept limited to the beginning of the section now.
• Re-worded the sentence about Aparna's expectations from Bose. Punctuation has been checked and added accordingly wherever pointed and where I could see it lacking.
• Citation provided in the Filming and Music section and minor punctuation/typos addressed.
• Image rationales have been updated with non-free rationale.
• All major reviews that I could find while composing the section are here:

• The Hindu
• Hinduism.com
• Idlebrain.com
• Cinematic Intelligence Agency
• Passionforcinema.com
• TIME
• Rediff
• Variety

With the references, I checked the with link-checker tool and all references are active and working. You may want to double-check, if you may wish. I hope to seek any further suggestions to allow this to gain a GA status. I thank you once again for taking out time in reviewing this article. With best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: In response to the GA Assessment

• Image captions (still) do not adhere to manual of style guidelines - please recheck the review (this was covered in a previous GA....)
• The final sentence(s) of casting (now) need improvement. I find 'the reason' is not clear. If Aparna was not direct about it, she is bound to have implied one, in which case, I'm sure you can find a valid way of incorporating it into the article. Currently, the (good) casting section falls flat on the last sentence(s).
• By image rationales, I was hoping for rationales similar to Parineeta_1.jpg...
• Will try to formally do and hopefully finish the GA review within the next few days Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re:

• With regards to the image captions, you may please check MOS. Complete sentences have a period, unlike partial ones. I hope this was where you had an issue, wasn't it?
• The casting section has been fixed to my ability. I'm not quite sure if this is what you were looking for. The deal was that Sikri was only imagined about while penning the Muslim character. Incidentally, Sikri played the same role.
• For image rationales, isn't { { Non-free use rationale } } the preferred choice of use now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspraveen (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re:

Thank you for your patience, and sorry about the delay. The image captions are fine. I've fixed the casting section - hope you have no issues with how it is worded now. Mentioning Aparna's first film (and when it was produced) seems to be irrelevant in the pre-production section? The reviews section is very concise which is good, yet, I still feel there may be something that is missing. There are several other reviews online on a basic search, some varying in opinions more. It might be a good idea to extend this by adding some of these other reviews. I think you've stuck to these reviews as they are likely to be considered as one of the more reliable sources. Still, you could add another paragraph with other sources reviews wouldn't hurt, as long as the expression is again kept tight. But before that, adding a tad bit more of description to the last couple of reviews in this section would be a good idea. For example, you describe the Hindu review as being detailed, which is true. Yet, most reviews generally go in a direction that either is more towards supporting the film, or the opposite - although you'd have to be careful on how you word it (as it may be considered pov), it is always a good idea to at least hint on the stance that the review takes - off memory, you've done this relatively well in other GA articles that I've assessed. The same applies for other reviews you might add, as well as the Rediff review, which again doesn't directly hint what stance it takes. There are some areas that could also do with some wikilinking, such as the word Brahmin in the filming and music section. The prose is good (enough for the GA component), but could do with a little more work prior to going a grade higher than GA, but this is something I can explain after we've passed this step. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re:

• Yes, the casting section looks better. I had trouble in getting the wording right.
• About the mention of Aparna's first English film in the pre-production section, it deserves a mention as it was a 20 year long hiatus. Isn't that long enough to justify a mention? If you seem to disagree, I don't really mind removing it.
• Added about four reviews now and tried to weave them seamlessly into the section. Thoughts?
• Checked for and added wikilinks throughout the article, wherever lacking.
• Tried my might in checking for improvements in prose. I eagerly look forward to your pointers.

Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think it is worthwhile mentioning, but, there is some issue, perhaps to do with where this information has been placed. The desirable 'flowing' effect does not exist between each sentence. The first sentence states this hiatus, and the second sentence talks about what she wanted the presumably new script to be about. What I'm trying to say is - there is no real link between these sentences, content wise. Perhaps the first sentence could be elaborated to form a mini paragraph (to begin the preproduction section)? Done Maybe there is some similarity or some major difference between the way she wrote the scripts (for 36 chow. lane and r and mrs iyer), or what she intended for the scripts to be about?

I apologise as I am running behind schedule (again), so will try to keep up. Will continue this reply as soon as possible, but meanwhile, you have some content to work on I guess.Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above

I could not find any outspoken difference about the Iyer and Lane movies. No real content out there as far as I could see. If there are any other issues, please do put them forth. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: In response to the above

I still feel that the reviews section could do with some work, but this is something that can be worked on later (prior to trying for a higher grade). The new first paragraph for the preproduction section is lingering for a bit too long and I have tried to reword it (as the previous version loses focus - of both the section and the article itself). Of course, if it still sounds a little awkward, this material should be removed, and could be included in Aparna Sen - the article instead. Despite having some room for improvement in a few areas, this article seems to be satisfactory (in meeting the GA criteria). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: In response to the above

Firstly, thank you for your detailed and a very patient review on this article. I appreciate you taking out time in doing so. With regards to the reviews section, please do detail out your thoughts so that I can try working on further improvement on this. Thanks again! Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080613145505/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/articleshow/97660.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/97660.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mr. and Mrs. Iyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308170355/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/02_48/b3810013.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_48/b3810013.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ibosnetwork.com/asp/filmbodetails.asp?id=Mr.+And+Mrs.+Iyer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061104173042/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0318,tracking,43711,20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0318,tracking,43711,20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)