Talk:Cosmopolitan (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article origin[edit]

This article was created by User:Softlavender. I have posted it in order to avoid the movie poster being deleted because it was not used in an article. All credit for the original iteration of this article goes to that user. --Chasingsol(talk) 05:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, thanks, CS. I've just been creating it in my spare time, and it will be fleshed out as time goes on. Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS B-class review[edit]

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Good job on the article, it looks like it has come a long way since its creation just weeks ago. Prior to the article reaching B-class there are several issues that must be addressed, which include:

  1. Several cast members are described as award-winning. I'd recommend removing these, as readers can see that for themselves on the actors' articles. It will also help to make the article more neutral.
I respectfully personally disagree. These people are Indian and obscure and not known by English-speakers so awards add valuable and relevant content and context. It also shows why these particular individuals were hired by the producers (i.e., because of their expertise and reputation). I have however removed all mention of awards outside the sections about hiring/casting. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "To round out the major cast, Ganatra chose Merchant-Ivory actress Madhur Jaffrey, who had been in her 1999 film Chutney Popcorn, to play Gopal's disgruntled wife, and Purva Bedi (American Desi) was cast as Gopal's daughter Geetu." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone as it breaks the flow of the article. Either incorporate it into another paragraph or expand on the information.
Fixed -- made it two sentences. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Nevertheless, the two actors very much enjoyed working together." This may not be necessary for inclusion.
I respectfully personally disagree, and left it in, as the previous sentence implied major difficulty on set. Plus it's sourced information about something people are curious about, and the cited article has a lot of great in-depth info about the two actors and their compatibility or lack thereof. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Consider adding a cast section that introduces the main characters and describes the characters a bit.
Done. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'd recommend having a major heading called "Production" and subheadings with "script", "casting", "funding", and "filming".
I respectfully personally disagree; there is a Production section with Funding and Filming subsections; there is a Script section; there is a Cast information section. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The entire "major themes" section is unsourced. Without sources, it may be considered original research.
I'll try to find sources for them. UPDATE: Found plenty of sources (basically all of the cited and linked articles that are already present), but I wasn't sure whether it would be best to flesh out the descriptions and add small quotations, or whether to simply add a citation or two to each short bulleted theme as they now stand. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC) SECOND UPDATE: I deleted the section, since I don't have time to source it. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The film has received very favorable print reviews, and was variously described as charming, wry, touching, and hilarious..." Quotation marks need to go around the "charming", "wry", etc.
Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. To help the article remain neutral, make sure to add any negative reviews as well. Two or three should help to balance out the article.
OK. I've added the only negative mention I could find (15 words is all I the negative criticism I could find on the Internet), from Variety. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is there any information anywhere about box office performance?
It's a 55-minute independent film, which has aired in film festivals and on TV. There is no "box office" because it was not in wide release. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For the external links, the review by Variety should be used as a source and removed. Try and incorporate the interviews into the article as well for sourcing information.
Done. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. More categories should be included, such as genre, language, director (if it exists), studios, etc.
Thanks very much for the suggestion; I've added several categories. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The inline citations need to use the citation templates or be modified to include more information then just the title. You should try to include the author, date, access date, publisher, etc. See some of WP:FILMS' GA/FAs for examples.
Done; plus footnotes consolidated. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article has a good start, and I can reassess the article again once the above issues are addressed. If you have any questions about these issues, compare to other GA/FAs or let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and suggestions. Just so we're clear -- this seems to be a review calling for GA/FA status conformity, although you mentioned above that it was a B-Class review. Why the difference in criteria? Surely the article as is meets B-class criteria and is no longer a Start class. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Putting some links here for possible use later:

-- Softlavender (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmopolitan (film). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cosmopolitan_(film)&oldid=1206802128"