# Talk:Mouna Ragam

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mouna Ragam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Will review within a few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede
"He is puzzled by Divya's arrogant nature, which developed due to her grief over her former lover, Manohar (Karthik), being shot to death. " Doesn't really belong in the lede, reword/minimise the plot summary overall I think.
Can I take the plot summary from IMDb? There it reads, "Divya, a woman grieving over the death of her lover, is convinced into an arranged marriage with Chandra Kumar". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That would make it a copyvio.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Tweaked it. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
"Revathi and Mohan's performances were also praised." -not needed

Would it be good to blend it with the previous sentence? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The film and cast were critically acclaimed should suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done As asked. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 03:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Plot
"Divya is forced to live with Chandrakumar and she slowly starts to like him. Chandrakumar distances himself from Divya because after a year she will be gone and he does not want to get used to her." Seems contradictatory, if he distances himself how can see start to like him?
The plot is a bit superficial to read, a lot of short sentences, can you try to improve it a bit and reduce some of the relationship details?
More like they live in the same house, but he does not speak very often to her, yet she somehow gradually starts liking him. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence mentioned by Dr. Blofeld. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Production
If it was 1983 he started on it how could it have taken five years to write if it was released in 1986?
It says that when PAP's last schedule was "extended to a year, he began working on a script titled Divya". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"he considers it his second because it was made the way he thought it should have been. " -a bit sloppy
 Done Removed. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Like the plot this really reads a bit subjectively. Some of the sentences seem like a narrative rather than encyclopedic.
Music and reception
Too many quotes which affects readability. The prose on this I believe is not yet ready for GA. You might want to get an editor or two working on improving the quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have paraphrased a few. Let Thamizhan1994 do the rest. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Also paraphrased the remaining reviews. If there is any scope for improvement, please suggest them. Thank you. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Other
As part of GA reviewing, I think proofreading is necessary. So please read the pages from here to ensure verifiability. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Outsider's comment

The fact that this film is a reworking of Nenjathai Killathey needs to be emphasized in the article. Mani Ratnam himself has said that in many interviews. Your interpretation "Baradwaj Rangan compared Mouna Ragam to J. Mahendran's Nenjathai Killathe" makes the reader understand that this is clearly the author's POV. —Vensatry  (ping)  19:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Vensatry: Actually, it was Rangan who came up with the comparison, if you look at Kailash29792's link above, in page 32-33. Ratnam wanted to reach out to the audience with Karthik's character, and that he was not worried about the other film. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 04:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Vensatry How are we doing?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The prose seems to have been improved a bit but for me the neutrality is now the biggest issue. The music, reception and legacy sections I don't think you could call neutral.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Most of the reviews are quite contemporary except Ananda Vikatan's. It is quite hard to find a negative review. There is one negative review from Searchindia but I don't think it is a reliable source. The film is more or less, critically acclaimed. How do you propose me and Kailash29792 should tone the neutrality? Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 04:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Krimuk90 Can you see what I mean in the music, reception and legacy sections about the neutrality? Any ideas of how to deal with it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the film won the Filmfare Award for Best Tamil Film. The book Sadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru by Film News' Anandan mentions only Samsaram Adhu Minsaram to be the winner. I'm not questioning the reliability of DFF. It could well be wrong here. There are a few instances where it presents information without verifying it. In this publication, it wrongly mentions that Bharathiraja had won the Best Director National Award for Muthal Mariyathai. —Vensatry  (ping)  18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I too was suspicious of that claim; it may promptly be removed as the claim by Anandan (who is never wrong) is contradictory. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I know the film was quite acclaimed in India, but I feel that more critical "analysis" needs to be put in the reception section instead of phrases such as "well worth a watch even today". For the first review, if they were awarded 43 marks out of 100 then surely there must have been some criticisms. Please add that. Also, I'm not sure how Revathi's "slender frame" helping her performance is necessary for this particular film. Otherwise, I think this is okay. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: Actually, that is the full review as added from Dhananjayan's book. Ananda Vikatan always gives its ratings between 40 and 60 out of 100 (very rarely from 60 to 70). I have removed the slender frame quote. I have added some criticisms to the Upperstall review. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 02:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I also remember that Karthik's performance earned him a place in the Hall of Fame of FTII (in the list of "All-time Best Supporting Roles in Indian cinema"). I think a few Tamil sources would be available for the same. —Vensatry  (ping)  07:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Also Karthik was credited to have appeared in a Guest Role in the title cards of the movie. —Vensatry  (ping)  07:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year all. Yes. some good points I think if you could find a bit and dial down the praise a little it should be OK. Let me know when you think it's done and I'll take another look.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, is the neutrality and the overpraise given to this film the only problem remaining? And can you please do some proofreading on the claims supported by Conversations? I have given a link here to the book's pages. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm the reviewer, not really the one to be proof reading it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, Kailash29792, Vensatry, Krimuk90: Happy New Year to everyone! Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 09:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: I have addressed Vensatry's comment on Karthik featuring in a guest role. Thamizhan1994 (Appo Pesu) 09:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Good job Tham, reads much better than it did now. If in the future you can try to ensure it's a neutral as possible before nomming and fully copyedited it's likely to pass a lot quicker!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mouna Ragam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I had planned to take this article to FA at one point. But now that I've lost my mojo, and I've had consecutive FAC failures, I'm scrapping those plans for this. Instead, I want to see that this article is still at least GA-worthy, since five years have passed since it was promoted to GA and it has been substantially edited in that time period. --Kailash29792 (talk)  09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Just had a quick look at it and it easily looks a GA. Not sure what you're worried about.† Encyclopædius 11:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

After reading the article, I feel like it still is GA-worthy and this reassessment was not necessary.Krish | Talk To Me 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I went through the article and believe that it meets the GA criteria. VedantTalk 17:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Numerounovedant, Krish! and Encyclopædius. I guess that with your comments, it's time to close the GAR. It's obvious that the consensus is favourable. Kailash29792 (talk)  17:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)