# Talk:Chandramukhi

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chandramukhi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 06:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
#### Discussion
No cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Need to dramatically reduce the resolution of: [[File:Chandramukhi_Blu_Ray_cover.jpg]] for use! --AmritasyaPutraT 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done reduced as per WP:NFCC. Ssven2 (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"as the titular character" ... I am not sure 'the' is appropriate there because the character is not explained or referred to before. Perhaps 'a' is just fine?
Can you reword/clarify "honorary Kalaimamani Award"... the intent of honorary is not clear to me, unless you think it is appropriate, I may be lacking in this area.
"All the film's language versions were box-office successes." is "All these dubs" any better?
Perhaps a better/common word for Unbeknownst?
The plot has no inline reference at all, I am sure you have references going by the neat reference section, can you add references to this section? --AmritasyaPutraT 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As per WP:FILMPLOT, "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: thanks, I didn't know that! --AmritasyaPutraT 15:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done removed 'honorary'. Regarding the titular character bit, the titular character refers to the dancer, Chandramukhi, which is portrayed by Jyothika, that's why it was written as 'the titular character' but I have changed that part as well . I have changed 'All the film's language versions were box-office successes' to 'The other language versions of the film were also successful' and 'Unbeknownst' to 'Unknown'. Ssven2 (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Further inputs:

To me, in "Coincidentally, another film", coincidentally sounds like editorializing and may be avoided.
Sidney Sladen can be wiki-linked.
"He sported a wig and exercised for his role." That 'exercised' part feels a bit like hanging in the middle without context.
Can you fix if possible (or tag) the reference "Tamil cinema: the cultural politics of India's other film industry (info)"?
What is the meaning of "and gave the film 40 marks"?
In the Box office subsection of India and Overseas there are too many "equivalent to" which hamper the readability, we are not going to update it every year, so we might as well just leave it (from the entire article). Is there an established practice for such case? --AmritasyaPutraT 16:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done removed 'Coincidentally'. Created an article for Sidney Sladen. Removed 'exercised'. Fixed the references like you said, but I kept the Dhananjayan reference as it is extensively used as compared to the other three. Changed 'Bibliography' to 'Further reading'. '40 marks' changed to '40 out of 100 marks'. Changed the equivalent to for 'Box Office' section. Ssven2 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Only MoS and citation to reliable sources left, I will check the citations individually, I am holding back on MoS for the currency equivalent in the article, I feel they are too many and does not add so much to the article subject, except for the infobox USD others can be purged IMHO. I am okay if you feel they are needed. Best is if we have an equivalent FA article where we can compare what is better to do, or if any guidelines for such usage. Let me know your views on this. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ssven2, I think there is a mistake: the lead states that Chandramukhi is the longest running South Indian film (890 days), but this source states that Magadheera (2009) completed 1000 days. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Kailash29792, I didn't know Magadheera completed 1000 days. Thanks again, bro.  Ssven2 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: Thanks a ton, bro ! My first GA success! I can't believe it!  Ssven2 (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


### Additional notes
Shouldn't we add nayandhara, vadivelu and nasser to the list ? Kichawww (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The article says that the story revolves around a woman who suffers from dissociative identity disorder but the story is about how gets possessed by the spirit of Chandramukhi while the psychiatrist uses his knowledge of psychology and also risks his own life to help get the spirit to stop possessing the woman's body. 70.121.23.76 (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
They mixed spirit possession and split personality syndrome. So I too am confused. Kailash29792 (talk)  05:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)