# Talk:Neerja

Neerja: The Story of a Brave Air Hostess Neerja Bhanot
Prakhar Sahay (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2016 (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. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 01:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please delete 8th bullet of cast, Abrar Zahoor as Safarini as it is already mentioned in the 5th bullet point, Abrar Zahoor as Zayd Safarini.
Snowyplayer (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

please add ‘it was futher reported that Neerja has now been tax-free in Delhi and UP also" to the text "It was reported on 24 February, 2016 that the film had been declared tax free by Maharashtra state government"
Source= "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Sonam-Kapoors-Neerja-now-tax-free-in-Delhi-and-UP/articleshow/51159118.cms"
Arunkumar1576 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why should this change be made, exactly? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In these edits, I removed content from the plot section. The point of a plot section is to provide an overview of the film's plot and I don't think all of the details presented in that run-on sentence are germane to our understanding of the film's plot. We're not writing a historical article, we're summarizing a film. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In these edits [1][2], I reverted content submitted by Mr. Smart LION. Firstly, he restored a summary of overseas critical response without providing a reference for that summary, which I'd previously removed here. We can't cherrypick positive reviews and then describe those reviews as positive. There's too much of an opportunity to confirm our own bias. If I hated the movie, all I would need to do is fill the section with negative reviews and write "the film was received poorly overseas". We should be quoting specific voices when we summarize overall response. Secondly, the marketing section, while added in good faith, only details the mundane, which contravenes WP:TRAILER. There's nothing special about appearing somewhere to discuss the film. Actors do that all the time for every movie. It's mundane. I'm baffled by the inclusion of content about the sheer top she was wearing. I don't comprehend why that would be noted in an encyclopedia. It's completely ridiculous and I can imagine any number of people would perceive that to be sexist, because we almost certainly wouldn't mention a man's sheer top. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neerja/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 11:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Will go through this soon. NumerounovedantTalk 11:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Early concerns
Move all the citations into the prose as per WP:MoS  Done I'm not able to understand. Please explain how to do with examples (or move 2-3 citations into prose in the article as examples).
Move the "Tax Free" and "Ban" sections into the release section  Done NumerounovedantTalk 12:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Done with second issue. Please explain the first one by giving examples. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Here, just move the refs from the lead to appropriate places in the article. NumerounovedantTalk 14:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Also done with the first issue. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 15:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done, refs are still there NumerounovedantTalk 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I will go through the article tomorrow. NumerounovedantTalk 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is only one ref. (2). Let it be there for "Gross" in infobox. Otherwise it would look like a fake information. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I am talking about ref 3, 4, 5, 6, in the lead section. NumerounovedantTalk 18:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Final comments
I think is short of the standard of a GA. The prose is not up to par. You should consider getting a copy-edit from WP:GOCE. That should help improve the prose.
The article is dated (past events are still addressed as future), and thus misleading. Instance -
"The trailer launch event will be attended by the late Neerja Bhanot's real brothers Akhil Bhanot and Aneesh Bhanot." - will be?
There are more such instances.

You could add a marketing section before the release part. It also needs to be expanded quiet a bit.
The critical reception section is merely a collection of quotes, it needs a fair amount of work. I might myself work on it later sometime.
The box-office section is a mess. Too many errors there.
Awards- There is an awkward phrase in the beginning, this section will always change a lot too.
So, I think the article is not ready for a GA and needs fair amount of work. I will be happy to help once the review is closed. NumerounovedantTalk 12:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made the future event as the past tense. You are saying that there are more instances. But I find no more such instances. And I've requested the article for copy editing in the request page of WP:GOCE. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krimuk90, Krish!,  and FrB.TG: I'm pinging some of the Indian GA reviewers to help improve the "Critical reception" and "Box office" sections of the article. I've much helped the article to improve. I hope these reviewers will definitely help. It's only to improve these sections, not the whole article. Thanks in advance! Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As for the size of the article, the size is sure OK. It doesn't need more expansion. The size is just like of Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (Good Article). And as for "Awards" section, I know that more awards may be listed. But only the table will be extended, not the written information. So this shouldn't affect the "Good Article" criteria. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I really did not want to do this but here we go- 
This is just from the "Development and Casting section"(and is mostly the entire section)"

Pre-production work on Neerja began in September 2014 when Atul Kasbekar announced his plans of making a new project with debutant Ram Madhvani. Following the success of her previous film Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (2015)" - None of this is supported by the ref 4.
"Around 4:36 am" - how is it relevant.
"On casting Kapoor in the film, Kapoor told PTI" - How could she cast herself?
Rucha Pathak (head of creative and development at Fox Star Studios) said the following in a statement: "When we heard the script of Neerja, we immediately knew we wanted to make the film. It's the kind of content that Fox Star instinctively believes in and wants to back. Captained by Ram Madhvani, and with Sonam Kapoor and Shabana Azmi, Neerja, we believe that this is a cracker of a film."" - WP:QUOTEFARM, not to say uniformative.
From the "Plot"

"expresses concern once about Neerja's job as a flight attendant" - grammar, what sort of concern?
"Neerja likes her job and is driven to the airport by her boyfriend Jaideep" - colloquial, and how does her liking her job make her boyfriend drive her share a connection?
"and also over she could not cook or clean." - really poorly written
"She broke off with him" - broke off?
" a highly competitive job" - is that supposed to be puff? why not just say what the job is?
"They reveal themselves and hijack the plane." -  reveal them?
" the three American pilots" - not sure if they were three
"despite firing by the terrorists." - again makes no sense
"When an Indian American accompanied by his handicapped old mother inadvertently reveals himself to be an American one of the terrorists grabs him and shoots him dead and throws him down the aircraft before the Pakistani negotiators." - punctuation? before the?
"gets ready to stand up but Neerja signals him to sit down." - stand up, sit down? he never stood up
And that is just from the first four paragraphs (again practically everything has an issue)
From the "Box Office" 

"hence totaling its first weekend collection around"- grammar
"Wednesday, Thursday and Friday earnings of the film were ₹31.4 million (US$470,000) ₹36 million (US$530,000) and ₹31.5 million (US$470,000) respectively." - grammar
" The film remained at the box office till its day 38" - grammar
From "Awards"

"Neerja received two winning awards: the I Am Woman Award and the HELLO! Hall of Fame Awards for Sonam Kapoor." - Why?
Side note- How does Arvind Kejriwal qualify as a critic? 
I wouldn't even get into the rest, and I stand by the fact that the article is way short of GA standard. NumerounovedantTalk 18:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that if you remove the long long quotes from the article there is not much left here. NumerounovedantTalk 18:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"supporting roles.fi The plot" - what is that?
The article has clearly not been prepared enough for a GAR. NumerounovedantTalk 18:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Too many inconsistencies - Koimoi is not supposed to Italicised, neither is BH. ref 1 doesn't have any publisher. CNN is now News 18. NumerounovedantTalk 18:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've resolved all the mentioned issues except for the "Plot" section. The "Plot" section needs a help of a copy-edit editor. Or if you can, explain how grammatical mistakes should be addressed. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I can help you but I strongly suggest it be done away from the pressure of a GAR. At present there are too many issues. I don't think this article meets the standard and I strongly believe that it will take substantial time to help it get there. We could wait for some other editor to weigh in if you wish, but I'm confident that they would agree. NumerounovedantTalk 07:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I've requested for copy edit of "Plot" section on the request page of WP:GOCE. But why do you want to help after the review is closed. Why not now? It's very astonishing! And you are saying that there are still may issues in the article. All the issues you have mentioned are solved except for the "Plot" section. Now what issues are there? If there are more issues except for "Plot", I can resolve. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 10:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
And it's done by GeneralizationsAreBad. He has gone through the whole article and fixed it. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll start from scratch then. NumerounovedantTalk 07:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Cast
"She described her role as "exhausting and exhilarating"" - How does this fit in here?  Done I have added another information. In fact, it seems alright in the "Cast" section. I mean there should also be some information in the "Cast" section.
How do you verify all these names?  Not done All the cast of the film is on the IMDb page. And even on Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu the cast names are not verified.
Production
"At midnight of 6 September 2014," - How is "midnight" significant? Should be removed  Done
On casting Kapoor in the film, Kasbekar said, “When we asked people if they’d heard of Neerja Bhanot, most hadn’t. For us then, at Bling Unplugged, a story of courage as exceptional as Neerja‘s simply deserved to be told. We just decided that we would our bit to ensure that India would remember one of its great heroines.” - It says nothing about Kapoor, how is it "on casting her"? Also it needs to be trimmed.  Done
"On receiving the role of Neerja in the film, Kapoor told PTI" - Trim the quote. The "She (Neerja) had won the Arjuna Award for bravery and is the youngest and only female to win it. I think it's commendable." part can be removed, its redundant.  Done
"Shabana Azmi was reported" - reported by who?  Done I have changed the sentence by describing her character.
"Rucha Pathak, head of creative development at Fox Star Studios, said the following in a statement:" - Why did she say this? When? How is the quote relevant?  Done
"tremendous responsibility" to "responsibility"  Done
"which had been involved with Neerja since January 2015" - It is not required.  Done
"around 19 April 2015" - around?  Done
I Stand by the fact that the section is cluttered with quotes and has little substance. NumerounovedantTalk 06:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've resolved all the above issues. Even "Production" section of Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu has many quotes, and it's short too. In the case of Neerja the section is big enough. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References
Can you make the correction pointed out previously? Also NDTVMovies.com. is NDTv NumerounovedantTalk 10:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't got you. Which correction? Yours or mine? And which revision history? By the way, I made NDTVMovies.com to NDTV and made minor corrections. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 12:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Bollywood Hungama should not be in italics. NumerounovedantTalk 13:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Same from CNN News18, not to be in italics. NumerounovedantTalk 16:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  Done Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't someone reviewing this? It's been 5 days. By the way, I would like to congratulate Numerounovedant for making high efforts to take Kalki Koechlin article to FA. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I am really sorry to have abandoned this partially. I wasn't very active here. I will put up my final concerns in 24 hours. And thank you for noticing the FA. Again, my apologies. NumerounovedantTalk 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Final Comments
The production section could include the rest of the crew. Try looking up the Bollywood Hungama page for the film, you'll find it there.
The critical reception section is too detailed. Remove reviews whcih you think add little to the article, additional info on Kapoor's performance should be included.
Add alt text for images.
After the concerns are addressed I'll give the final verdict. NumerounovedantTalk 09:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 10:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks in a much better shape than it was at the start. Ref 19 is a dead end. Fix that and I'll go through a last proof read before passing. NumerounovedantTalk 12:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've checked the 19 ref. and it's working. I've also checked references near it and they all are working! Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The iTunes ref leads nowhere in my server. NumerounovedantTalk 18:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done You should also name the ref. apart from mentioning the number of ref. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Pass NumerounovedantTalk 05
29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Smart LION, do you have a reason for silently restoring the Marketing section to the article after I removed it for contravening WP:TRAILER? It's not much different from what you originally added, so per WP:BRD, the onus is yours to open a discussion when content you submit is reverted. I'm doing that for you here. Mundane marketing techniques, like making an appearance somewhere, is not noteworthy. Per WP:TRAILER:

Topics that can be covered include target demographics, test screenings, release dates, scale of release (limited vs. wide), merchandising, marketing controversies, and contending for awards.  Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters.  Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it.
The bold text appears in the guideline, so it must be important. Mentioning that she appeared somewhere is what I would consider merely identifying customary marketing methods. And "She thanked Bachchan for making her a part of his show." Of course she did. That's what you do when someone has you on a television show--you thank them. When someone invites you to a party, you thank them. This is not news. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, I have removed this content, which is just an extension of mundane marketing. They released a trailer. Big deal. And why do we care about the release of a logo? This is completely not important information... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Earlier, I understood that the information that I added that "she delivered speech in a college" was not so important to include in the article. But I think appearing on a reality TV show is important. It's not that she appeared for only 1-2 minutes. And I have not reverted the changes. I added new information of her appearing in a TV show by searching a lot on Google. How can you say that I have reverted my changes? If I added this information again than you should say as "reverted". Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Can I add this little para. information in the article. It's seems important to me?
A coffee table book on Neerja Bhanot "The Neerja I Knew" was released on 17 February 2016 in Chandigarh by Harjinder Kaur (councillor of Chandigarh municipal corporation). The book was conceptualised and compiled by Aneesh Bhanot (brother of Neerja). The book contains 11 chapters in the book with each chapter written by people who knew her. The book has a number of photographs of Neerja and has two versions -hardback and paperback. This is the source. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
On the first point, I understand that you think it's important to include her appearance on the TV show, what I don't understand is why you think it's important. Television appearances are not inherently noteworthy. How is it any different from appearing on the Graham Norton Show for an hour? There is a common understanding that people promoting a film will go around to various talk shows and promote the film. This is common. What's so special about this show or this appearance? There's no context that explains why we should care about it. How is your addition consistent with the MOS guideline? As for the coffee table book, what does the book have to do with the movie? This isn't an article about Neerja Bhanot, this is an article about a film. If there's no clear relationship between the book and the film, why would we consider including it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll not include it. By the way, the article has been much expanded. But I want to say that the book and film both have relationships, because the book was released on 17 February 2016 and the film was released on 19 February 2016. This means that if the film hadn't been released, the book also had not released. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 18:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The family is selling a book to profit from the publicity of the film. So what? Is the book written about the film? No? Then it isn't relevant to the film and including it does not expand our understanding of the film. Is the merchandising of the book relevant to an article on the general subject of Neerja Bhanot? Maybe. If a new Batman film is released, we aren't going to mention that a new Batman comic was released unless that comic was an adaptation of the film or somehow directly tied to the film. There has to be some direct correlation between the product and the film for there to be a mention of it, not just a tangential coincidence.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)