# Talk:Moodu Pani

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moodu Pani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article by the end of this week. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian  (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Kailash29792 and Ssven2, I've finally completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article, and I assess that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have a few suggestions and comments that should be addressed. Thank you for all your research and hard work on this article! I apologize for the delay. -- West Virginian  (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the film, establishes the film's necessary context, and explains why the film is otherwise notable.
The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
The image of the movie poster in the info box has the necessary templates attached declaring that it is "Non-free media data" and gives the "Non-free media rationale for Moodu Pani."
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Note: Due to usages of words like "behavior," "characterisation," and "motorbike," I would suggest adding the "Indian English" template to the article's talk page.
Pilot

I wonder if the first sentence would flow better if it was re-rendered as "has held a hated for prostitutes since childhood" or "has had a hated for prostitutes since childhood"
This section is otherwise well-written and I have no other comments or questions for this section. No sources are necessary per WP:FILMPLOT.
Cast

While formatted properly, are there any inline citations for this section?
The cast members have been sourced in the production section. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Production

While not necessary, it wouldn't hurt to include an image of Balu Mahendra in this section.

Bangalore can be de-linked here as it is linked above in the prose.
 Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.
Themes

I would suggest rendering the fifth sentence as such: According to Sify, there is a strong similarity between Moodu Pani and Psycho as the male leads in both films keep the skeletal remains of their respective mothers, which they continue to communicate with.
 Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This section is otherwise well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no other suggestions or comments regarding this section.
Does this line need any improvement? "Ilangovan noted that the characterisation of Chandru, with flashes of wickedness bordering on perversion, was new to Tamil cinema because the viewers ultimately could not hate him". Please do some proofreading, and suggest a better rewording if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792:  Done I've tweaked the sentence.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: and @Ssven2: the reworked sentence looks good to go. -- West Virginian  (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Music

The info box is beautifully formatted and the image used has the necessary fair use rationale templates.
The track list is also beautifully formatted and sourced.
This section is well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no suggestions or comments regarding this section.
Reception

This section is well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no suggestions or comments regarding this section.
Thanks. But some of the reviews are modern day ones. They still good here? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Legacy

This section is well-written, properly sourced with verifiable references and inline citations, and I have no suggestions or comments regarding this section.
@West Virginian: Many thanks for the review, West Virginian. Your comments have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: and @Ssven2: Thank you both tremendously for your hard work on this article, and for your patience with me throughout this process. It is hereby a pleasure for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Thank you and congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian  (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@West Virginian: Thanks again, West Virginian.   — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Congrats. There you go, you didn't need me after all...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)