# Talk:Kuch Kuch Hota Hai

Article was somewhat disorganized and badly written; rewrote. User:Alwin 08:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone can come up with an actual critic who says that KKHH is plagiarism, I'd like to remove the allegation. Having watched both movies, I don't any plagiarism at all. Zora 06:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

KKHH a masterpiece of Indian cinema —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.164.232.85 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kkhh2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kuchkuch.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kuch Kuch Hota Hai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pks1142 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Refrences
When I first looked at the article, I got my eyes on the references (very badly styled). Publisher names are missing from several references.
Why 'The Times of India and other print media are not italicized at some places (but are italicized at many places). Also, they are not consistent. For example, source 11 says Times of India and at several places, it says The Times of India.
What makes TagsUp, Traiblazer tours, VisitBritain, Awards and Shows, a reliable sources?
The Box Offfice India names are not conistent either. In 33, it is mentioned as BoxOfficeIndia.Com while in 34, it is mentioned as Boxofficeindia.com . Be consistent with names.
No linking of publishers name at first occurances. Why? Prashant talk 21:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Four of these five points can be answerd by reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, where it says:
Mistakes to avoid - Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)
(but I fixed some of them anyway) I will look into the mentioned sources soon. BollyJeff | talk 01:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I removed the budget because I could not find a good source, and replaced most other problem sources, except on the Zee Cine and Star Screen awards, where I added an additional source.  Are you contesting this information and asking me to remove all the awards there? BollyJeff | talk 02:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Article
Filmed in India, Mauritius, and Scotland, this was Karan Johar's directorial debut, and he wanted to set a new level for style in Hindi cinema.
What does it mean? Looks incomplete.

Years after its release, it still makes appearances on Indian television and has achieved a "must watch" status. Tweak it for encyclopedic reading.
DDLJ --> Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge.
Karan Johar knew who he wanted to cast in the lead roles, having observed Khan and Kajol during the making of DDLJ. What? He knew.....(WP is not a blog). Something like he was assured to whom he'll cast (something like that).
The crew was young and inexperienced to the point where Shah Rukh Khan had to explain basic technicalities of filming. Crew was young? Is this a Wikipedia article?
No need for the condescending tone. The source, a published book, says: "The crew was young and raw". BollyJeff | talk 18:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
A symbol of the iconic status of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai was confirmed when Farah Khan and Boman Irani re-created a scene and characters from the film for posters to promote their 2012 film Shirin Farhad Ki Toh Nikal Padi. What confirmed? It is one of the best iconic examples. Also, Shirin.....has a whole song (along with posters) in which they portrayed KKHH characters. Correct it.
 Done Most of the above is completed now, but if the book says the crew was young, then I suppose they were. BollyJeff | talk 00:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall: The article meets GA criteria.Prashant talk 17:07, 23 April 2013 (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 article used simple language and is good enough to pass the criteria. So, no need to stretch the review. Passing it as the article meets all GA criteria.Prashant talk 04:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Movies/movie_detail/kuch_kuch_hota_hai#.VvRYkbtei1t
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: Hey there, since you were involved in a lot of the editing around the time this article went to GA, I'm not exactly clear who the starring cast is. |starring= currently lists Shah Rukh Khan, Kajol and Rani Mukerji as the stars, but the lead contradicts that, indicating that Mukerji had a supporting role. It would seem that the lede and infobox should indicate consistently the importance of whomever was credited as the stars, and I often see Indian entertainment articles confusing "starring" for "appeared in". If Mukerji got a starring credit, then the lede should reflect that. If she was a supporting cast member who didn't receive the same credit as Khan or Kajol, then she shouldn't be in |starring=. And if there is any ambiguity about this (some films don't have "starring" credits in their on-screen credit roll, ex: Mean Girls), then we would need to reconsider how to present the appropriate cast members in |starring= and in the lede. Your input is kindly requested. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: In the opening credits the three of them get equal billing and most everyone else is listed as supporting. Salman Khan is listed as a special appearance at the very end. Bollyjeff | talk 23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: Hi there, thanks for responding. If that's the case, then should the relevant content in the lede be changed? Currently it reads:
It features the popular on-screen pair of Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol in their fourth film together, along with Rani Mukerji, and Sana Saeed in her film debut.
It presently is ambiguous who the film's stars are, because of the supplementary details about "popular on-screen pair", their film # count, and then noting Saeed's film debut. It also feels like we're suggesting Saeed is a co-star. The simplest fix would be something like:
It stars the popular on-screen pair of Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol in their fourth film together, along with Rani Mukerji. The film also marks the film debut of Sana Saeed.
There is probably be a better way to phrase it, but I was just going for simplicity. Thoughts? Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What you suggested is better. Bollyjeff | talk 00:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here in reference to the edits by Thefallguy2025; here and elsewhere, they display many indicators of potential LLM output (some of their past edits have kept the chatgpt parameter in the refs), and since that text remains in the current version, it all needs review for sourcing, tone, accuracy/hallucinations, etc. (This applies even to changes that are "just" copy edits, as AI copy edits commonly introduce editorializing, subtle factual errors, unattributed opinion, non-neutral language, etc., even when they claim otherwise.)
The GA review was before these edits. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)