# Talk:Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei

Taken out this image [Salvador Dali moustache], pending a review of the MOS, because I'm not sure it fits with the context of the film. I'll put it back if it's permitted, but I think it's tangential at best to the actual article. (also got query as to whether image is rightfully uploaded as CC-BY-SA.) LS1979 (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Refactored above comment, because I removed the image from the talk page because it's not free content. LS1979 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at MOS:IMAGE, it does say images should be directly relevant. I don't think Salvador Dali is the best image for this article, even if he was an inspiration for the moustache. The Indian person mentioned in that paragraph might be a better fit for an illustration, or it might help if limited fair use images (marked as such as and uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons as per WP:NFCC) from the film were used. As for the copyright, if it was taken from the BBC website, it is doubtful that it is a freely licensed image, so I've removed it from this talk page as well. LS1979 (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 10:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


### Disambiguation
The page histories indicate that until recently, two duplicate articles on this subject existed, the current version Imsai Arasan 23am Pulikesi (created 21 May 2006‎‎) and Imsai Arasan 23m Pulikesi (created 21 July 2006‎).  Any idea why there were two different versions for so many years?  There are still quite a number of articles that link to the duplicate (but alternately named topic).[1] Surely, these should be fixed if this is the correct title?  Why are there two different titles? Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Many newspapers named the films as either one of the two versions. But, both are correct and signify the same translation ie meaning. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 06:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this is already fine as it is, because 23m redirects to this article now, and anything linking to that actually links to this. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure this out.  Did the film have several different titles (a primary and an alternate, in most cases)?  Can you explain why this is the case?  In other words, why does the article currently sit at this title rather than the other?  If it is, should the article make a note of it?  A footnote to explain the use of both titles  would work and is generally best practice if a film uses multiple titles. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What is it you want me to do, Viriditas?  —Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If I visited any of those links and was brought here instead, I would wonder why the title was different.  Do you think the article should make a note that two different titles were used?  A mention in the "Notes" section would be fine if you think it should. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If you type Puthiya Paravai or Pudhiya Paravai, both redirect to Puthiya Paravai (An article brought to GA status by me and Kailash29792 yesterday night). Same case here. You can put the blame on the sources for that. :P —Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Also in Puthiya Paravai, there is a sentence that says, "also spelt Pudhiya Paravai," is that good, Viriditas? —Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Ssven, actually PP does not have that sentence anymore. But the lead in Chandralekha (a FA) reads, "also spelled Chandraleka" with a footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine idea, Kailash. I have added the note. Will add references to it.  —Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Friends, I'm just trying to figure out the correct title.  I just started watching the film on YouTube, and the title credit at 07:06 says, Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei.  Since this refers to the 23rd baby (of which there are two sharing that spot due to the plot) why are we using the term "am" here, when the title uses the correct term "23rd"? Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have added the references to the footnote. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Can you move the article Imsai Arasan 23am Pulikesi to Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei? —Ssven2 speak 2 me 08:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I will. But don't you know how to, Ssven? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: When I tried to move Yennai Arindhaal..., you were the one who informed me that "this is not how you move an article." :P —Ssven2 speak 2 me 08:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I marked this resolved, but if someone wants to revisit this, I don't mind. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed dab to Wipe (transition) in the filming section. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


### Images
Source info for File:Imsai Arasan 23am Pulikesi poster.jpg is incomplete.  Is it a scan from Dhananjayan's book?  What page number?  There's no metadata indicating it was a scan. In other words, is the source info correct? A previous version indicated it was a scan/image of the DVD cover. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is from Dhanajayan's book. page 282. The source info is correct. User:Kailash29792 replaced the DVD Cover with the theatrical poster from the book. Here is the link. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 06:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


### Lead
WP:OVERLINK, WP:SEAOFBLUE: this comes down to a judgment call on your end, but having "Indian Tamil historical comedy film" linked (five words in a row) is unnecessary.  If possible, and if needed, link elsewhere if you want editors to have access to those topics.  One or two links there is probably the limit.  Linking to "soundtrack album" and "background score" and "principal photography" are also unnecessary in the lead, IMO.  Outside of Wikipedia, research has shown that readability increases as linking decreases.  There are several reasons for this that I won't go into at the moment, but if you are interested, several books explore this research and cite the studies, including The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010) and Is Google Making Us Stupid? (2008). Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Removed as suggested. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 02:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Where else do you think improvement is needed here? —Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Kailash29792 has given a c/e to the section. Please suggest any improvements to be made here? —Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I will come back to it. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made some copyedits to the lead section.[2]  Keep in mind, any quotes in the lead need to be sourced and the lead should represent the most significant points.  Since the sentence "The film was promoted as a "hysterical historical" by the producers" was neither cited nor present in the article, I removed it.  If you want to add it back, add a citation and a copy in the body. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for removing it, bro. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


### Plot
The film then shifts to 1796, 25 years after Pulikesi's birth.
That's a bit awkward.  Why not say something like: "25 years pass, and Pulikesi is now the king of Cholapuram Paalayam, and as foretold, is foolish as well as lecherous." Is there a reason to say "The film then shifts to 1796"? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done as asked —Ssven2 speak 2 me 09:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Another editor reminded me during the last review about the informal rule advising one to  "spell out all numbers beginning a sentence", or put another way, "avoid beginning a sentence with a number that is not written out'. Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
He is a puppet in the hands of Sangilimayan, who collaborates with the British.
Can you briefly expand on the collaboration point?  Something like, "He is a puppet in the hands of Sangilimayan, who collaborates with the British in order to increase the personal wealth of the kingdom over the needs of its people."  This is important to the plot. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Written it as "He is a puppet in the hands of Sangilimayan, who collaborates with the British for his own personal gains and does not attend to the needs of the people of his kingdom." as he only concentrates on his personal gain. He does it for himself. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you please literally c/e this? I mean he was not literally a puppet, but figuratively. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Kailasakaruppan and his wife, Maragathavalli, a childless couple, secretly adopt the other child.
This is out of order because you are using it to to transition into Ukraputhan's adulthood.  However, it would follow more naturally to know this in the first paragraph according to the narrative (and the film).  Not a big deal, however. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Tweaked the sentence and placed it in the 1st para. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He grows up to become Ukraputhan, an educated, patriotic young man, with friends helping him try to overthrow the British.
How about calling him a revolutionary, since that's what he is in the film? Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done re-written it as "educated revolutionary". —Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
To save the land from Sangilimayan and the British, he captures and replaces Pulikesi as the king whilst sending Pulikesi to prison as Ukraputhan.
I think this part could benefit from a rewrite since it's so important in the film.  For example, it would help to tell the reader that "he captures Pulikesi and trades places with him as the king whilst sending his twin, the former king, to prison in his place as Ukraputhan."  Or however you want to word it. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done re-written it as "he captures Pulikesi and trades places with him as the king whilst sending Pulikesi to prison in his place as Ukraputhan." —Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He joins the kingdom's commander-in-chief, Agandamuthu, brings about new reforms and refuses to give the British the tributes and taxes they demand.
The reader should know more about these reforms and how they benefit the people, such as how the kingdom now funds the education of children, how the harem has been transformed into a school, how the rule of Ukraputhan (pretending to be Pulikesi) is comparable to that of a Buddha King, how his mother praises his reforms, etc.  Contrast his rule with that of his brother who was cruel and tortured his subjects.  Don't gloss over these points.  They are important to the story. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done as suggested. Actually, the harem is converted into a playground/recreation center, not a school, although Ukraputhan does provide schooling for children. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Does the plot section say anything about Soolayini and Vasantha Sundari beyond the fact that they get married at the end?  Seems to me they had more substance to their roles.  For example, Soolayini took care of Pulikesi in the gold mine. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Well that's about it for Soolayini. Vasantha Sundari doesn't have anything to do except romance Ukraputhan. Will add a bit about Soolayini. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done —Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The film has a happy ending with the kingdom attaining independence from the British and Pulikesi and Ukraputhan get married to their respective lovers, Soolayini and Vasantha Sundari.
Do you need to say "The film has a happy ending"?  The plot should be able to make this clear on its own without prompting the reader. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Removed the happy ending phrase. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 08:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Vasantha Sundari is only mentioned at the end.  Please mention her in the appropriate part of the plot. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
In English, the title is "The King of Torture, Pulikecei the 23rd".  At the beginning of the film, the baby Pulikesi begins "torturing" his subjects by laughing at their pain.  When he grows up, the king tortures his palace guards as well as his subjects.  However, the plot section sees little to nothing about this.  I think the best place to say a few words about this is right after the sentence, "He is a puppet in the hands of Sangilimayan, who collaborates with the British for his own personal gains and does not attend to the needs of the people of his kingdom." Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but is that really representative of the torture from the film?  Don't you remember how he tortured the palace guards and the poet and others? Remember what happened to the guard who couldn't announce him correctly or all of the palace people who were shot with arrows during his target practice? Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am just a bit anxious that it might exceed 700 words. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless,  Done as asked — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to mention all of that.  Just illustrate the "torture" and why it was used in the title.  One simple sentence will do it. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The plot is at 680 words. So, it fits, I guess. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


### Cast
Does this section meet WP:FILMCAST? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it the description? I have removed them now. I divided the columns like my other GA Chandramukhi.  —Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me.  I did not say there was anything wrong with the descriptions.  I just asked the question, primarily as a reminder to myself to check the section against that MOS. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)

Unnecessary to use endnote for every cast member. A simple hatnote as in the plot section of Chandralekha (1948 film) would do. -- Sriram speak up 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the tip, Sriram. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


### Production
Development
Director Shankar produced and distributed the film under his production banner, S Pictures, after being impressed with Chimbu Deven's script,[10] making the film his third as producer after Mudhalvan (1999) and Kaadhal (2004).
Does this read better? "Impressed with Chimbu Deven's script, S. Shankar produced and distributed the film under his production company S Pictures, making the film his third as producer after Mudhalvan (1999) and Kaadhal (2004)." Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Changed —Ssven2 speak 2 me 09:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"The audience expect films like ‘Imsai…’ once in a while and the success of the movie is a clear indication...
I wonder if it would improve readability to just write [this] instead of the shortened title and ellipsis.  Also, considering you are referring to the cast section, should you move the quote box down a bit so it cuts into the next section?  It's probably OK where it is, but I thought it odd to see it in development at first glance. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done moved to casting section. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 09:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)

"... as an assistant director to Cheran in three of his films, notably ..."
Remove either "three of" or "notably". Why use notably if listing all three? -- Sriram speak up 13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you enlighten as to why the film's opening credits reads "Raja Muthiah" as against "Roja Muthiah" as has been written in the article? -- Sriram speak up 13:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It is "Raja Muthiah" in the film, but the article on Wikipedia is Roja Muthiah Research Library. Re-written now as "Raja Muthiah". Removed "notably". Thanks for mentioning them, bro. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 16:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The official website claims it to be Roja Muthiah as does the supporting source. I suggest you leave it as "Roja" and add a note that it was wrongly credited in the film. -- Sriram speak up 17:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done —Ssven2 speak 2 me 02:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The film draws inspiration from a cartoon created by Chimbu Deven, which appeared two years ago in Ananda Vikatan.
Please change "The film" to the title (since the previous sentence talks about other films) and "two years ago" to the correct, corresponding date, since in the future, "two years ago" won't have the same meaning. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed it. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei draws inspiration from a cartoon created by Chimbu Deven, which originally appeared in Ananda Vikatan. Impressed with Chimbu Deven's script...
It goes from saying the film was influenced by Deven's cartoon, to saying that S. Shankar was impressed with Deven's script, but doesn't actually say Deven wrote the script.  That's a bit odd. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done wrote it with source. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The development section repeats the name "Chimbu Deven".  Usually, we repeat the full name once, and then in subsequent usage, just the last name, Deven.  Is this different?  Should he only be referred to as "Chimbu Deven" in full? Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Noticed this comment only now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Casting
I copyedited the casting section. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Filming
I copyedited the filming section and fixed the dab link to Wipe (transition). Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


### Themes and influences
I removed the centering of the caption.  I'm not sure why this was added in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Although Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei is a historical film set in the late 18th century AD, most of the issues it raises are contemporary such as child labour, globalisation and the bureaucratic inefficiency of government staff. Other social issues like usage of pesticides in soft drinks and divisions in the caste system were also raised in the film.
Try restructuring and regrouping this for clarity and readability.  There are any number of ways to do this, but here's an example: "Although Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei is a historical film set in the late 18th century AD, most of the issues it raises are contemporary.  The film discusses issues such as child labour, globalisation and the bureaucratic inefficiency of government, as well as pesticide usage in soft drinks and divisions in the caste system." Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done as suggested. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As a former comic strip illustrator, Chimbu Deven used the storyboard technique to develop the film.
Wouldn't the reader expect to find that in the development section? Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done moved to "Development" section. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I copyedited this section. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


### Music
The second paragraph reads like random factoids, rather than a coherent narrative.  It needs a good copyedit.  There are two ways to approach this.  One, look at a few GA/FA music sections to get a better idea of how to write it.  And two, structure your narrative by grouping like with like.  Although not perfect, here's an example of how the narrative improves when you restructure with grouping in mind:
The soundtrack album received positive critical reception.  G. Dhananjayan said the songs contributed to the film's success and were popular during the theatrical run of the film. IndiaGlitz praised the musicians and noted the melodious interludes of the hit song "Aah Aadivaa" and the fusion of modern western and traditional Indian music in the song "Vaanam Namakul", which reminded one reviewer of  T L Maharajan.
This is just an example, but do you see how I grouped similar content together to form a consistent narrative?  Before, you had sentences about the same ideas (musicians, songs, critics) scattered throughout the paragraph with no logical grouping. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done I have used as per your example. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I copyedited the music section. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


### Release
Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei was initially scheduled to be released on 19 May 2006, but was postponed twice, once to 9 June 2006,[34] and then to 8 July 2006.[3]
Try: "Initially scheduled for release on 19 May 2006, Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei was postponed twice, first with a 9 June release date."  No need to keep saying the year after you've already said it in the beginning. See the following for the next sentence.Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The film was released in 135 screens across Tamil Nadu.[35] The theatrical rights of the Telugu dubbed version of the film were purchased by R. B. Choudary's Mega Super Good Films.[36] The film was dubbed into Telugu as Himsinche 23 Va Raju Pulikesi, where Vadivelu's voice was dubbed by Brahmanandam.[22]
Try: "The film was finally released on 8 July in 135 screens across Tamil Nadu. R. B. Choudary's Mega Super Good Films purchased the theatrical rights of the Telugu dubbed version. Vadivelu's voice was dubbed by Brahmanandam in the Telugu version, where it was released with the title, Himsinche 23 Va Raju Pulikesi." Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done as asked. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"The film was banned in Karnataka as Pulakesi II was a famous king who belonged to the Western Chalukyan Dynasty and ruled the Karnataka region in the seventh century. As a result of this, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce objected to a spoof film with the ruler's name as the film's title being released in their state.[22]
Isn't this backwards?  Shouldn't it read instead: "The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce objected to the spoof film with Pulakesi's name in the film's title.  The film was banned in in Karnataka as Pulakesi II was a famous king who belonged to the Western Chalukyan Dynasty and ruled the Karnataka region in the seventh century." Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done I have rephrased it as "The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce objected to a spoof film with Pulikecei's name as the film's title being released in their state as Pulakesi II was a famous king who belonged to the Western Chalukyan Dynasty and ruled the Karnataka region in the seventh century. As a result of this, the film was banned in Karnataka." — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Initially scheduled for release on 19 May 2006, Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei was postponed twice...The film experienced delays in its release.
Is the postponement related to the delays? Are these two things connected?  If so, then we need to move things around. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved things around. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a good start, but not quite done.  For example, what does this mean: "On 13 June 2006, the makers then obtained an order from the Madras High Court that the a rating certificate must be given to the film..."  Who are the "makers"?  And what is a "a rating"?  Is that "A rating" or should "a" be removed? Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I have written "Chimbu Deven" as per the source instead of "makers". It is actually "censorship certificate" so I changed "rating certificate" to that. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I made some copyedits, but it's not quite done.  I'll be back in a few hours. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Done.  Please review. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


### Reception
G. Dhananjayan states in his book, Best of Tamil Cinema, that the film was estimated to have collected INR 200 million worldwide,[22] whereas T. V. Mahalingam of Business Today states that the film grossed a worldwide box office collection of INR 150 million.[57]
But isn't this discrepancy simply due to the fact that Dhananjayan was talking about gross receipts in 2011 while  Mahalingam was writing in 2007? Look into it.  Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The theatrical run ended in 2006 when the film had its 100th day celebration. So, which one do you reckon I should keep? — Ssven2 speak 2 me 11:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
In some areas of Wikipedia, it makes sense to cite multiple figures.  Do film articles cite competing gross receipts? I don't think so, as I've never come across it before.  So what do you think is the problem?  First, which source is more reliable? Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, Chandralekha (1948 film), a featured article on WIkipedia, has different box office figures. So, I thought including them both was not wrong. Both are reliable sources by the way. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There's very little paraphrasing in this section, only large quotations from critics.  Try to figure out their most important points and find commonalities between them.  Then, distill the main points and write about them in your own words.  One or two large quotes may be fine, but we generally use blockquotes.  WP:QUOTE and MOS:QUOTE cover the topic in full, but having an entire section of only quotes with no rhyme or reason to it is generally discouraged.  So my advice is, decide what you want to talk about in this section, find aspects of the quotes that critics share in common or differ about, and start there.  For more guidance, see WP:PARAPHRASE. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Paraphrased the critical response section. If there is further improvement to be done please do suggest it. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Please take a break from the article for at least 24 hours.  I think a clear head with a refreshed view on the matter will help.  Your recent edits appear to be a good start, but you introduced some issues in your haste.  Take a break and come back to it.  After all, the article is on hold now, and that gives you at least a week to work on it.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ssven2: Take a look at User:Viriditas/sandbox2.  Very briefly, I summarized many of the main points of the previous version.  See if you can look at the previous version and structure it in a way that groups the content around these points and summarizes the critical reception in your own words.  You don't have to do this now, but it might help if you do it in a sandbox page. There's no particular order to my list, so you may choose to move things around. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Will do as you suggested. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ssven2: why did you copy and duplicate the themes into the critical reception section?  While it is true that MOS:FILM allows you to place this material in either section, having it in both doesn't make much sense.  Please decide on what to do.  We shouldn't have the same content in two sections. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Re-writting the Critical response sub-section of the "Reception" section in my sandbox. I will inform you as soon as it is done, which will be by tomorrow. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 05:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I have re-written the critical response section. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ssven2:  Thank you.  I see improvements.  How do you feel about the section?  Do you believe it is improved?  There's still a lot of unnecessary quoting going on, but it's certainly better than before.  However, since I have your attention, I should point out some problems.  The long quote attributed to Ananda Vikatan appears in slightly broken English and isn't very helpful.  Also, whenever you quote, the citation must follow directly after.  One way forward on this point, is to remove the quote in its entirety.  If you think it is important to the article, then paraphrase its main points in your own words.  Let's start there.  When I read that quote, I immediately think it should be deleted. Perhaps it makes sense to you, but I don't understand what it is trying to say. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Yes. It has improved to a great extent with your suggestions I might say. I removed the quote itself. It looks better without it. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 07:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ssven2:  I think it is almost ready to pass now.  I will read the section one more time and make a very small copyedit. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 Well, I am sorry to say, but after reading it for the last time, my intended "small copyedit" turned into a major deletion and restructuring per my original comments on grouping like with like content up above.[3]  I removed unnecessary and extraneous verbiage, adverbs and fluffy quotes that didn't provide any substance, and grouped like content with like as much as possible so that we don't read about the same thing in three different paragraphs. Critical reception sections should stick to specific, film-related criticisms and should avoid "two-thumbs up" and "five star" fluffy anecdotes that don't serve to advance the topic.  You'll notice there is a structural narrative (however weak) to the section now.  The first paragraph is more of a summary.  The second paragraph focuses on critical reception of Chimbu Deven, including reception of his story and comedic elements.  This includes the social messages embedded in the story by Deven.  The third paragraph focuses on the reception to Vadivelu's  performance, while the fourth and final paragraph covers the technical aspects of art direction, cinematography, and sound.  Hopefully, you can see how this provides a skeleton for the critical reception, however rudimentary it might be.  You are welcome to expand on this structure or to change it any way you want, but remember not to talk about the same thing in different paragraphs as before.  Group like with like to create a consistent narrative approach. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following from the Box office section:

 Sri Lankan Cricketer Muttiah Muralitharan watched the film in Kamala Theatres in Chennai with his family on 11 July 2006. He praised the film's innovative story, further saying that Vadivelu had developed a huge fan following in Sri Lanka through this film.
I understand that some people might find this important, but I don't see where to put it.  If someone wants to find a place other than the Box office section, please put it there. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for the editing. The Muttiah Muralitharan part might be good for the "Release" section as he attended a screening of the film. I have added it there. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


### Legacy
Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei proved that the people would accept stories based on history if the film was presented in a new and innovative way
Which people? Specify for our global audience, please. Also, instead of saying "stories based on history", why not refer and link to historical fiction in film. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done tweaked the sentence and linked to your above mentioned link. As for "people", what phrase do you think I should use? I have written "filmgoers" or can I write "the audience"? If there is any other word that I should use, please suggest it. —Ssven2 speak 2 me 09:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Now it says, "Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei proved that historical fiction films were accepted by film-goers".  Which film-goers?  Where? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Shall I write it as "audience"? — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Whose audience? Specify. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done removed the sentence. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 17:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 ((Full Form: Karuththukkalai Katchithamaaga Kavvikkondir Pongal), (English: You have understood what I am saying))
Avoid parentheses within parentheses in encyclopedia writing (it may be acceptable in other disciplines).  Alternatives exist, such as em-dashes and brackets.  I think brackets are the preferred method on Wikipedia, but I haven't looked at the MOS to know for sure. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's the relevant passage from MOS:B&P: "If sets of brackets are nested, use different types for adjacent levels of nesting; for two levels, it is customary to have square brackets appear within round brackets. This is often a sign of excessively convoluted expression; it is often better to recast, linking the thoughts with commas, semicolons, colons, or dashes." Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have written the phrase as — "A dialogue spoken by Vadivelu in the film, "Ka Ka Ka Po", which expands into Karuththukkalai Katchithamaaga Kavvikkondir Pongal (English: You have understood what I am saying)" — Ssven2 speak 2 me 11:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Could probably be improved by a future light copyedit, but it passes in its current form. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


### Notes
The note for S. Sudha has a star rating at the end of it like this:  Is that supposed to be there? Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Removed Rating.  —Ssven2 speak 2 me 02:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


### References
OK per below. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


### Further reading
Per WP:FURTHER, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."  There are various options here, but the most popular seems to be using a "Notes and references" and a "Sources" section.  I'll make the change, but if you dislike it, feel free to revert it and we will discuss other options. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"Notes", "References" and "Sources" now have separate sections. I want the article to follow the patterns of Tamil GAs, (first the notes, next the references and Bibliography/Sources being the last)  —Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


### External links
OK. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
Lead: copyedits, uncited quote
Plot: copyedits, Vasantha Sundari only mentioned at the end, no mention of torture
Development: copyedits
Casting: copyedits, restructure
Filming: copyedits, fixed dab
Themes and influences: copyedits, restructuring
Music: copyedits
Release: copyedits
Reception: needs paraphrasing and structure
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
WP:OVERLINK, WP:SEAOFBLUE: lead
WP:FURTHER: not for references
MOS:QUOTE, WP:QUOTE: reception
WP:PARAPHRASE: reception
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
It passes, but at least one other editor raised concerns up above
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
No edit wars
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Question about poster source
Answered above
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Reception section needs to be rewritten and paraphrased, with a focus on topical structure and narrative. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Current version passes GA criteria.  See extensive notes in the "Reception" section up above.  Thank you for your work on this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This was addressed in the GA review, but I am unsure if it was fixed or changed.  In the plot section, I have changed 25 to twenty-five.  As I said in the review, "spell out all numbers beginning a sentence", or put another way, "avoid beginning a sentence with a number that is not written out". Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Possibly we might have overlooked it. Surely it wasn't changed.  — Ssven2 speak 2 me 03:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)