# Talk:Drushyam

At first glance I can see a lot of rambling prose and several grammatical issues. Here are some of my comments.

Lead
Is "marking the golden jubilee of the former" necessary in the lead?
Not sure what it means to outsource production work.
Too much of the plot is detailed in the lead. A simple line or two summary should be enough.
"...took charge of the film's cinematography and editing respectively". Quite unnecessary to say "took charge of..". Simple stating "xxx provided the cinematography and yyy edited the film" is sufficient.
Instead of saying "...commenced on 8 March 2014 and lasted till 8 June 2014", isn't it easier to say that the principal photography lasted for three months? Remember the lead is a summary of the main article, and shouldn't have too many excessive details.
Why do you provide the distributor's share in the lead and not the total money earned?
"..in it's lifetime". Redundant.
Plot
The very first sentence in the plot makes little sense to me. Commas are missing, and the word Rajavaram is repeated twice.
Never heard of someone "earning fluency" in a language.
Why capitalise the first letter of nature in "nature camp"?
"...photographed naked in the bathroom by a hidden cell phone" Someone gets photographed by a person with a cell phone, not by a cell phone.
What's a "police inspector general"?
You mention one profession and yet associate it with two individuals in ".. the son of police inspector general Geetha and Prabhakar"
Without some punctuation this makes no sense: "Varun is accidentally killed by Anju when he comes to blackmail her and Jyothi after which Anju breaks Varun's cell phone."
"They hide his body in a compost pit made for manure, which Anu watches." Watches what, the manure?
"Rambabu removes the broken cell phone and disposes off Varun's car, which is seen by a corrupt constable Veerabhadram, who holds a grudge against him.". Not sure who the "him" refers to.
"Rambabu, predicting that this would happen, teaches his family how to change their alibi at the time of murder." How does someone "change their alibi at the time of murder"?
"on the 2nd of August in the morning". Is "the morning" really necessary in the larger scheme of things?
"When questioned individually, they replied the same thing and they had also shown the bill of the restaurant, movie tickets and the bus journeys' tickets as proof of their alibi.". Why do you change the tense suddenly?
"The statements of the owners of the establishments they have been.." Umm, what?
Sorry, but the next few sentences make no sense to me.
I'm going to stop here, because the article doesn't seem to have been written by a native English speaker. Nothing wrong with that, and the article can surely improve in time. I strongly suggest you make a request at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and buzz me once a coordinator gives it a thorough copy edit. Good luck! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for all the comments. And yes, i am not a native English speaker. I've made a request at the GOCE for a thorough c/e and Here it is. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I have started the copyedit. I will let you know when it is ready. ← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 09:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: My once-over copyediting is complete. I hope it helped. ← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 06:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Thanks for the c/e. It helped me a lot. However, i would like to point out that ten million is preferable to one crore.  Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: You're welcome. While I agree with the general consensus of MOS:COMMONALITY, I went with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Basic India conventions, which I believe applies as a more specific case. It states that "for monetary figures, you may use the Indian numbering system but also give their US dollar equivalents in parentheses." By employing Template:INRConvert, my intentions were to: (1) adhere to that guideline, (2) provide a wikilink to what crore and lakh mean, and, (3) use the exact same units from the cited references to make it easier for future verification. ← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Scribbleink: Of course i am aware of them. But, the specific case you mentioned says "may" while Commonality says "preferred". When i am supposed to choose between may and preferred, i shall go with the latter. I shall retain the INRConvert template. But, crores will turn millions. Anyways, i would like to thank you for your valuable help in the form of a copy-edit.  Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pavanjandhyala: I would like to point out that these are guidelines, not meant to be taken literally. Hypothetically, an editor can go in and change the word "may" to "preferred" tomorrow. Rather, an agreement is arrived upon by a process of consensus. In this specific case, there are two of us and I am not opposed to changing it back to the million-based system, so please go ahead. ← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 08:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The picture "File:Daggubati Venkatesh.jpg" was removed from the article and placed here for the following reasons:

It is a picture of the actor from an unrelated event (IPL).
The poster of the movie clearly depicts Venkatesh, so there isn't a need to add another image of him without a specific reason.
The caption is more suited to be in the text of the article, by virtue of a claim made regarding an actor's role. If the sentence is added back to the article, a reliable source is needed to make it verifiable.
← scribbleink ᗧHᗣT 08:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Its okay to remove it. Let it not be in the article. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Drushyam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 10:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Will review later this week. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead
Information on the production banners is repeated twice in the lead.
Removed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"highest-grossing" hyphen missing.
Added. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"..on the golden jubilee of the former" is WP:UNDUE
Removed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Plot
You need to mention what an IG is in this section.
Is linking to the relevant article enough, or should i add a note? Please make it clear. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Expand it. The acronym IG can mean a lot of things.
Done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Production
"This was well before it turned into a commercial success." is undue as well as unsourced.
I don't know it was undue or not. But definitely not unsourced. Still, i shall remove it. Pavanjandhyala (talk)
"Roshan Basheer was selected to play his own role of Varun" Not sure what "play his own role" means.
Rephrased as "... selected to reprise the role of Varun..."
Not sure how relevant this trivia is: "During set construction for the police station and the house in the film, the producer and the director wanted to get rid of some coconut trees. However, art director Vivek managed to erect those sets without cutting down any trees, which garnered him their appreciation"
I think it can stay in the article as it not that trivial. At least, something on the lines of this — "Kikku Yerudhey" was the last song sequence that was shot. For the sequence, Rajinikanth required Ravikumar to sport an outfit similar to Rajinikanth's, and enact a small part in the song. Rajinikanth also selected the part of the song where Ravikumar would make his appearance. After reluctantly agreeing to do the part, a scene was filmed featuring Rajinikanth and Ravikumar. Rajinikanth said he felt the shot did not look right, and re-takes for Ravikumar's sequence were done. After the re-takes were completed, Rajinikanth admitted that the first sequence was fine. When Ravikumar asked the cameraman why he had not told him earlier, the cameraman replied by saying that Rajinikanth wanted Ravikumar to do seven takes, in order to teach him a lesson for all the takes that Ravikumar had required of Rajinikanth. from Padayappa. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by pasting this massive quote from I-don't-know-which article. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I expected that you shall say this. This quote, i mean, the paragraph is from Padayappa, one of the very few GAs of Rajinikanth's films. I thought, when the actor playing a joke with the director can be included; i'm sure that this fact related to Drushyam is not-so-trivial. Actually, the first one isn't trivial completely. A thorough read of Padayappa can help. Still if you feel the fact in Drushyam is trivial, i have no objection to remove it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with it, as long as you remove the "which garnered him their appreciation" part.
Removed the appreciation part and merged the paragraphs. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Reception
BollywoodLife is a gossip site and not considered a WP:RS. Same for the soundtrack section.
But BollywoodLife is a part of Zee Network right? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Even if the parent publication is notable, a gossip site should never be used to cite info.
Alright. Removed the review. Replaced BollywoodLife with IANS Live in the "Development" and "Marketing" sections. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Good job overall. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Krimuk90! Hope your issues have been resolved. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm opening a perfunctory discussion because an IP editor has referred to the film as "Hitchcockian", without any references or context to explain what is meant by that.[1] Barring any explanation or analysis from reliable sources, this sounds an awful lot like someone is trying to equate this film with the works of Hitchcock's, which sounds promotional. On that basis, it should be omitted. Additionally, this editor has removed content that the body was buried under the police station,[2] however they have not explained their rationale for removing this content. I presume they might have an issue with it being a spoiler, but as I have instructed them on their talk page, Wikipedia does not remove spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Drushyam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. DareshMohan (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)