# Talk:Ten Years with Guru Dutt

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ten Years with Guru Dutt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Nicholas. Looks like I'll be reviewing another one of your nominations. I look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


### Summary
about the writing process - Whose writing process? Saran's?


### Background and writing
While I can verify that Saran worked at Femina, the sources do not state when. Also, I feel like "pre-release" is a bit of a strange word to use here. Perhaps write it as "Before she released Ten Years with Guru Dutt"


### Release and reception
became a commercial success - This may need more clarification. How well did it sell? It was, after all, a bestseller.
The Hindu article on bestsellers is behind a pay-wall. Tag it with "url-access=subscription" in the citation template.
The paragraph on various releases should be separated from Savitha Gautam's comment with a line break.
which was controversial due to the real identity of its director - Explain how this was controversial.
Amita Malik said the book has been her first English-language book with chapter titles in Hindi and Urdu, - How is this relevant? Remove this, as it wouldn't interest any readers. Perhaps also write something more substantial about her reception.
wrote; - This should be a colon. The quote is also way too long. Paraphrase it
I have no idea how to paraphrase this one quote. Do you have a solution? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The citation for Rangan's review should use the "via" parameter in its template: i.e. "via=Wordpress". I was also initially sceptical about this source, considering it links to Wordpress, but its simply a republication by the author, so it checks out.
the finest on an Indian personality. - What does this mean? Perhaps better written as "the finest on any Indian individual". This claim also needs a citation.


### Adaptations
July 2012 - The source says November


### Lead
critics acclaimed it - Perhaps better to write "received acclaim from critics, who said ..."
critics acclaimed it ... most interesting parts are - Change "are" to "were" for congruity in tense.
the production of the 1962 film Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam - Add that both of them worked on it. E.g. "1962 film Sahib Bibi Aur Ghulam, that both Dutt and Alvi worked on"
an informative commentary - Better to remove "an" here.
and her initiative to write the book - I feel like this sentence was just kind of tacked on at the end. Find a way to incorporate it better
generated positive responses from audiences - This is not written in the article.


### Overall
Not much to comment on. The prose is well-written over all, albeit sometimes lacking in precision. There are some misuses of semicolons, but they are easily fixed. The references are formatted correctly, and most (not all) of the information is cited to reliable sources. Some of the text is very close to violating copyright, but these are simply lengthy quotes. The coverage is broad and stays focused. The article is written neutrally and the edit history is stable. The only image used in the article has a valid fair-use rationale, so no copyright violations there. I'd prefer to see some more images in the article, but that isn't a GA criterion.
All in all, very well written article, aside from some small issues. I'd feel comfortable giving this one a pass with some minor editing. I'll put this nomination on hold until then. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@ArcticSeeress: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Nicholas Michael Halim: Why does the the source you added in the backround and writing section have a question mark for the page? I.e. :?. If the exact page can't be identified, you can atleast supply a chapter or a quote in the reference template so the information can be more easily verified. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@ArcticSeeress: I'm sorry. Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Alright, everything looks good to go. Good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)