# Talk:Trapped (2016 Hindi film)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trapped (2016 Hindi film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments
"Trapped is a 2016 Indian Hindi-language survival drama film, co-produced and directed by Vikramaditya Motwane. The film stars Rajkummar Rao as Shaurya, a call center employee who gets trapped in his apartment room without food, water and electricity. Produced by Anurag Kashyap, Vikas Bahl, Madhu Mantena and Motwane under the banner of Phantom Films, the film also stars Geetanjali Thapa." — This can be rephrased as "Trapped is a 2016 Indian Hindi-language survival drama film directed by Vikramaditya Motwane, who also co-produced it with Anurag Kashyap, Vikas Bahl, and Madhu Mantena under the banner of Phantom Films. The film stars Rajkummar Rao as Shaurya, a call centre employee who gets trapped in his apartment room without food, water and electricity, and Geetanjali Thapa as Noorie, the employee's girlfriend."
Done
Wikilink "bachelor pad" for those who might not be aware of its meaning.
Done
"which falls on the terrace of a house nearby. The apartment's resident, Swati, questions" — Decide whether its a house or apartment.
Done
"asked him to sent it in an e-mail" — "send", not "sent".
Done
"Motwane then introduced Jain to" — Is it Jain or Joshi?
Fixed
"he wanted to make a more accessible film" — accessible as in accessible to the audience, make them understand the film? if so, clarify a bit more on this.
Done
"Ninety percent of the film was shot in the building" — According to who?
Mentioned. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
A request by me: the lead section reads "survival drama" whereas the production section reads "He expressed that the survival thriller genre in Indian cinema was still in a nascent stage". In the supported source, Motwane says, "You are right... the genre is still in a very nascent stage" as an answer to the question "As a genre, survival drama is not very extensive. Do you have favourites?". However, the same source calls it a "survival thriller". Please be consistent Yash. ----Kailash29792 (talk)  16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Rephrased. It's a survival drama, not a 'thriller'. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
"It is Motwane's first film shot in digital. He also decided to not go for a wide screen and rather opted for a more compressed look because of the nature of the film." — This portion reads and sounds a bit vague. Do explain a bit more on this for clarity's sake.
Expanded little bit.
"Because of the film's genre, Motwane made sure that the pace of the film kept going so that the audience would not get bored." — Can be rephrased as "Because of the film's genre, Motwane made sure that it was fast-paced so that the audience would not get bored."
Done
"Motwane had mentioned the plans for the film to Rao during the screening of Masaan in July 2015. When that film did not work out, he asked Rao if he could spare twenty days in the following month for Trapped, to which he agreed." — What film did not work out? Do clarify here too.
Done
"Within three weeks of deciding to do the film, the film began its principal photography. This hasty way of film-making made Motwane feel like it was a student film." — Too much instances of "film", that too in close proximity to one another. Tweak this sentence.
Done
Wikilink the newspaper Mint in the "Themes" section.
Done
In the "critical response" section, there are as many as five instances of the word "called". Changed at least two of them.
Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
"The film got a U/A (Parental Guidance) certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification" - simply mentioning the film's rating violates WP:FILMRATINGS; as per that policy, "In film articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources." --Kailash29792 (talk)  05:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
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: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail: 

Great job, Yashthepunisher. Keep up the good work.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for conducting the review Ssven2 :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)