Wikipedia:Peer review/Veer-Zaara/archive1

Veer-Zaara

I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's quite ready for GA and has potential to go for FA.

Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• While talking about the plot, the name of the character played by Rani should also be mentioned.
• "Chopra wanted to make his return to cinema after seven years". It can be rephrased. Something like 'Chopra wanted to return as a director.'
• "It received highly positive reviews". Please avoid words like 'highly', it's not very neutral.

Plot

• "Zaara Haayat Khan is a lively Pakistani woman". Which year is this? It should be mentioned.

Development

• Cambridge University should be linked.

Principal photography

• "Khan was late for the shot." How is this encyclopedic?
• National Geographic should be linked

Release

• "It was released in 60 prints in the United Kingdom.[58] It was released in the United States in 88 prints." Both the sentences can be merged with an 'and'.
• "In 2017, Veer-Zaara was restrained at the Best of Bollywood series in the United States." So the screening wasn't allowed?
• Who is the author of They Said It?
• "Some credit the film for influencing this change." Some people? Some critics? Who?

Critical response

• The reviews are in past and present tense. Take care of the consistency.
• Update the Rotten Tomatoes score and date.

The budget should be mentioned somewhere in either the box-office section or the production section.

References

• Ref 14 is missing publisher's name
• Ref 15, timesnownews.com --> Times Now
• Ref 17, freepressjournal.in --> The Free Press Journal
• Ref 18, edition.cnn.com --> CNN
• Ref 20, thequint.com --> The Quint
• Ref 22, www.livemint.com --> Mint
• Ref 24, 27, 28, 30, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 78 are missing publisher's names
• Ref 25, rediff.com --> Rediff.com
• Ref 47, author's name is missing
• Ref 65, www.bollywoodhungama.com --> Bollywood Hungama
• Ref 75, www.thehindu.com --> The Hindu
• Fix the publisher names at other instances also.
• Planet Bollywood is not a RS.

Shshshsh That's it. I would love to see this article achieve GA status and hopefully FA. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would encourage you to add ALT text to the infobox image and make sure that all of the images used throughout the article also have ALT text.
• I am uncertain about the wording "fights his case" in the lead. It sounds rather informal to me, and I would think something along the lines of "represents him" would be more suitable. However, I am an American so if that is appropriate in Indian English, then please let me know as then it should be fine.
• I have three comments for the following part from the lead: Chopra intended the film to be a tribute to Punjab; it was to be titled Yeh Kahaan Aa Gaye Hum. Move the Punjab wikilink up to this instance as this is the first time it is mentioned in the lead. Punjab is currently linked in a later instance. I am also a little confused by why these two ideas are linked (i.e. the Punjab tribute and the original title). They seem rather unconnected to me. The semi-colon usage connects these two parts so that is why I am bringing this up. Also, would it be beneficial to add the English translation for the original movie title?
• This part in the lead, Set in India and Pakistan, principal photography took, is not grammatically correct. If you read this part literally, you are saying that the principle photography is set in India and Pakistan when I believe you mean to say this about the film. I would reword this part.
• This is a minor note, but for this sentence, The soundtrack album, based on old compositions by Madan Mohan with lyrics by Javed Akhtar, was the highest-selling album of the year in India., I would replace "of the year" with "of 2004" since it has been a little bit since the year was mentioned and I know that I had to look up again to see what year this was referencing.

I hope these comments are helpful. I am leaving this up as a placeholder as I have currently having computer trouble. This weekend, I have to get my computer's keyboard repaired, but I wanted to leave this up to at least help a little bit. Once my keyboard is fixed, I will come back and provide comments for the rest of the article (as I have only looked through the lead so far). I was intrigued by the poster, and the movie sounds very interesting. I have honestly never heard of it (apologies for that) so I am interested to read more about it. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Below are a few more quick comments. I intended to do the full review on Monday if that is okay with you. Apologies for the delay.

• I have two comments on the images used in the "Production" section. I would include the years the photos were taken in the image captions to provide further context for the reader. For the Khan/Zinta images, I would add (right) as well. Even though it is rather obvious, I think it would still be beneficial to include here, and it would give a place to clarify the year her photo was taken.
• This is just my personal opinion so take it with a grain of salt. I do not necessarily find it helpful to include review ratings in the prose, as done here for instance (rates it three and a half stars out of five), unless there is something particularly notable about this. I would instead use that space to focus on what the reviewer has to say about the film. Again, that is just my opinion. There is nothing inherently wrong about using the reviewer ratings, but I think the space could be better used for something else.
• The "Awards and nominations" table is quite substantial. Do you think it would be enough for a separate list? I do not have an issue with the table being in this article, but I wanted to get your feedback on this. I am sure there is a threshold where a certain number of awards and nominations would justify a separate list, but I do not know this information off-hand right now.

I want to clarify that I will be primarily looking through the prose. I am not familiar enough with Indian publications to comfortably comment on their reliability, although I am sure given your history as an editor that they should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• This sentence, After addressing him by his name, Veer Pratap Singh, Veer opens up to Saamiya and narrates his story., is not grammatically correct. The opening phrase is about Saamiya, but if you read it literally, it is connected with Veer. Instead, it should be After addressing him by his name, Veer Pratap Singh, Saamiya if you want to keep the opening phrase.
• For this sentence, Zaara Haayat Khan is a lively Pakistani woman whose family is of the political background and high standing in Lahore., I was a little confused by the "of the political background" part. I think something like Zaara Haayat Khan is a lively Pakistani woman from a political family with high standing in Lahore. would sound better (at least to me).
• I am uncertain if this part whom she addresses as her grandmother is really necessary. I do not see this aspect about the character mentioned elsewhere in the article, and I think the parenthetical awkwardly cuts between the descriptive phrase and the character name.
• This phrase meets with an accident seems awkward to me, and I think that it should be revised. I think something like While traveling to India, Zaara gets into a bus accident. would be better.
• Would it be possible to revise this part, The next day, Veer takes Zaara to the train station for her train back to Lahore, planning to confess., to avoid the repetition of the word "train". I think the second instance could be replaced with something like her trip back to Lahore, but I think there should be a way to avoid this repetition.
• This a nitpick-y comment, but I would revise this sentence Before she leaves, he confesses his love to her, accepting that they cannot be together. to this suggestion Before she leaves, he confesses his love to her but accepts that they cannot be together.. The current sentence structure seems a little off to me for some reason.
• I find this sentence, Back home in Pakistan, Zaara realises she too is in love with Veer but that she must keep her family's honour and marry Raza, a wedding that will further the political career of her father Jehangir., to be rather awkward. I think something along the lines of After returning to Pakistan, Zaara realises she is in love with Veer, but agrees to marry Raza to maintain her family's honour. The wedding would further the political career of her father Jehangir. would be better.
• Would it be possible to revise this part, Veer requests Saamiya not to mention either Zaara or her family whilst fighting the case, believing Zaara is happily married by now and he will only ruin her life., without repeating Zaara twice in the same sentence?
• I do not think the "finally reunited" part is necessary in this sentence, Veer and Zaara, finally reunited, get married, say goodbye to Saamiya at the Wagah border crossing, and return to their village, living happily ever after., as the reader already knows that they have reunited at this point and I do not think it fully fits WIkipedia's tone.
• I have not seen this film so apologies if this is super obvious. There are two plot points that seem to come out of left field (i.e. Zaara's mother giving Veer an amulet and Veer's dream of running a girl's school). Are either of these points notable enough to mention earlier? I was the most surprised by the girl's school one as it is mentioned so late in the plot summary.
• I would link girls school as that may be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the concept.
• I would strongly encourage you to put in a request for a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. You have done a great job with the article, but I think some of the prose, particularly in the plot summary, is rather rough and would benefit from someone looking through it.
• I am not 100% certain what this sentence, Yash Chopra was due to return to directing after seven years since Dil To Pagal Hai (1997)., means. Why is he "due" for a return at that point in time in particularly? Why not after five years for instance? Who considered him "due to return" at this time? It is just too vague in my opinion.
• I would link Punjabi in this part a medium for his father to return to his Punjabi roots as I believe it is the first time it is mentioned in the article. It is currently linked later in the article when it should be on the first instance. I would also link it in the first instance in the lead.
• For the part on Chopra watching videos of Pakistani weddings, would it be helpful to add a link to the marriage in Pakistan article?
• I would the English translation of this Yeh Kahaan Aa Gaye Hum.
• For this part, All scenes which featured Khan in a prison were shot in a single day, at a jail in Pakistan., I would move both citations to the end as I think the current placement hinders readability.
• I noticed several instances in the "Analysis" section that you mention the scholar's school, like in this example (associate professor of English at the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences). I do not think that is something really encouraged. I do not think it provides a lot to a reader and I would cut all of these instances to condense the descriptive phrase down to the speciality. So for the above instance, I would use associate professor in English Literature instead.
• This part Daiya further feels sounds awkward to me, especially since it is right after a sentence that starts in a very similar way Daiya feels. I would revise this.
• How are you organizing the "Critical response" subsections? I would like to get some insight about this before comment further as I would like to understand how you are structuring these two subsections.
• I would avoid the use of single-word quotes completely, like with the following ("horrifying"). These parts are best paraphrased as the single-word quotes actually take away from the effectiveness of the other quotes.
• I do not have a strong opinion about this, but it is something that I see brought up in FACs. I would be carefully about using "also" as it is mostly discouraged in FA writing. Again, I do not have an issue with it, but I would be careful to not lean too heavily on it as it can become a filler word.

This is my full review of the article on my first read-through. Apologies for the rather nitpick-y comments. I hope this is helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will move my comments to the peer review's talk page to avoid cluttering up this review too much. Let me know if anything needs further clarification. I hope you are having a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Shshshsh: Just wanted to check in about this. This is my full review for the article as I could not find anything else that requires further attention. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your fantastic review. I'm too busy at the moment but I'll apply your comments the moment I have more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Best of luck with everything keeping you busy. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)