Talk:Lailaa O Lailaa

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Lailaa O Lailaa received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Reviews[edit]

The reviews section needs to be rewritten. The content of the reviews should focus on the encyclopedic nature (quality of acting, screenplay, cinematography etc) and not on the "should you see this or not". And it should be based on the full range of available professional reviews. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the review by Sify.com makes a mention of that. Other reviews seem fine for me. There are a lot more reviews; I will try to include those from The Hindu and Desimartini.com. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

only the portions of the reviews that were selected by editors who were writing the "reception" section as a "should you see it or not?" lens . I am fairly certain that almost all of the actual reviews will contain much more appropriate materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews section is written not in a neutral point of view. Rewrite needed. The introduction section itself is filled with lots of negative opinions of each and every websites with exact phrases from the site copy pasted, instead of only pointing at a single point, that the film received negative reviews. A leg to head strict rewrite needed that talks more on the parts acting, cinematography, direction, script etc.. rather than stating "the reviews are saying the film is intolerable and don't go to watch it". VagaboundWind (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Filmibeat article is about the audience response and box office performance of the movie, which need to be included in the reception section. First you provide a satisfying reason why this particular information is irrelevant or why the source should be considered unreliable. From your edit history it is obvious what your actual intend is. And what do you mean by maintaining neutrality in the reception section? All the reviews mercilessly criticise the movie and we need to use the exact phrases used by the critics. Excerpts from the review which aptly summarises the reviewer's opinion about the movie is what is to be focussed upon. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we dont care about the "audience response" unless there is something particularly unique or widely reported. a general "people didnt like it" is not unique. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your intension in labeling this film a disaster. Why are you so greedy in attacking this page. You are suspicious. Actually it's not the critics who panned the movie, it's you. VagaboundWind (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing personal here. An overview of your edit history clearly proves what your actual intend is. I have only tried to include facts verified by reliable sources. You learn to accept facts as it is. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Actually WP:MOSFILM does mention that Audience response be included in film articles. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

did you actually read that section? "This content is not necessarily intended to be a standalone section, or a subsection, in a film article. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section, depending on the available context. Do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and have no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." So unless you have professional sampling, no we dont care. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audience response is nonsense, if there are atleast some tweets given in the source it can be considered the least. Otherwise it make no sense how they compiled the audience response. VagaboundWind (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VagaboundWind: Please note that website names are never italicised. You can see any featured film article or any articles on websites to confirm the same. And Filmibeat (you haven't given any proper evidence for considering it unreliable) reports that the film has failed at box office, the same has brrn included in the wiki article as well with a link to the source. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

["Actual medium of publication or presentation is not a factor; a video feature only released on video tape, disc or the Internet is considered a "film" for these purposes, and likewise an e-book is a book, ... Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." The ones in use in this article are of the e-newspaper/e-magazine type that should be italicized. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VagaboundWind: Cannot understand what your actual concern is. Is it that a box office auditing site has to be used for citing box office details or that Filmibeat is particularly unreliable? If the former is your concern, then box office details of all the Malayalam films have to be removed as they are all cited from news sources only. If your concern is tge latter then provide evidence for why Filmibeat should be considered unreliable. And I would like to remind you had a long edit war with me and another user to include a box office figure cited from the Facebook page of the film in Drishyam article. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is about Lailaa O Lailaa, not Bhaskar the Rascal, you are making new reasons to continue your edit war. First read and understand what is said here. And the Filmibeat source is not removed from the article. Its there in the reception section. And the statement about the film is box ofice hit is removed, as there is no box office audited info given in it. So it stands like a weasel word. It effects the neutrality. First arrive at a consensus. VagaboundWind (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015[edit]

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The film is disater the box office. 117.217.232.122 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done 1) you would need to provide a reliably published source that supports the claim. 2) you would need to phrase the content in an actual objective manner that means something and not jargonay drivel. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]