| rdfs:comment
| - I've listed this article for peer review because it has got potential to become a FL. If reviews goes well, I wish to push this article for WP:FLC. I would appreciate if senior editors can review the article accordingly, considering its goal. Thanks, - VivvtTalk 17:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I not a specialist of FL, but some observations: --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|
| abstract
| - I've listed this article for peer review because it has got potential to become a FL. If reviews goes well, I wish to push this article for WP:FLC. I would appreciate if senior editors can review the article accordingly, considering its goal. Thanks, - VivvtTalk 17:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Isn't the lead supposed to be restricted to four paragraphs? It looks like it needs to be condensed quite a bit before presentation. File:Yes check.svg Done - VivvtTalk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It also has to be trimmed. The Dadasaheb Phalke award is mentioned thrice in different paragraphs, while it could be made into a single sentence. Adding to that, the sentence "Deool became third Marathi film to win the honour after Shyamchi Aai (1953) and Shwaas (2003)" is heavily WP:UNDUE here. Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) File:Yes check.svg Done. My bad earlier. - VivvtTalk 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
* "Entries of dubbed/revised/copied versions of a film [...] before January 17, 2012." and "For feature and non-feature films sections, films made in any Indian language [...] the Central Board of Film Certification." - The given source does not seem to verify these. Or am I wrong? Secret of success (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) It is mentioned in the Regulations for submission listed under External links: Official websites. Do you want me to put it as a part of references as well? - VivvtTalk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not really sure if it would find a place in the references, but now that it has been proved to be verifiable, there should not be any issue. Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Thats Good then. - VivvtTalk I not a specialist of FL, but some observations:
* Awards section is too long. Split [Reworded] --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
* by award category (prefer): Dadasaheb Phalke, Feature films, non-feature films, best writing
* jury and awards Can you elaborate more on this? - VivvtTalk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Section is too long. Split into different 4 sections by award category IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) File:Yes check.svg Done - VivvtTalk 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
* Enajori.com incident is not part of selection. Separate into "controversy" or something File:Yes check.svg Done - VivvtTalk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
* Why is /- needed after all prize money amounts? Remove File:Yes check.svg Done - VivvtTalk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
* Awards not given: is it known if entries were suited for each of the categories? --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC) DFF publishes list of entries submitted for the awards like done earlier for 56th NFA. But this year, it was not published for some reason. Again, till now, they have never published the suitable entries/considerations for the awards. - VivvtTalk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comments On the first look not bad, but after reading one section I believe it needs a good copyedit. One issue is that you are using repetitions, for example in "Awards not given" (where you use "given" in each sentence and even in the head). In some places the prose is awkward. Check whether it meets WP:IG. Also it is more an article than a list as it has more prose than list, but I am not quite sure either. Regards.--GoPTCN 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)