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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in
literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
This article was
copy edited by
Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 October 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
"He is puzzled by Divya's arrogant nature, which developed due to her grief over her former lover, Manohar (Karthik), being shot to death. " Doesn't really belong in the lede, reword/minimise the plot summary overall I think.
Can I take the plot summary from IMDb? There it reads, "Divya, a woman grieving over the death of her lover, is convinced into an arranged marriage with Chandra Kumar".
Kailash29792 (
talk)
16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
"Divya is forced to live with Chandrakumar and she slowly starts to like him. Chandrakumar distances himself from Divya because after a year she will be gone and he does not want to get used to her." Seems contradictatory, if he distances himself how can see start to like him?
The plot is a bit superficial to read, a lot of short sentences, can you try to improve it a bit and reduce some of the relationship details?
Like the plot this really reads a bit subjectively. Some of the sentences seem like a narrative rather than encyclopedic.
Music and reception
Too many quotes which affects readability. The prose on this I believe is not yet ready for GA. You might want to get an editor or two working on improving the quality.♦
Dr. Blofeld16:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
The fact that this film is a reworking of Nenjathai Killathey needs to be emphasized in the article. Mani Ratnam himself has said that in many interviews. Your interpretation "Baradwaj Rangan compared Mouna Ragam to J. Mahendran's Nenjathai Killathe" makes the reader understand that this is clearly the author's POV. —
Vensatry(ping)19:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Vensatry: Actually, it was Rangan who came up with the comparison, if you look at
Kailash29792's link above, in page 32-33. Ratnam wanted to reach out to the audience with Karthik's character, and that he was not worried about the other film.
Thamizhan1994 (
Appo Pesu)
04:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The prose seems to have been improved a bit but for me the neutrality is now the biggest issue. The music, reception and legacy sections I don't think you could call neutral.♦
Dr. Blofeld20:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Dr. Blofeld: Most of the reviews are quite contemporary except Ananda Vikatan's. It is quite hard to find a negative review. There is one negative review from Searchindia but I don't think it is a reliable source. The film is more or less, critically acclaimed. How do you propose me and Kailash29792 should tone the neutrality?
Thamizhan1994 (
Appo Pesu)
04:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I know the film was quite acclaimed in India, but I feel that more critical "analysis" needs to be put in the reception section instead of phrases such as "well worth a watch even today". For the first review, if they were awarded 43 marks out of 100 then surely there must have been some criticisms. Please add that. Also, I'm not sure how Revathi's "slender frame" helping her performance is necessary for this particular film. Otherwise, I think this is okay. --
KRIMUK90✉02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
@
Krimuk90: Actually, that is the full review as added from Dhananjayan's book. Ananda Vikatan always gives its ratings between 40 and 60 out of 100 (very rarely from 60 to 70). I have removed the slender frame quote. I have added some criticisms to the Upperstall review.
Thamizhan1994 (
Appo Pesu)
02:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I also remember that Karthik's performance earned him a place in the Hall of Fame of FTII (in the list of "All-time Best Supporting Roles in Indian cinema"). I think a few Tamil sources would be available for the same. —
Vensatry(ping)07:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Happy New Year all. Yes. some good points I think if you could find a bit and dial down the praise a little it should be OK. Let me know when you think it's done and I'll take another look.♦
Dr. Blofeld09:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Blofeld, is the neutrality and the overpraise given to this film the only problem remaining? And can you please do some proofreading on the claims supported by Conversations? I have given a link here to the book's pages.
Kailash29792 (
talk)
09:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Good job Tham, reads much better than it did now. If in the future you can try to ensure it's a neutral as possible before nomming and fully copyedited it's likely to pass a lot quicker!♦
Dr. Blofeld10:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
GA Reassessment
This discussion is
transcluded from
Talk:Mouna Ragam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I had planned to take this article to FA at one point. But now that I've lost my mojo, and I've had consecutive FAC failures, I'm scrapping those plans for this. Instead, I want to see that this article is still at least GA-worthy, since five years have passed since it was promoted to GA and it has been substantially edited in that time period. --Kailash29792(talk)09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply