Krrish has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 27, 2009 Good article nominee Listed November 9, 2009 Peer review Reviewed March 22, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted June 17, 2012 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Indian 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 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 Mid-importance). Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Krrish is written with two "rr", because Rakesh Roshan was told by a numerologist to change it, because it would bring better luck. The article is somewhere on indiafm.com, I think. You just have to search for it. It hasn't got anything to do with domain rights. --Plumcouch 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there have been more than seven Indian super-heroes. See Spider-Man: India and Virgin Comics for examples. Daibhid C 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title of this article be changed to Krrish(film), so as to identify it more appropriately? - unni 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Don't know. Are there more "Krrish"'s written with two rrs? --Plumcouch 00:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section on the Indian Superman, in my view, should be deleted as it has nothing to do with the film Krrish. It should have its own article or just be erased from this article altogether.

Furthermore, for all the "inspirations," there should be citations, especially for the comment for the song "Main hoon woh asmaan." --RNJBOND 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PERIOD.

Why? There's a spoiler warning attached. --Plumcouch 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any official word that there will be a Krrish 2? The place it is mentioned in the article doesn't cite any source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.244.234.39 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The image Image:Daredevil poster.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Frogot to put Put Krrish 2 (also Koi... Mil Gaya 3:Krrish 2) isa seqeul to Krrish.It is said that KRRISH 2 Will be realeased in 2009

The story is completely inspired from paycheck. Doesn't the page need a mention about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.234.208 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is clearly inspired by a multitude of Hollywood films (like every major Bollywood film). They are in the introductory paragraph to help clarify the context of the movie. It seems that some contributors are in denial of these influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpgiddyup (talk • contribs) 06:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly" is your POV. We need sources to support all the titles you mentioned. This info is controversial. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV? You're joking, right? This information is not controversial. Anyone who has seen the movies I have mentioned can see that Krrish contains influences from this films. Unless you're naive enough to believe that Krrish is completely original, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpgiddyup (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it is original or not, and making conclusions is in violation of WP:OR. That's why sources must be added. And the one you added (akhilesh.com) is an unreliable blog. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Krrish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --Vinay84 (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Opinions, there are some citation and clarify Tags. Please resolve them

--Vinay84 (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing though, there are numerous grammatical errors that need to be fixed. Ophois (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction section is to have information already in the main body of article and hence, info not in main body (and hence requiring referencing) should be moved to the relevant sections of the main body of the article.

--Vinay84 (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't understand the citation and clarify tags, what you meant?
2. I knew my grammars were not good enough, so if can, I need some help.
3. About the references in LEAD, I will remove them.

World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have made clean up in lead; removing several statements and references (but I kept five-six important references) and changed the plot to past tense.(difference between the versions) Any other thing I should be doing? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding created. I shall be more detailed about what is wanted.

• The paragraph :The film was mainly shot in Mumbai, India and Singapore.[3] The film was considered the second major superhero film to be produced in Bollywood since Shekhar Kapur's Mr. India (1987).[4] The film's stunts, choreographed by Tony Ching Siu-Tung, were adapted into storyboard before accepted into the film.[3] During the final scene in the laboratory, the scene was made up using a lot of visual effects, done by Marc Kolbe and Craig A. Mumma,[5] who also creates visual effects for the predecessor.[6] 3D models of cars, bikes, helicopter, birds and animals were created and animated to match live action footage.[7] Lifebuoy, India's best selling soap brand was promoted along with Krrish, where the film's pictures on it.[8] Half of the film's epic stories were adapted from "Ramayana" and "Mahabharata".[9] should be part of Production section and only few sentences of summary be there in the lead.

--Vinay84 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• THe paragraph :Half of the film's popularity was the economic gross, with product placement, such as Krrish's costumes and action figures.[10] The film was cited as a new "trend setter" in Indian Cinema.[11] Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie an aggregate rating of 100%, based on 6 reviews,[12] meanwhile, the other review were generally positive.[13] Being one of the highest grossing films of the year, Krrish grossed Rs 730 million as total, with Rs 450 million budget.[1][2] It was a box office success and was elevated to a "blockbuster" rating on Box Office India.[14] The film was the second highest grossing film of 2006,[14] fifth highest-grossing Bollywood films in India[15] and the eighteen highest-grossing bollywood films in overseas markets.[16] should be part of Reception section and only few sentences of summary be there in the lead.

--Vinay84 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, since all the statements appearing in the introduction are repeated in various other sections of the article,the references can be moved. This I will do .

--Vinay84 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ophois , can you please help with the Grammar part by copy editing?

--Vinay84 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vinay84 for the help. I've done the changes; shotened the lead, past tensed the plot. Please don't shock me by undo my edits again. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the plot changed to past tense? Fiction is supposed to be written in the present. Ophois (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've changed the plot to present tense[1] and also asked (as told by Vinay) User:Himalayan Explorer to help with gramatical errors.World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Himalayan

• Intro - The film was cited as a new "trend setter" yet underneath it says it is a sequel from a previous film. I would reword this. Himalayan 11:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is way off a GA. It needs an awful lot of work. Ir is more than just punctuation, there are a high number of tense and phrasing difficulties not to mention inappropriately placed sentences like "the film was declared a blockbuster" at the beginning of the production section affecting continuity. It needs a serious copyedit by several people, then repropose it when its ready. I think world cinema writer should have opened a peer review first to address the problems it currently faces as unless this article is given a lot of work it clearly won't pass. Himalayan 11:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "blockbuster" sentence refers to the first movie, not Krrish. I'll try and copyedit it soon. Ophois (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about half-way done copy-editing. It would be beneficial to add in the English translation for the original intended title of the film in the production section, if you can find it. Ophois (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think Krrish has a meaning? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the title before Krrish, "Koi... Tumsa Nahin". Ophois (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ophois

• Have you been able to find the English translation of "Koi... Tumsa Nahin"?

"Koi... Tumsa Nahin" means there is nobody like you --Vinay84 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is Prakash Jaju? The production section mentions he was sued by Roshan over threatening calls, but doesn't explain who he is.Ophois (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you also give a summary of the review for citation #24?Ophois (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you started attempts at this? Ophois (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the work on Copyediting progressing? --Vinay84 (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done copyediting, but he hasn't addressed my above concerns. As well, I think the infobox for the music album is tacky-looking. What do you think? IMO, it would be better to have it as prose, also with the cited reviews being summarized. Ophois (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are already excerpts from Reviews in the Reception section. and the infobox is a standard template not to be meddled with.Like you have written, more info on Prakash Jaju is needed. --Vinay84 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are featured articles that just give the soundtrack in prose. The soundtrack info here is for a subsection, not an article in itself. The reviews I was referring to were about the soundtrack, which is separate from the reception area. In the reception area, citation #24 needs to have the review summarized. Ophois (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has been coverted to prose, but the two reviews that are in it should be written out and summarized. Ophois (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening guys? There is just a bit of work left and it would be a shame if the article fails GAN because of that--Vinay84 (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. World Cinema Writer seems to have disappeared. I guess I'll take over on working on the article. I'll try and finish it up today. Ophois (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think everything in the article is up to standards. Ophois (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, no more problems. GA passed --Vinay84 (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for all your help to pass the article. Especially to Vinay84 and Ophois, who passed the article, and also helped me to make the article much perfect. It shall be my first GA article. Thanks again. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 13:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised to see the quality of the article for it to be listed as a GA. I completely agree with Blofeld in his comments in the above review. My main concerns with it being listed as a GA are the following. As per the good article criteria

1 (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

I cannot agree that this article has passed this important criteria. This clearly needs a thorough copyedit from a suitable user.

2 (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations

Hrithikrules.com is a fans forum and that is definitely not a reliable source. It has been used to cite at several locations in the article. I can't seem to think that World of Time Pass or Indicine are reliable sources as well. Due to this, portions of the article might not quality under WP:V.

6 (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

There are 4 non-free images being used for no justifiable reason at all. Please remove one image each for the soundtrack and visual effects. You don't need 2 images to illustrate the VFX.

Overall with the prose, the article is not quite to the standard of a GA. I'll watch this article for a week, until after which I'll refer to this page. I hope that I don't have to. Hope the above helps. Cheers, Mspraveen (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Explorer asked me to comment on whether Krrish is of GA standard. I do not have time to check in detail, but think some of the concerns raised by Mspraveen are grounds for a reassessment:

• Much of the prose is verbose, unclear and sometimes ungrammatical. I agree that a thorough copyedit is in order, although I've heard that Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors is under-sourced and overloaded, so you may need to trade favours with a good copyeditor.
• I did not have to look at Indicine, but the poor web design at Hrithikrules.com (especially that annoying message box) and World of Time Pass (garish colours, whole paragraphs linked) make these sites look like the low-rent end of WP:SPS (some SPS are very good, but not these).
• If you go for a reassessment, you should also check that the remaining refs support what the article claims they support. I've found that articles that use low-quality sources quite often use sources inaccurately.
• I have no complaint about the images used, and in fact would be disappointed if any were removed. However, they all need Fair Use Rationales. In addition I'd place the 2 VFX pics in a table, one under the other. This would make the contrast between the unenhanced and CGI-enhanced pics more effective, and support the FURs by make it clear that the pair of pics in combination illustrates the use of VFX.

The changes to the images are barely 5 minutes. However, I suggest the concerns about prose and sourcing wil take several days. I hope this helps. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from peer review

I came across Wikipedia:Peer review/Krrish/archive1 and left some comments there. Only after that did I find this discussion, so I'm posting the link here. Most of my concerns were around the quality of references used and have addressed most of them individually. Unless these issues are fixed, I would say that the article has to be brought to WP:GAR. It also needs to go through a fresh GA assessment. -SpacemanSpiff 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article became a GA and it made me very happy, but while going through it now I got very disappointed, because if I was the reviewer I wouldn't have passed it. The article is not comprehensive and needs cleanup and formatting. I'll explain later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Krrish/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Taking into account this version, the reason for the GA reassessment, the problems include ;

• List of unreliable sources : 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 27, 28, 39
• 1 Dead link tagged.
• Monotonous tone, eg. "The film...the film...the film...". Thorough copyedit required for ALL the sections as prose is of haggard quality.
• Many of the characters mentioned in the "Cast" and the infobox are not present in the plot section.
• Overlinking.

To name a few, these warrant a go. They need to be fixed. Secret of success (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of response, I am delisting this. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the increased work being directed towards this article, I thought of posting some suggestions which could be worked upon before GAC, as I delisted the article previously.

• Summarize the soundtrack, awards and critical reception in the lead section.
• "It was considered the first major superhero film to be produced in Bollywood since Shekhar Kapur's Mr. India of 1987." - Unsourced
• "Krrish briefly became the highest grossing Indian film ever upon its release." - Not really (HAHK, Gadar and DDLJ)

This is always the biggest issue with Indian films. Lots of conflicting sources, very painful to sort out. And I never know to use gross or nett gross. What is the difference anyway? They don't use that in American Box Office. BollyJeff || talk 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single source to support the highest grossing claim? Secret of success (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thought there was, but cannot find now, so removed text. BollyJeff || talk 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hrithik promised "even more special effects than Koi... Mil Gaya."" - Not necessary as a similar and more detailed one from his dad resides two paras below this
• "first film in the Indian our industry" - ?
• Format references to follow WP:CITEHOW.
• "30 tons" - Use some conversion template.
• "Although Krrish was released at about the same time as Superman Returns in India, it managed to beat the Hollywood film that had a much bigger budget at the box office." - I don't understand the purpose of this.
• "The new film will be released during Diwali 2013. Hrithik Roshan and Priyanka Chopra will reprise their roles, and the main antagonist will be played by Vivek Oberoi." - Unsourced

I am going to fix these issues and those mentioned in the GAR above, expand it some, and take it back to GA. BollyJeff || talk 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack section needs to be a part of the Production section. The prose also needs some work. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film you can have a separate section if you want. Most articles that I see putting with production, it is just a single paragraph pointing to a separate article. I think the list of songs is not attractive inside the production section. BollyJeff || talk 12:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its always better to actually have a separate soundtrack article. Most of the better articles feature separate soundtrack articles because putting a table in the main article like that gives a cluttered feel. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the most notable soundtracks have separate articles. Otherwise, its a sign of giving undue weight to the subject. Secret of success 10:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I did touch up the prose. BollyJeff || talk 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's my review. I have been slightly involved with this article, though not enough to be unable to review this article. I am going to first review the lead, and its not satisfactory at all.

• "with Bollywood veterans Rekha and Naseeruddin Shah in supporting roles." Bollywood veterans is unnecessary.

• Naseeruddin Shah did not play a supporting role, he is the film's antagonist. Credit him as such, since both are very different.

• Combine the first two paragraphs of the lead; the first paragraph is essentially a single sentence.

• For encyclopedic purposes, avoid "shot" as much as possible. In the lead, the word should be "filmed".

• "The film's abundant special effects" Abundant is a subjective opinion, should not be present.

• "with help from" - "with the help from"

• "Stunts were choreographed by Tony Ching Siu-Tung. The music was composed by Rajesh Roshan, and received mixed reviews. The film itself also received mixed reviews from critics, but was widely appreciated by audiences, who gave it record opening week at the box office." Choppy prose, unencyclopedic content. This entire part needs rewording.

• "Krrish picked up a few awards" Its amusing to see such phrases, but its most certainly not encyclopedic.

• "numerous best acting awards" It should be Best Actor (note the capital letters).

I think capitals are not needed since this is a generic term and not a specific award title in this sentence. The other items have been completed. BollyJeff | talk 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, I'm generally not too happy with the prose of the lead. It needs work. I hope these points can be clarified, so that we can continue to other aspects. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ankitbhatt. Thanks for taking on this review. I will do all I can to improve the article during the process. For your part, please be aware of Wikipedia:GA_Criteria, and especially Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not, which concerning the Well-written criteria says that the reviewer must check that in the article: "The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently." It also says the the reviewer should not be: "Imposing your own stylistic preferences or national variety of English on the article text." Please do not get too picky about every single word. That is not the intent of the GA review process. BollyJeff | talk 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I am aware of the criteria, and as far as I can see, my points mentioned are not stylistic but some genuine problems such as grammar or incorrect info. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize for the long break I have taken. I will now continue the review. I am still not happy with the lead, but I'll let that go for the moment since the rest of the article also needs attention ;-

• Please avoid using present tense with "ing". "Twelve-year-old Krishna Mehra is undergoing an intelligence quotient test by a professor" should not have "is undergoing" but "undergoes".

• "his family have superpowers" Uh, has superpowers?

• "Years later, Krishna (Hrithik Roshan) meets Priya (Priyanka Chopra) and her friend Honey (Manini Mishra) when Krishna's friend Bahadur (Hemant Pandey) takes them camping near his home." The sentence implies that Bahadur took all three to camping, which is not true. Please re-phrase.

• Wikilink hang glider.

• "both tested it and were shocked to see Siddhant holding a gun besides Rohit's head." It should be "holding a gun to Rohit's head."

The Development section is one hell of a mess.

• "Following the blockbuster success of the Roshan's Koi... Mil Gaya of 2003" Tch tch. It should be "Following the commercial success of Roshan's Koi... Mil Gaya (2003)" Avoid peacock words.

• " there was several months of speculation that a sequel would be prepared" Sorry, didn't understand this sentence. Do you mean :- "speculations of a sequel continued for several months"?

• "In November of 2004" Tell you what, change all dates in this article to "Month Year" rather than "Month of Year". More encyclopedic, and followed universally.

• "Hrithik Roshan and Rekha would return for the sequel, but Preity Zinta was confimed to be replaced by actress Priyanka Chopra." This sentence would be better placed after the statement made by Chopra.

I can't see having a quote by Chopra and then announcing that she is in the film afterwards, but I have re-worded this section a bit. BollyJeff | talk 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The story will focus on the son of the previous films's protagonist. The son inherits his father's special abilities that were given to him by the alien.[1] The story combines elements of Hindu religion and ancient Indian texts (the main character's name Krishna eludes to the Hindu Lord Krishna),[5] Chinese martial arts, and Hollywood films, to set itself up as a film of global significance.[6] Director/producer Rakesh Roshan hoped that this film would be remembered as the first film in the Indian industry that "proved we are no less than any Hollywood film."[7]" This is like one long piece of completely unencyclopedic promotion. Why are the first two lines needed at all? There is no need of specifying "Director/producer". And the entire elements bit should come after Roshan's statement.

This is barely the tip of the iceberg. The entire section needs a copy-edit, balancing and prose improvement. Please get to these points soon. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Some minute flaws in the changes :-

• The plot section now has "is undergoes", which is obviously wrong.

• The Development section has "commercial success of the Roshan's ..." The italicized part should not be there.

• "hoped that this film would be remembered" It should be the film. Many other silly grammar mistakes present, such as " the Indian film industry is the equal to Hollywood", extra commas in the international significance bit.

• "with many visual effects on par with" No need of many.

• "who had previously worked on Godzilla and Independence Day," Is there supposed to be a "respectively", or did both the experts work on both the films? Besides, I'm not really sure that aspects regarding the film's visual effects come under the "Development". It should ideally be in Filming (or a Post-production section if you can create one with sufficient content).

It wasn't in the sources so I removed it. BollyJeff | talk 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have luckily found a replacement which will give some information regarding the VFX :- Difeature: Krrish sets new benchmark for special effects in Hindi cinema. Hope this helps. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid writing "shot", use the more encyclopedic "filmed".

The article was dinged in an informal peer review for having "the film" too many times. Also, it would then read "the film was filmed", which is also very repetitive. Is it really that bad as is? BollyJeff | talk 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "the The Gateway" Extra "the".

• "Shruti Bhasin of Planet Bollywood liked it a lot" Not encyclopedic. Give a more formal tone to the sentence.

• There is too much weight on Taran Adarsh's review. Each review deserves no more than two lines (preferably one).

• In fact, the entire India section is very weirdly written. For one, there are too few reviews which is causing lot of unwanted excerpts to be added. Additionally, the section does not read in an appealing manner. I suggest re-wording and some digging up to expand the section suitably.

I searched for hours, and could only find one additional critical review from a reliable source. It was not very good, so the mixed summary is okay (I also provided a source specifically saying that it got mixed reviews). BollyJeff | talk 02:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more review - a highly important one, at that :- Masand's Verdict: Krrish-crass. But the section still does not read well. There is too much of content from a single review, which we should avoid. Cuts are needed. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The starter says that the film received mixed reviews in India, but I haven't seen even one negative review except the rather ambivalent TOI review. This fails neutrality and comprehensiveness. Rapid improvement needed.

• "Overseas reviews were consistently good." Please re-word to the standard use such as "Overseas reviews were generally positive" so as to be more encyclopedic.

Otherwise, the article is alright save for the still-unsatisfactory lead. I shall check the references tomorrow. In the meanwhile, I'm sure a majority of the above points can be cleaned up. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has now been completed. BollyJeff | talk 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for a long break; I got cooped up with another GA review. I'll complete my review today in the hope of passing this article tomorrow (at max).

• In the lead, "It is the second film in the Krrish series, being the sequel to Koi... Mil Gaya," There are too many "it"s coming close together. Could you re-word either the previous sentence or this sentence so as to break that monotonousness?

• "who suspects his family has superpowers" Missing "that".

• One thing I totally forgot to see: I'm quite certain that the plot exceeds 700 words. This is a big problem. I'd like to discuss possible solutions for this.

It is 782, considerably less than when I started. We can discuss. BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Roshan's Koi... Mil Gaya of 2003" Awkward use of the phrase "of 2003". Its best to use (2003).

• "there were several months of speculation by audiences" This needs re-wording. Something like "Audiences speculated for several months"

• "a sequel would be prepared" Prepared? Wrong word. Made/produced is correct.

• "that Preity Zinta would be replaced by actress Priyanka Chopra." You have noted Priyanka to be an actress but failed to do so for Zinta. Please state that Zinta was also an actress, or better still, just remove the word "actress" from Priyanka's definition.

• "Chopra also confirmed, "Yes. I am in a sequel" You should say "Chopra also confirmed the same, saying, ..." The present sentence leaves a hanging phrase.

• The info about the budget is rather misplaced in "Development". Something better, like "Release", would be fine.

• "Locations used" This has a slightly derogatory feel. I would suggest saying, "Locations featured".

• "There were traffic blocks" Repeated statement.

• "one of the wires broke that was tied to Hrithik Roshan's leg" The "broke" word is wrongly placed.

• Indian words like jadoo have to be italicized (not in the PLot though, since there its a character name).

• Some wikilinks for the technical visual effects terms would be good.

• "about five times the average for an Indian film" I doubt this sentence is necessary.

• "merchandise released prior the film" Missing "to" and it should be "film's release".

• "maximize returns" Returns is a confusing word. Use a simple word like "profits".

• "he will be making a sequel" Tense. Same for "Hrithik Roshan and Priyanka Chopra will reprise their roles,[35] and the main antagonist will be played by Vivek Oberoi.[36]"

• "it is all about Hrithik Roshan" Either change the tense, or place this in quotes.

So professional journalists can use bad tense, but we can't? Ha ha :-) BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "both said it was a good film for kids" Missing "that".

• "I sat through the film indulgently having a good time, wincing frequently at dialogue but overall quite carried away." This quote is not needed. You could make cuts like these to avoid putting undue stress on any single review (something I pointed out previously).

• "it takes too long for the action" Tense. Same for "lot of attention is spent showing off Roshan's muscles."

• Italicize Krrish wherever it comes.

• Tense again :- "hopes that this is not the future of Bollywood.", "Krrish is a hackneyed formulaic masala film". Plus the latter needs some commas.

• "He gave only 2 out of 5 stars" Missing "the film".

the film, the film, the film - I counted how many times "the film" is in the article already 27. Oh wait, its okay; I just checked Ra.One, would you believe that "the film" appears 185 times? Too much. BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ronnie Scheib of Variety said it was an" Missing "that".

• The Rotten Tomatoes rating (and a Metacritic one, if available) must come at the beginning of the section.

• " 69 crore nett gross" Nett gross? Please use only gross/only nett. Let's not confuse people more than they already are :P. Plus, extra space between ₹ and 69.

• "was classified a "blockbuster"" Missing "as".

• " BFJA - Best Actor Award (Hindi), GIFA Best Actor" change the comma to an "and".

• "won Creative Person of the Year" Make it "won the Creative Person of the Year title".

Otherwise alright. Hopefully these should be rectified quickly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Ref 4. I doubt the credibility of the source. I've found a replacement for it here, sourced from the Hindustan Times. I hope you can open it.

I cannot. Sources that require subscription are not preferred. Since it is a duplicate ref, I will delete it.

• Ref 12 is unacceptable; its a first=party source. Please find replacements.

• Ref 13. How is Live India a reliable source?

• Ref 56. How is Web India a reliable source?

• Ref 57. Reliability?

• Ref 58, first party source. Unacceptable.

• Ref 59. First party source, unacceptable.

What better source can there be about the awards that were won then the award presenter's web site? This article is not about IIFA, which would make it first party, it's about a film. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are major reference problems which must be rectified before GA passing. One small point: In the article, avoid the word "kid". Use the encyclopedic "children". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try, but will probably just have to delete the information or let you fail it. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the references are complete now. BollyJeff | talk 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• "for taking too much vacation." Sounds wrong. Please make it more encyclopedic, like: "for taking a non-permitted extension in their vacation".

• "Describing the effects, Roshan stated," Umm, could you clarify which Roshan (Rakesh/Hrithik) said this?

• "The film's soundtrack, by Rajesh Roshan," Missing "composed".

• " Salim-Sulaiman provided the background score, for which they won a Filmfare Award." If you are talking about the awards in the Accolades section, the bit here is not necessary. Please remove.

• "However, she felt that" Uh, Sukanya Verma is a she?

I think so, see here] BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "excellent special effects are as good as the best from Hollywood" Tense.

• I would ask you to seriously consider making a table version of the Accolades section. There are an adequate number of awards for that.

I will consider it, but not right this minute. BollyJeff | talk 02:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this article is ready to go. Finish this fast and it will be a GA hopefully by today. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

• Well-written

The article has good prose, and any grammar problems have been fixed. The MOS is followed throughout, and is clear in its tone.

• Factually accurate and verifiable

The content has been uniformly cited to reliable sources, and gives a number of inline citations and wikilinks to clarify the possibly technical content. The article is free from original research.

• Broad in its coverage

The article covers all the major aspects of the film, and does not deviate into unnecessary details.

• Neutral

The article is written with a fair, unbiased and balanced way, with no instances of excessive praise/criticism.

• Stable

Apart from the necessary GA review points, the article is stable and free from edit wars.

• Illustrated

Though lacking in this department, there is no content which desperately requires illustration except the poster. This point must be clarified later.

In view of the above points, I hereby pass the article as a GA. Congratulations. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krrish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111131236/http://www.krrishthemovie.com/main.htm to http://www.krrishthemovie.com/main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Krrish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607123611/http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM12/Krrish-the-superhero-is-coming/Article1-111805.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/NM12/Krrish-the-superhero-is-coming/Article1-111805.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=302&catName=Rmlyc3QgV2Vlaw%3D%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=212&catName=MjAwNg%3D%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=308&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU%3D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=312&catName=TGlmZXRpbWU%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krrish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612135713/http://businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=3167 to http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=3167

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the poster change because I found no evidence that the new poster, File:Krrish poster.jpg, was the "widely used poster for theatrical release." The current poster has been in the article for eights years without complaint, including when the article became a good article in 2009 and again in 2012 after it was delisted. It seems to be the more frequent image found in Google images and is also listed in the same source as the new poster. If a consensus can be found that the new image should be used instead, then the current one can be deleted. As such, I have reverted back to the original poster until a consensus is formed or the image is taken to WP:FFD. Aspects (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently, Aspects being a foreigner knows better about Indian films and I, being an Indian don't know which poster was widely used in cinemas? Wow! You are a genius my friend. Just because this is the "the more frequent image found in Google images"? Really? The captain in the infobox reads "Theatrical release poster" and not "the more frequent image found in Google images". A kid, who saw this movie 5 to 6 times in cinemas in three different cities, I know better than you. Plus this poster is featured heavily all over, even on the DVDs.Krish | Talk 14:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one claiming that this is the "widely used poster", so you are the one who needs to produce the evidence to gain a consensus for the change. An image used on some of the DVDs does nothing to prove it was the "widely used poster." Your other evidence, what you saw, is WP:Original research and is therefore not evidence. Since there is no consensus for the change, I am going to revert to the previous poster. Aspects (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krish!, it would have been better if you overwrote the existing poster by clicking "upload a new version", rather than upload a separate file. As for which poster is my preference, I'd say any poster which shows Krishna Mehra in his superhero outfit, and is supported by a RS. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: That is why I had uploaded this poster as it shows Krishna in his superhero avatar as well as the hs real self, with his love interest. It is obviously a love story turned superhero film and this poster was highly publicised. And, I think you are right I should have overwrote.Krish | Talk 13:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that a film's poster used in the infobox should be a theatrical poster ideally (as per Template:Infobox film) and should reflect the film's theme properly. I feel that the new upload is fine, though uploading it as a new version would have made more sense. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per this discussion, its clear that everyone agreed with me. So this poster should be in the article. Thanks everyone.Krish | Talk 05:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Krrish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130118212239/http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=2897 to http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=2897
• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/23-scribes-felicitated-with-Matri-Shree-awards/Article1-219307.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]