This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Cinema Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comedy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Autism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Barfi! 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 April 17, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

The film contains several jokes and scenes lifted from Hollywood films especially The Notebook: The mother taking the daughter to see the man she loved but chose not to marry, based on which the daughter makes her choice. Final scene being the two lying together on a hospital bed, and talk about living life with your true love and passing away together.

Also copied are Gone, Baby, Gone's girl not having actually died idea, COPS's ladder gag, Charlie Chaplin's Adventurer and City Lights 's sleeping on the statue and door gags, Singin' In The Rain's sofa dummy gag and nose twisting gags, Mr. Bean's painting gag, Mr. Nobody's car headlights turning out to be two bikes, Homealone's using mirror reflection to find who is at the door, Project A's bicycle scene, Japanese film Kikujiro and the Bollywood film Koshish (when Barfi is unable to hear his father's screams). The scene of Barfi reading a fat naked man's newspaper is taken from a Swedish Newspaper Advertisement. This should be mentioned.

 Done. Added plagiarism paragraph along with reliable citations. Sansari13 (talk) 28 December 2012

I'm really disappointed that all sorts of blogs, user reviews and self-published sources are being used in the reception of the music section of the article. Please add reliable third party sources, else those reviews have to be deleted. Regular contributors to this page, please take notice of this and do the needful. (Although, I hardly think anyone cares a damn). —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then do it yourself.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 10:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some grammatical errors on the page (ex: two beautiful young woman in place of "women"). These need to be corrected. Octopushead (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)octopushead[reply]

Narrated by Jayati Bhatia Rish p88 (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

 Not done Please provide a reliable source confirming this fact. Electric Catfish² 18:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to split it up into these times? I thought it was simple enough with 'a few years later' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplesky91 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I guess Abhishek has framed it well enough for that usage. But I don't think the subheadings need to be appearing in the contextmenu though. Purplesky91 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my opinion is concerned for movies which walks in flashback/mutiple scenes back an forth.Its good to have separate section to give a comprehensive and understandable view.Others views please?--Sandy (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starcast: Please add Ashish Vidyarthi ... Mr. Chakraborty, Jhilmil's Father 189.174.83.239 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh freak, the references section is completely spoiled. Proper URL is missing. Comments on what to do please! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫

Well, we have only one thing to do! Re-do all the references. There is no other way, no quick fix.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah ,most of the references are spoiled i tried to correct some but they are enough but dont know who spoiled them.Do anyone have any idea.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 07:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've fixed all the remaining references.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pleasant1623 :) -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone interested in a peer review?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So soon?? Why not wait for a month more, probably??!?? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's too soon. Let the article grow some more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked that anyone is interested in a peer review, that didn't meant to do the peer review now. OK, let's wait.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 1 month, so can we start the peer review process?----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Casting" and "Filming" sections are very small, and it needs a lot of expansion. Comments on what to do please!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 08:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"his relationship with two girls (Shruti and Jhilmil; who is autistic). " Who is autistic?

 Done

References

• Please be consistent with linking publishers. I'd link each one or link none at all.

 Done - Linked all the publishers name to maintain consistency.Prashant talk 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5. What makes Bollywood Celebden a reliable source?

 Done - Removed.

• Ref 37. HIghbeam is not the publisher please add Hindustan Times, accessed by HighBeam Research

 Done

• Ref 47. What makes Flipkart a reliable source?

Yes, Flipkart.com is a notable source, like Amazon or eBay.Prashant talk 02:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 71 Check Boc.

 Done

Seems to be of GA quality. I'd have expected to see one or two negative reviews, are you certain it was universally well-received?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barfi! has received unanimous critical acclaim. I'm unable to find any negative review.Prashant talk 04:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some mixed reviews, though. Will replace to "generally positive".----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 05:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 05:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reviews? Please document them. Also if you want access to any of the articles on Barfi HighBeam research I'll email them to you unless you have access yourself. I spot some on production and I think some of the sources could be used to further improve this before I pass.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so....there are any. Using Generaly doesn't prove that. Also, Rotten Tomatoes and ReviewGang proves that it was a critical success. I think the reviews which gave the film three stars are kind of average. So, its neutral.Prashant talk 14:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one. ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay added that review.Prashant talk 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film insists too hard that we find the magical in the mundane. "♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Barfi! is facing a lot of flak.
• Whilst the slow moving story may annoy those who prefer punchy dialogue and vibrant visuals, this could very well be the arty favourite of discerning movie goers.
• Award-winning director Karan Johar said 'Barfi!' has corroded his thinking processes
• Basu's biggest achievement by far is in his refusal to mine disability for sympathetic response, avoiding both the pitfalls of caricature and outright pity
• "Films like Barfi! don't rate high on TV.

These all things are mentioned in the article.Prashant talk 03:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• "Though the film script Basu wrote alternated between two time periods, he retained the non-linear narration.". What is the difference? alternating between two or three time periods is what is meant by non-linear story telling. If there is no difference, why use "though" and "retained"?

• "In June 2010, Anurag Basu confirmed that his film ..." Why suddenly wikilink Anurag Basu?
• "As with former titles like Khamoshi or Silence, media reports said the story was grim or dark" Could not understand anything? What former titles? The film was speculated to have those titles? Or, were they earlier films made by Basu? Have to explain here.
• "As with former titles like Khamoshi or Silence, media reports said the story was grim or dark. However, Basu stated that on the contrary, the film was happy and commercial" Ok, happy is in contrast with grim or dark; but what is "commercial" contrary to?
• " Buster Keaton" : a small descriptor is needed. Not everyone knows who he was.
• "...Ranbir Kapoor and Katrina Kaif were signed to play lead roles in the film, then titled Khamoshi and Silence, which Basu confirmed" The tile, at that point, was "Khamoshi and Silence"? Or, both Khamoshi and Silence? How can it have two titles?
• "Basu wanted to cast a new girl from Kolkata for the autistic part" Perhaps autistic character would be more suitable.
• "However, Basu feared that audience would see "the Priyanka Chopra" and not the character due to Chopra's Stardom" Citation needed. Why "s" in stardom in capital?
• Any quotation needs citation.
• "After three days of workshop, Basu was convinced that Chopra is the best choice for the autistic part" For such strong word use, you'd need proper support from the source. The source, in this case, says, "but after the first three days, we were both sure that she should play Jhilmil." That does not mean Basu thought she was the best choice. He thought she should play the role. That's it.
• "However, the casting confusions significantly delayed the filming schedule..." This however is not needed.
• "..., forcing Basu to opt for a completely new fresh face..." In this case, "a new face" is sufficient.
• " Roopa Ganguly was also reported to have been signed for an important supporting role" Why do we need this "reported to have"? We already know she had a part!--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dwaipayan. Good listing. Yes, I must say it's necessary for its.FAC.Prashant 03:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the extend of plagiarism in the movie Barfi!, many Indian Media publications wrote articles about it. And even TV news channels had telecasted shows abut the plagiarism in that movie. Many bloggers had blogged about the same. Also, Youtube videos were created about it. So I thought there should be a "criticism(controversy)" section in the article on Wikipedia.

Few days back I edited the article and added a "criticism" section. The section was deleted by User:Pleasant1623 without any notice/talk. Anyway, he had mentioned the reason as "Sorry, already mentioned" in his edit. So I gathered all the mentions of the criticism(controversy) from different sections within the article and wrote a better criticism section. I thought this will satisfy the needs, since the complain was about things being repeated. Then again he undid my edits (calling the action as a minor edit) and wrote "Since the controversy column is small, there is no need to create a separate section" as an explanation and also he warned me for unconstructive edits.

So I left a talk in his talk page asking for how big should the controversy column be so it gets its own section?" Since then he hasn't replied to me.

So, Here I am inviting your opinions about the inclusion of the "criticism" section. Thanks --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty straight opinion: let the column stay in the Marketing and release section. But yes, you can create a section about the controversy, but please keep all the sentences in the column intact while merging it to Controversy. Regards,----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 12:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so i will add a new section. Will invite your views/comments. --Sumitsinha lko (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're late. I've already made a sub-section about the controversy----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Sumitsinha lko (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the posting on WP:3O. Third Opinion is available to assist editors who are engaged in a dispute. A thorough discussion is required. The discussion should be at a standstill/impasse. Such is not the case here. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]