Talk:Shool

	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 WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Indian

	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.

Reception section

Comparing the reception sections of the two rival versions of Sid95Q^[1] and Ustadeditor2011^[2] it seems to me that Sid95Q's version is better.

Sid95Q's reception section contains both critical response and accolades. These correspond to the reception and awards sections of Ustadeditor2011's version.

The difference between Sid95Q's critical response and Ustadeditor2011's reception section is that Ustadeditor2011 deleted one of the reviews without explanation.
Sid95Q's accolades section is a neat table with citations (making it verifiable), whereas Ustadeditor2011's awards section lacks citations and has a worse format.

Unless anyone can give sensible reasons for preferring Ustadeditor2011's critical response and accolades sections I will revert that part of the article to Sid95Q's version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody objected, I have done that.^[3] -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]