Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2012: Difference between revisions
Add 1 |
Add 3 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
== December 2012 == |
== December 2012 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia grossa/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Terang Boelan/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauritius Blue Pigeon/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Gilligan/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Gilligan/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vidya Balan/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vidya Balan/archive1}} |
Revision as of 15:40, 4 December 2012
December 2012
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 4 December 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This makes the 22nd nomination for featured article of Banksia species. It came together well and is comprehensive as can be apart from one record about a bee pollinator which is proving elusive (and may be an unusable pers. comm.) Anyway, it's short and I'm around. Have at it..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Maky:
"Visitors to inflorescences" – Wouldn't "pollinators" be simpler, especially for the lead?
- Good point - I've been careful to reflect the sources. We know they are likely pollinators..actually I'll put that in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead only mentions one mammalian pollinator, whereas the "Ecology" section mentions that species and several (other) dasyurid marsupials.
- the other species visit other banksia species elsewhere. Only one has been confirmed for this species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems a little short given the wealth of information contained in the article. It doesn't need significant expansion, but some more interesting details that could be included are details about the flowers (i.e. when the bloom, etc.), a very general overview of the taxonomy/phylogeny, etc...
- added a bit -the phylogeny gets a bit complicated so hard to see which fragments can be added that add any value on their own Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link first mention of series
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
link to Abietinae occurs long after it's first mention
- fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No caption for File:Banksia grossa.jpg or File:Banksia grossa 6 nofbadgingarra orig.JPG?
- something's happened to the formatting there....fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not typical (for plant articles) to include the distribution map in the taxobox rather than in the body of the text?
- I've usually up them in the taxobox for animals and fungi, I think I've just followed on from older Banksia FAs when we stuck them in the distribution section.....not fussed either way...did have a mild concern that it makes the taxobox pretty long... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. I did not do a source check. – Maky « talk » 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check good – All images with suitable licenses and descriptions. – Maky « talk » 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support by Choess: I was GA reviewer on this article. I edit many articles about plants, although generally not Australian flora, and I'm a reasonably skilled amateur botanist from eastern North America. I anticipated that this would go to FA, and tried to give close attention to the prose when I did my GA review. I tried to spotcheck, but I don't have easy access to most of the sources.
While I do understand botanical language reasonably well, I'm not personally familiar with banksias. I felt that the description gave me a good sense of the plant and what it would look like if I ran across one (subject to a few caveats below). As a sort-of-expert, the taxonomy section was clear to me: I can understand why George and Thiele & Ladiges made the placements they did, and why Mast's phylogeny gave different results.
A few things occur to me on re-reading:
- A slightly more extensive description of the flowers would be nice. It doesn't need too much detail—to some extent it's covered by Banksia, and that needn't be repeated in extenso—but it isn't clear from reading what the flower shape is. (It looks tubular from the photos.) We jump right from "color" to the styles without really describing the rest of the perianth.
- tried to expand a bit - better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The leaf margins are described as "linear". I would associate that term with leaf shape; I'd expect an untoothed margin to be simply described as "entire" (or "without teeth", to be less jargon-y).
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a little harder to picture the seeds. Is there an illustration of a generic Banksia seed available? I'm trying to picture the wedge-shaped seeds with wings and a woody separator between them and not succeeding particularly well.- Linked seed separator, so this is taken care of. Choess (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have to go now, but I'll see if I can add more material later. Choess (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support, with a few minor comments below. I can testify in particular to criterion 1c: article is a thorough survey of the relevant literature.
- "Many stems rise from a woody lignotuber." Should this read "Its many stems...", with reference to the shrub in the previous sentence? As it stands, it's not clear whether it means that, or that many, but not all, of all Banksia grossa stems arise from a lignotuber.
- changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "At anthesis the flowers produce unusually large quantities of nectar...": Unusual in comparison to what?
- well, most other flowers...but the word doesn't add anything that isn't covered by "large" or "copious" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The auricles are 2 mm long." The auricles of what? The cotyledons?
- yes. tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first paragraph of "Ecology", make clear what effect animals eating seeds will have on reseeding. "Resprouting plants benefit more from longer intervals": benefit more than what?
- yes. tweaked both. It is the populations that benefit by there being more seed.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Choess (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim Usual thorough job, so just a few mini-nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed one overlink of the common word "nectar"
- and were the basis of its species name — "are"?
- changed to present tense Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found in sand or sand over laterite among heath — reads oddly to a Brit, perhaps amongst heath on sandy soil, or sand overlying laterite — feel free to ignore, I don't much like my version either
- Reads fine to me....maybe I've been reading too many botanical texts.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Flowering occurs over the cooler months of March to September. — "in" or "throughout", rather than "over"
- changed preposition Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 8 follicles — I think MoS is to spell out the number
- changed to word Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The woody separator — I'm not sure what we are talking about here, is this the woody central column?
- it's a tiny disc-shaped piece of wood that has the silhouette of the seed, and splits two seed. All three are in the follicle. I will think how to reword... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The inflorescences... — overuse of "recorded in this para
- verbs diversified Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very strong. A few quick comments-
- "entire and inrolled" Jargony.
- de-jargonised Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "styles loosely curling around the infructescence (although this trait was reversed in micrantha)," Can you refer to species by specific name only?
- whoops/fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we perhaps have some "for instance"s in the pollinators section?
- were you thinking of anywhere in particular as no spots jumped out at me at first glance Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The purpose of coloured nectar is unclear, especially as many pollinators appear to be insects or nocturnal mammals." Perhaps explain why these statements are linked?
- rejigged - hopefully clearer Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence in the article has no cited reference.
- whoops/added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, great. I made a few tiny tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very good article. I'm not familiar with the scientific/botanical language used to describe plants, but was generally able to make sense of the more technical parts of the article. I have the following comments and suggestions:
- "it was described as a distinct species in 1981" - I presume that this is the technical way of saying that it was first formally classified in 1981. Is there a more reader-friendly translation of this term which could be used?
- "it grows as a many-stemmed shrub to 1 m (3 ft) high " - the first para of the 'Description' section states that the size of the plants can differ, so this wording seems overly specific
- I'm not sure I follow - in the lead? I think some idea is good as technically shrubs can be up to 4 or 5 metres tall in some definitions, or as short as prostrate ground covers. Hence some sort of number to immediately give the reader a picture is good. The shrub usually grows to 1 m but occasionally 1.5 m, so was deliberating about the number to use. Is this what you meant? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "though some flower spikes are terminal" - is there a less technical way of expressing this?
- added parenthesised bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Around 40% of plants occur on road verges." - do the sources offer an explanation for this? Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not with this but the situation is this - much of the land has been cleared for agriculture, so there are often strips of native vegetation between the road and field boundary which harbour rare and unusual plants. However these are vulnerable to things like road widening by councils etc. and weeds. Anyway, many many discussions on plants from WA touch on this. I'd have to find a different source to elaborate, or link it somewhere and discuss there with a general statement. I will think about it Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A general statement would do the job if its fairly common for WA plant species. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- aha! Road_verge#Rural_roadsides....nice link Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That works, but dedicated text would be better if sources ever discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- aha! Road_verge#Rural_roadsides....nice link Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A general statement would do the job if its fairly common for WA plant species. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not with this but the situation is this - much of the land has been cleared for agriculture, so there are often strips of native vegetation between the road and field boundary which harbour rare and unusual plants. However these are vulnerable to things like road widening by councils etc. and weeds. Anyway, many many discussions on plants from WA touch on this. I'd have to find a different source to elaborate, or link it somewhere and discuss there with a general statement. I will think about it Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes
- Didn't see a source check above. Going through them myself, I see no reliability issues but there is some inconsistent formatting:
- Some page ranges have "p."/"pp.", others don't (I prefer to see the "p."/"pp.").
- it's been the convention to have books with the 'p's and journals not to. I've just followed the templates, so rather than tweak them for this article alone I think it's better to look at referencing globally as all my other FAs are like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some retrieval dates are in day-month-year, others yyyy-mm-dd (much prefer the former). I realise these inconsistencies may be arise from using different citation templates, but there's usually ways around those.
- changed to words. the old formatted one was a relic and has been removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, no-one noticed that Western Australia is linked twice in the lead? Actually, I'd suggest leave the second instance as is and change "south west Western Australia" (a mouthful and more granularity than necessary in the first sentence) to a single direct link to Southwest Australia.
- ok, done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not getting back sooner; tks for your responses/actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 4 December 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a short (but solid!) look at a film very few of our readers have ever heard of. Terang Boelan was the most commercially successful film produced and released in the Dutch East Indies, what is now Indonesia. Although its casting process didn't feature a car chase like Balink's earlier film Pareh, it did feature singing by future National Hero Ismail Marzuki. The film has been lost since the 1970s (at least) and as such the plot section is reliant on advertising material from the period, reprinted in two of the sources. I look forward to addressing any comments, and if passed this will likely be our first FA on an early non-Hollywood production. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All the issues I raised have been addressed or explained, either below or now moved to the talk page, so I'm pleased to support this. It's well-written and interesting, and I enjoyed reading it. The only thing I should mention again is that I can't read the Indonesian-language sources, and they are the main sources (Biran, Said, Esha et al, and Anwar), but I'm happy to trust what Crisco says about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi Crisco, I enjoyed reading this. A few points:
- (Note to delegates: some copy-editing comments that were here have been moved to the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Citations: Citation style is consistent so far as I can see, except that Foreign Exchange, NYT doesn't have its date in brackets, but the others do. Personally I'm not keen on multiple footnotes after sentences, or footnotes inside sentences, because it makes the text untidy. It's up to you what citation style you use, but maybe you would consider bundling some citations, esp when there are three in a row, or moving some footnotes to the end of sentences.
- Hmm, I'll merge them. All the references use the cite family of templates, so any differences are intrinsic to said templates (the NYT source uses cite news, while the others are cite book and cite journal). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merger completed, now no sentence has double footnotes — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks a lot better, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources: I can't check Biran, the most widely used source, because it's in Indonesian, as are Said, Esha et al, and Anwar. The other sources seem fine: Van der Heide expresses the confluence-of-influence issue well on p. 128; I wonder if the article could make that point more clearly. Foreign Exchange, NYT is a dead link.
- The NYT FX link is working for me, it's just a subscription-required link. I'll double check Van der Heide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get "Page Removed. We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd. Perhaps it's area specific? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Must be. It's a minor issue (the exchange rate) anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a sentence clarifying the "indigenisation" concept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: Could use some alt text; alt=photograph, or alt=poster, is fine. The main image, File:Terang Boelan p311.jpg -- the copyright issue looks fine to me. It's one of those claims of PD that relies on it having been PD elsewhere at a particular time, and they are complex. Crisco, I see you've discussed it here on Commons. The second image, File:A Wong Brother KR 30 April 1947.jpg, would look better inside one of the sections, rather than straddling them. I can't tell whether it's PD; it was first published in 1947, so again it's complex. The third image, File:Siti Akbari postcard 1.jpg, I would have claimed fair use for, but it may indeed be PD according to the rules cited on the page, I don't know. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified the PD-ness. It's like Poland: copyright protection was extended after the URAA, meaning that it stayed PD in the US. I agree that copyright in these situations is complex. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem familiar with these rules, so it's fine as far as I'm concerned. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead: Some concerns about how clear this would be to someone with no knowledge of the geography and history. The lead doesn't say what language "Terange Bolean" is. It doesn't give the nationalities of the people mentioned. It says it was shot in the Dutch East Indies and Singapore, was aimed at native audiences (native linked to native Indonesians, but not explained in the text), and that it earned a certain amount in British Malaya. This revived the film industry in the colony (British Malaya?), and inspired native-oriented movies there (the same "native" referent as above?). Is there a way of writing this without making the reader work hard to follow where it's all happening, but without being so detailed that the lead gets bogged down? I added a suggested edit here (and reverted myself), but it still left a few things unclear that I wasn't sure I could explain properly without introducing errors.
- Generally, I think it would help if you could go through the article and try to read it through the eyes of a reader who knows nothing about this. For example, "Biran considered the film a turning point in the history of Indonesian cinema, showing the possibilities of the medium ...". Why was it a turning point, which possibilities did it show to whom (other filmmakers, audiences?), and in what ways did it achieve that, as opposed to Pareh, i.e. what exactly was special about this film? If you could go through the article checking for issues like that, I think it would help. None of the sentences or paragraphs should leave attentive, but uninformed, readers puzzled. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try and do that but, regarding your example, there are a couple issues. First, we have articles on most of the major figures behind this film (Balink, the Wongs, Franken, Saeroen [fl. beginning in the 1920s, not born, btw], Mochtar, Roekiah...) so birth and death dates are not necessary for most readers. Those who are interested could easily click through. Secondly, I am not sure conflating Indonesia's independence with Singapore works as Singapore likely would never have been included in the country. Third, I'm not sure of the value of indicating what language Terang Boelan comes from, as it can be made implicit by saying that it is from the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia); none of our current FAs on Indonesian films say that the title is Indonesian. Much of the wording is nice, however, and I'll add it.
- Here are my changes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, I think it would help if you could go through the article and try to read it through the eyes of a reader who knows nothing about this. For example, "Biran considered the film a turning point in the history of Indonesian cinema, showing the possibilities of the medium ...". Why was it a turning point, which possibilities did it show to whom (other filmmakers, audiences?), and in what ways did it achieve that, as opposed to Pareh, i.e. what exactly was special about this film? If you could go through the article checking for issues like that, I think it would help. None of the sentences or paragraphs should leave attentive, but uninformed, readers puzzled. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good. The only thing there I'm not keen on is "However, complaints have been targeted at the later films which followed Terang Boelan's formula without modification." It sticks out as a little disjointed. First, it's not about the film, I don't think complaints are targeted at things, and "without modification" could be expressed differently. I think the sentence should be removed, or rewritten and filled out a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. I considered replacing it with the fact that the industry grew rapidly afterwards, but we already have that earlier in the paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think each article should stand alone as a summary of the topic, rather than relying on readers to click through, which most won't. Regarding birth and death dates, it's standard in encyclopaedia articles to do that on first reference (for the deceased, anyway; I don't know whether it's also done for the living -- I would have to check). It's up to you, and no one can insist on it, but it does help the uninformed reader to orient herself -- otherwise it's just a mass of names (Smith did this, Jones did that, McDonald did the next), and when the names are not English ones it's even harder for an English speaker to keep track). Anything that helps the reader to pinpoint the name and remember it when it next appears (dates, description) is good. But I won't go on about it; it's up to you.
I would say you do need to say which language Terang Boelan is in; nothing is implicit for a reader who's not familiar with that region. You give the literal translation in English, but you don't say which language it's translated from, and that sticks out as an omission. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... "Indonesian for Bright Moon"? (drop the literally)
- Yes, that's good. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the issues we're facing here is that the sources expect a certain level of familiarity from the readers, thus allowing them to draw conclusions for themselves. To the best of my recollection, Biran does not explicitly state why The chose action and mythological films (it's implied that he worked with what he knew, one, that his films were targeted at Chinese audiences [who also wanted what they knew], two, and that both genres could be worked with fairly cheaply). Because of our policy against original research, explicitly stating what is left between the lines in the sources is a Catch-22: without such statements readers may lack knowledge to understand the issue as well as they could, but with such statements the article would fall afoul of the policy.
- I could give a bit more about Pareh, for example, which can be supported by sources. However, I think it's a little tangential to talk about the casting difficulties that production faced. Its budget and that The Teng Chun targeted native audiences afterwards may be useful. I've tried to define the key terms which may not be clicked through, like "keroncong (traditional music with Portuguese influences)" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take the point about OR; yes, I've come up against the same issue. It can sometimes we worked out. For example, some sentences can be written so that there's no suggestion of a gap in understanding, e.g. "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies were produced by The Teng Chun, who focused on low-budget, but popular, films based on Chinese mythology or martial arts." That makes it clearer that this is just what he did (forget why). But next sentence: "This situation ..." makes it sounds as though he was doing this (focusing on Chinese mythology) because of the Great Depression. So you need to go through the article looking for things like that -- gaps in understanding, or wording that gives the impression of a gap where there isn't one. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope my recent edits could have addressed the issues of the background. I'm going to campus now, so I'll continue working on this later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's excellent. Now it's very clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified some of it and left notes for further developments when I get home. I may be blind to further things which are unclear to those without background knowledge (admittedly common in academia) so I would appreciate any further suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Got those notes I made earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take the point about OR; yes, I've come up against the same issue. It can sometimes we worked out. For example, some sentences can be written so that there's no suggestion of a gap in understanding, e.g. "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies were produced by The Teng Chun, who focused on low-budget, but popular, films based on Chinese mythology or martial arts." That makes it clearer that this is just what he did (forget why). But next sentence: "This situation ..." makes it sounds as though he was doing this (focusing on Chinese mythology) because of the Great Depression. So you need to go through the article looking for things like that -- gaps in understanding, or wording that gives the impression of a gap where there isn't one. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaks:
- Better to say the film targeted, or was aimed at, not was targeted at. "Was aimed at" is best.
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful with "... Terang Boelan was partially inspired by the 1936 Hollywood film The Jungle Princess. The film, shot in the Indies and Singapore ..." Sounds like Jungle Princess was shot in ...
- Reworded — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya, several of which stuck closely to ..." (instead of semi-colon)
- Changed to a period. Both are stand-alone clauses, so I don't think a comma would be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The way you've done it is fine: " This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya. Several of the films which followed stuck closely to ..." But a comma and "several of which" would be fine too: "This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya, several of which stuck closely to ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reordered again. I avoided saying "several of which" as I was worried it would be understood to mean that the films in the Indies did not follow the formula, but those in Malaya did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I see what you mean. I like the way you've done it now. Suggestion: "... romance which was followed for decades afterwards" is fine, but "romance that was followed for decades afterwards" would be better. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like your suggestion included that, so done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the turning point issue being clarified? (I assume it's that a film industry emerged after this film, but it's not 100 percent clear.)
- Having double checked the source, it appears he is referring to boom in productions following Terang Boelan. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you wrote is good, but needs a tweak: "catalytic effect on ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " though targeted at ethnic Chinese" --> although aimed at ethnic Chinese
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "As such, during this period cinemas ..." --> As a result, during this period ... And actually I would lose "during this period" because it's implied.
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Teng Chun was only able to continue his work as his films often played to full theatres" --> "The Teng Chun was able to continue his work only because his films often played to full theatres."
- Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The film cost several times as much as a regular local production ..." Do we know why?
- It's explained in more detail at the Pareh article. Gave a much shorter version here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The film cost several times as much as a regular local production, owing in part to Balink's perfectionism ..." I would say "in part because of Balink's" SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... Armijn Pane wrote that Pareh was seen as looking at the native population of the Indies only through European eyes, which native audiences considered a large fault." Not wrong, but could use a tweak. "... which its native audience did not appreciate," "which did not go down well with its native audience," or something like that.
- SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not could not (who knows whether they could) but did not -- "which native audiences did not appreciate." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead again: copyediting has produced a repetitive structure: "Starring Rd. Mochtar ..., it followed .... Written by Saeroen ..., Terang Boelan was partially inspired ... Shot in the Indies and Singapore, Terang Boelan was aimed at ..." It could use some tweaking to smooth out the flow. Sorry if I'm torturing you. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted a suggestion, which I think is a bit smoother. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the lead still confusing regarding place names? We have that Terang Boelan is Indonesian for Bright Moon, that the film was shot in the Indies and Singapore, and that by native audience we mean native Indonesians. Then we have that it was a commercial success in British Malaya, that it revived the industry in the Indies, inspired movies in Malaya, and the infobox says the film's language was Malay. Is there a way to smooth this out so readers don't have to click around? Even a map in the background section might help. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We also note on the first instance of "Dutch East Indies" that it is what is now Indonesia. I added another bit of clarification after the commercial success bit. I've also changed the infobox to say Indonesian, which is how the film was advertised and how the Indonesians referred the language. Whether it was truly a separate language by then is something for the linguists to argue. Oh yeah, changed the second native to "Malay" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the lead still confusing regarding place names? We have that Terang Boelan is Indonesian for Bright Moon, that the film was shot in the Indies and Singapore, and that by native audience we mean native Indonesians. Then we have that it was a commercial success in British Malaya, that it revived the industry in the Indies, inspired movies in Malaya, and the infobox says the film's language was Malay. Is there a way to smooth this out so readers don't have to click around? Even a map in the background section might help. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco, I've moved some of the early copy-editing comments to the talk page to reduce clutter, but feel free to move them back if you prefer to keep them here. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... because Mochtar was unable to perform, the musician Ismail Marzuki – who also composed the film's score – sang while Mochtar lip synced." Mochtar didn't have a good singing voice, or something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "because Mochtar's voice was ill-suited to the task," to make it clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's clear now. SlimVirgin (talk)
- I posted some suggestions for the Background section, the Release and reception section, and the Legacy section.
- I have reviewed these changes and reverted some. My rationale follows:
- "go down well" is rather idiomatic and non-formal. I've replaced it with a third option
- Kota, Jakarta, is the old Batavia, as in several hundred years ago. By the time Terang Boelan was released Batavia had expanded to, at the very least, what is now Gambir.
- The source doesn't support that he was angered, instead it states "sangat kecewa" ("very disappointed"). I've changed it to the latter.
- Otherwise they are all peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Works cited: Minor thing -- you start with the author where there is one, and the title where there isn't. You might want to consider starting with the publisher where there's no author. So The New York Times would be under N, or under T if you prefer, rather than under F for "foreign exchange": The New York Times (8 June 1938). "Foreign Exchange" (subscription required). That's just a suggestion. I do think it's a bigger issue (in terms of consistency) that you sometimes don't have the date in brackets. Can you use a template throughout that writes the dates the same way? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any templates are available that put the publisher first. Even in my offline work I keep the titles first. I've tried to get the NYT source to have the date in brackets using several different templates, but it's all failed so far
- Okay about the titles first; that's a preference issue. As for dates, I don't use templates, but I thought the newspaper templates put dates in brackets. Perhaps not. If there's no way round it, it can't be helped. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim Fascinating article about a subject about which I know nothing. A few tiny nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rd Mochtar — not sure why he's not given his full first name here, or why the initial should be "Rd" rather than just "R"
- "Raden" is actually a Javanese honourific, not a given name. His given name was simply Mochtar. He was generally credited as Rd Mochtar, which is why the article is there and why his name is written as such (Rd Ariffien, as mentioned in Berdjoang, is another example). If you think it confuses the issue, I'll be glad to drop the Rd or add a footnote explaining this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hollywood film The Jungle Princess. — I'd put a comma after film, but ignore if you prefer as is
- I'll take the second choice there. It reads more easily without the comma IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kasim (Rd. Mochtar), and revealed to be an opium dealer, — not sure that we need the wikilinks so soon after the first mention in the lead, especially as neither is an obscure technical term
- Regarding the name link, it appears to be common in film FAs (compare Ruma Maida and ?, or Manhunter for one not by me); I think it has something to do with the practice of applying WP:LINK to the lead and body separately. Agree about opium, so I've removed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- director The Teng Chun. — I'd put a comma after director, but ignore if you prefer as is
- Per point #2. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- as a regular local production, — The article seems to be in BE, usage of "regular" here is more like AE
- How's "as usual for a local production"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Franken opened the Batavia- (now Jakarta-) based Dutch Indies Film Syndicate (Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, or ANIF). — clunky, what about Franken opened the Dutch Indies Film Syndicate (Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, or ANIF) in Batavia, (now Jakarta).
- Agree, done (with a few minor typographical changes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawaii — link? It's not a country
- Fair enough, although OhConfucius' tool delinks it automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and I'm glad you found the subject interesting. I think I got all of your points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning support: I reviewed this article at GA, where it already looked good. A fascinating article, as usual. Although my subject knowledge is growing with each of these articles, I'm still extremely unknowledgeable on the topic so my (minor) comments are mainly limited to prose, where there are a couple of clunky parts. But excellent work overall, and this explains the subject (and its background) extremely well. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This revived the faltering domestic film industry…": "This" is slightly ambiguous. Was it the success which caused the revival or the amount of money earned?
- Yep, added "success" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "inspired films targeted towards Malay audiences": Not sure about targeted towards; what about "inspired films which targeted…"?
- Looks like SlimVirgin got this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He then begins fighting with Musa. When it looks as if he will lose the fight, he is saved by Dullah, who had followed him back to Sawoba.": This limps along a bit, particularly the first part, where "then" and "with" seem superfluous. And repetition of "fight" in the second sentence.
- I trimmed a bit, although I'm not too sure about this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As written, the plot section seems to suggest that the villagers just spontaneously changed their minds. What convinced them? The fight? Kasim's words? Dullah's arrival?
- He tells them of Musa's dealings in opium, which is haraam. Added "to his side" after "rallies the villagers". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "His low-budget yet popular films were mostly based on Chinese mythology or martial arts…": Not sure about this phrasing. Perhaps: "Many of his low-budget yet popular films were based on…" or "His low budget but popular films were mainly inspired by…"
- The second one is nice. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
- "As a result, cinemas in the colony mainly showed Hollywood productions, while the domestic industry nearly died out…": Perhaps "and the domestic industry declined/decayed/suffered"
- Decayed sounds good — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The film cost several times as much as usual for a local production": Can we be more precise here? And maybe "several times more than an average local production".
- It cost 75,000 gulden, although Biran doesn't give a figure for the "average" domestic production. I chose this rather than a specific number because it makes the point much more much more succinctly: the price was astronomical for the time, hence why those involved were bankrupted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Indonesian writer and cultural critic Armijn Pane wrote that Pareh was seen as looking at the native population of the Indies through European eyes, which was poorly received by its native audiences": Maybe "…wrote that native audiences were unhappy that, in their view, Pareh examined the native population of the Indies through European eyes." But there is a rather uncomfortable "native … native" but I can't find a better way to phrase it.
- Changed to "had performed poorly with native audiences as it was seen as looking at them through European eyes," which avoids the native ... native issue — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think "as it was seen" is a little convoluted, but not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and resulted in a less ethnological approach.": This is rather ambiguous.
- Added "attempting to show them not from a European perspective but as they viewed themselves" to the sentence just before that
- "The cast of Terang Boelan mostly consisted of actors who had appeared in Pareh": Perhaps "mainly" rather than "mostly"
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Terang Boelan made its premier in 1937…": Maybe just "premiered"?
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "or the application of a national understanding of borrowed concepts": While I understand the thrust of this, I'm not sure about "national understanding" here.
- D'oh, that should be "to", not "of". How's "sensibilities"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "both in the Indies and internationally": Based on the information here, internationally is stretching it. Only one other place is mentioned, and internationally suggests worldwide.
- Made more specific. I haven't found evidence of release outside Malaya. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the studio's cameramen, an Indo man named Steffens,[c] suggested that ANIF's management preferred works of non-fiction as a more intellectual medium": What makes this cameraman an authority, particularly if his first name is unknown?
- I found his initials (not much more help, sadly) and the direct source: Steffens, who worked for the company around the time, was interviewed (possibly by Biran, although he doesn't indicate this) in 1973. I'm assuming Steffens was chosen as, at the time, many of those involved had become untraceable; the actual backers do not seem to have been available. If you think Steffens' opinions are not valid, I'll comment them out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think it's OK if that is all there is. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "led to an exponential increase": Literally?
- 1937: 2 films, 1938: 3 films, 1939: 5 films, 1940: 14 films, 1941: 30 films. "Drastic" or "dramatic" increase, at the very least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "but suggested that copies of the film may have survived until the 1970s.": Does he give any evidence for this opinion?
- The preview cuts off before he can go in further detail, if any. Perhaps outside of Indonesia this has more of a preview? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No such luck! I can't see it either. A pity, and worth including if anyone can ever get hold of it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (I think I raised something similar at GA) I'm assuming that this article includes everything that is available, but just for form's sake, some last questions (to which you can answer: sorry, nothing in the sources!): Any dates/details on filming? Any critical commentary on the actual film (rather than its influence or significance)? Why was it so popular (we say why other films failed; why did this one succeed?)? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing further indicated in the sources, except that the formula went over particularly well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A thorough, impressive piece of work. More than happy to support now. (NB: I also reviewed at GA, where I did a limited spot-check of sources, which were fine). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I reviewed this one during its peer review, was quite happy with it it then and the subsequent GA process and above comments have only improved it further. As side notes, previews for the elusive source above don't work in Ireland either; and I'm an active member of WP:FILM, the scope of which includes this article. GRAPPLE X 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Grapple (I should probably formally join the project, eh? This will make
fourfive film FAs if passed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Grapple (I should probably formally join the project, eh? This will make
Support Comments:
I'd just like to point out that you use "the" when introducing people in instances like "the American-educated Chinese-Indonesian director The Teng Chun" and "the Dutch documentarian Mannus Franken." Is it necessary? I'm asking this because it makes the wording sound a bit clunky. Simply "...had been made by American-educated Chinese-Indonesian director The Teng Chun" sounds smoother, although you are free to disagree.
- That has been my style in (almost?) all my solo FACs so far, be they film or other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...also returns to his Sawoba and rallies the villagers to his side by telling them of Musa's opium dealings." – why "his Sawoba"?
- Dur, that's left over from "his hometown". Good catch! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In an attempt to show that locally produced, well-made films could be profitable, the Dutch journalist Albert Balink, who had no formal film experience,[4] produced Pareh (Rice) in 1935, working with the ethnic Chinese filmmakers the Wong brothers (Othniel and Joshua) and the Dutch documentarian Mannus Franken." – instead of breaking the sentence up, maybe a nicer-flowing "...produced Pareh (Rice) in 1995 in collaboration with..." perhaps?—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds okay, done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with the responses. Great work on the article. It was an enjoyable read. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Penguin! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief look from SandyGeorgia;
- I see the query above from Sarastro1 about the use of "exponential" (increase), and the response; I continue to question the use of the term. The author's response amounts to original research; how do the sources characterize the increase? If they don't call it anything, we shouldn't be characterizing it at all, much less with such a dramatic term (original research), and in a way that readers are likely to have the same reaction that Sarastro1 and I had (since nothing is provided to back that up, and the claim raises eyebrows). Please provide a direct quote from the sources to justify that adjective-- or any adjective. An alternative would just be to drop the original research adjective and give the numbers as you did in the response above.
- As this point has been raised several times I've trimmed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote, if you think the article's better with an adjective, is "... pada tahun 1938 film Terang Boelan tiba-tiba membuat ledakan. Dunia film telah menemukan resep yang bisa digemari oleh setiap penonton. Pembuatan film mendadak ramai dilakukan dengan menggunakan resep Terang Boelan." (Biran, p. 25) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for removing exponential; if we are to use an adjective, please translate the quote to English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... in 1938 the film Terang Boelan suddenly caused an explosion. The film industry had found a recipe which could be well received by every viewer. The industry suddenly became filled (also, crowded) with productions following Terang Boelan's recipe." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "explosive" for the adjective then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it, but I would probably put it in scare quotes as it is being used figuratively. However, earlier SV disagreed with the scare quotes (the discussion is on the talk page now, I think) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "explosive" for the adjective then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "... in 1938 the film Terang Boelan suddenly caused an explosion. The film industry had found a recipe which could be well received by every viewer. The industry suddenly became filled (also, crowded) with productions following Terang Boelan's recipe." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for removing exponential; if we are to use an adjective, please translate the quote to English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote, if you think the article's better with an adjective, is "... pada tahun 1938 film Terang Boelan tiba-tiba membuat ledakan. Dunia film telah menemukan resep yang bisa digemari oleh setiap penonton. Pembuatan film mendadak ramai dilakukan dengan menggunakan resep Terang Boelan." (Biran, p. 25) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As this point has been raised several times I've trimmed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:RED-- are our articles on Indonesian topics really so well developed that this article has no red links? For example, why isn't Pemandangan redlinked? There are others. Anything that meets notability and could be an article should be redlinked.
- WP:REDLINK states that we should only create redlinks to "articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles." There are several terms that could be redlinked, including E. T. Effendi, Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, Pemandangan, Salim Said, and Fatima. However, they should not be linked as none of them fulfill the automatic notability criteria, I currently have no intention on creating them (not to say I won't, it's always possible), and they are not quite "technical terms". This thus fulfills the current guidelines, although I won't force the issue if you insist on redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper does not meet notability? How long was it in publication? Is it still in publication? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It may meet notability, but notability is not guaranteed. It closed in 1942, thus finding sources would be a pickle (haven't found when it opened). Those which I am fairly certain could support articles (although they are not inherently notable) are ANIF (although most of my sources discussing the company focus on Balink), Sallim Said (although right now I only have his biography in his books; his family name makes finding sources a nightmare), and Fatima (for reasons implied in the current Terang Boelan article). E. T. Effendi might, as he acted in six films and directed one, but I've yet to find any biographical information on him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper does not meet notability? How long was it in publication? Is it still in publication? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:REDLINK states that we should only create redlinks to "articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles." There are several terms that could be redlinked, including E. T. Effendi, Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, Pemandangan, Salim Said, and Fatima. However, they should not be linked as none of them fulfill the automatic notability criteria, I currently have no intention on creating them (not to say I won't, it's always possible), and they are not quite "technical terms". This thus fulfills the current guidelines, although I won't force the issue if you insist on redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, seeing things in the article that were raised above ... "The film cost several times as much as an average local production,". The answer given above seems to be original research; please provide an exact quote from the source.
- "Anggaran f 75.000 itu hampir 20 kali anggaran film yang wajar masa itu." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You altered the text from "several times" to "20 times", which is quite a difference. Please translate the quote to English so we can know what the source says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The film's budget of f. 75,000 was almost 20 times that common for films of the time". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You altered the text from "several times" to "20 times", which is quite a difference. Please translate the quote to English so we can know what the source says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anggaran f 75.000 itu hampir 20 kali anggaran film yang wajar masa itu." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied to your points above. Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome; in the future, I prefer responses below my numbered points so we don't end up with hanging sigs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see WP:NONENG (the section about providing the supporting text and a translation in the footnote). Something like a 20-fold increase in cost (which is quite a bit more than "several") is likely to raise eyebrows, so providing the text and translation above in the footnote would probably be indicated. That's good practice for anything that might surprise a reader who doesn't speak the language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the quote as you've suggested, although I'm not sure on the formatting. Template:Sfn does not give a suggestion for multiple lines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 4 December 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has been extensively reviewed and copyedited, and should be quite close to FA quality now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed this article at its GA review. It seems to me to be well written and covers the subject as comprehensively as possible considering the limited number of sources available.
Questions and suggestions
- Is there any discussion available of the implications of having an extinct type species? Any problems arising from this would seem to be exacerbated this case by the poor state of two of the three surviving specimens, and all of them being apparently female. As an ancillary suggestion, is there an agreed symbology for marking the type unit in genus, family, etc. articles? It may be useful to indicate the t.s. in Blue Pigeon. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You indicated in two of the figure captions what the relationship of the artist was to the bird - in one case, you write "Illustration of a stuffed specimen from Sonnerat's 1782 description" (which, I mused, might need to read, "Illustration of a stuffed specimen from Sonnerat's 1774 collection" if it was the stuffed specimen rather than the description that the artist worked from), in another, "1811 illustration by César Macret after Madame Knip", leaving it unclear whether Mme. Knip had earlier produced her own illustration which this is a copy of, or whether she gave a written or verbal account of the bird that the illustration is based on - maybe this could be clarified. But what of the other three illustrators - did they see the bird? Live? In a museum? It would have important implications for which of the reproductions we regard as most reliable. The first illustration gives the information in the image description, but confusingly in the caption - I think "Illustration of a male displaying its head feathers, ca. 1790, from life" might be clearer, as artists wouldn't usually aim to give the likeness of a bird in its dead state - with the obvious exception of a hunting still-life, which you conclude with and is well captioned imo. ("Live male" could be interpreted as an attempt to draw a live male, but from a dead specimen.) Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think the name of the artist should be given for each of the six topmost images, for consistency? (Currently 3.5 out of 6, with Sonnerat leaving it open whether he illustrated his own volume.) Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never read anything that indicated an extinct type species would be a problem. As long as there are specimens or descriptions of them, there is something to compare with. For a somewhat related example, Psittacula echo has at times been considered a subspecies of Psittacula eques, an extinct species which is only based on a drawing and some accounts. As for type species in a genus taxobox, see Triceratops for example.
- On illustrations, Sonnerat's is worded like that because the image was published along with his description of the bird. I'll see if I can clarify that. The Madame Knip image is ambiguous, some sources only mention Knip, others that it was based on her drawing. I'm not sure what is meant. The only images drawn from live specimens are the two of the 1790 male, the rest are from stuffed or recently killed specimens. So apart from the live ones, the 1601 one is probably the most reliable. I personally have a suspicion the live specimen may simply have been a Seychelles Blue Pigeon, since it was not sent directly from Mauritius, and red tail feathers are neither shown in the image or mentioned in the old description, but that's irrelevant to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to suggest that I have knowledge of Sonnerat's not illustrating his own work, in case that was misinterpreted. As far as I'm concerned, the phrasing "Illustration of a stuffed specimen, by Pierre Sonnerat, published with his 1782 description" would be fine. Unless you know of something that would throw doubt on that course of events. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the sources again, there's actually no indication that Sonnerat himself made the drawing... As for the Knip image, a book source states it is an engraving by her and Macret, yet the website I downloaded the image from says what I have put in the caption. A third source only mentions Knip... Maybe she drew it, and he coloured it, there's no way to be sure from these sources at least. Maybe I can track down the original 19th century publication, may have more detail... FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to suggest that I have knowledge of Sonnerat's not illustrating his own work, in case that was misinterpreted. As far as I'm concerned, the phrasing "Illustration of a stuffed specimen, by Pierre Sonnerat, published with his 1782 description" would be fine. Unless you know of something that would throw doubt on that course of events. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim Nice article, and there's nothing in Gibbs, Barnes and Cox that I can add to what you have here. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to give imperial conversions for all your measurements, not just one. Personally I'd prefer the metric all cm or all mm, rather than a mix, but that's up to you.
- Blue Pigeons. — "blue pigeons" is incorrectly capped throughout. We only capitalise species, not higher taxa like pigeons or blue pigeons. In fairness, the linked genus article was also incorrectly capped, I've now moved it.
- larger and more robust than any other Blue Pigeon. — add "species"?
- "Mollusc" should be linked at first occurence.
- Tricolore — The English word is Tricolour, and I don't think tricolore is capitalised en francais anyway
File:Pavillon Hollandais.jpg shows what appears to be a juvenile as well as the adult, shouldn't this be mentioned?- Maybe I can jump in here - I understand that there was only one bird available that both individuals were drawn from. Therefore they are the same age, both adults, one with the ruff raised, the other with it in resting position. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fruit Doves also incorrectly capped
- mainly arboreal, but other mainly frugivorous pigeons — repetition of "mainly"
- oops; fixed --Stfg (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Pender need four links?
- the gizzard of the former is so strong that seeds are digested. — implies, but doesn't say, that the seeds are very hard
- Ref 24. Do they really take 93 pages to say what is claimed? For journals, normally give the article page range. For books give the specific page or page range for the content you are quoting.
- Ref 14 pp, but only one page
- Cheke, Anthony S. (January 1987). — you've not given month for other refs
- Thanks for the comments, I'll fix those issues soon, but there are a few issues. The birds in File:Pavillon Hollandais.jpg (as Samsara also mentioned) were both drawn from the same male specimen (don't know if the article makes it clear enough). As for seeds being hard, the article doesn't specifically say hard seeds, can I add that anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough with the image. My quick search didn't find an obvious source for the seeds being hard. Nevertheless, the gizzard of the former is so strong that seeds are digested. is still problematic. Digestion is mainly a chemical process, the gizzard is mechanical. Could we have something like the strong gizzard of the former helps in the digestion of the seeds.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice article, in overall good shape. Not much to comment upon, or even nitpick. I've dropped in a couple of redlinks.
In the Description section, "scapular feathers" should be linked to something (or redlinked) - not necessarily clear to someone who doesn't know a lot about birds. I would have linked it somewhere myself but scapula didn't seem right.Simon Burchell (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In a perfect world, the feather article would go through the feather types and related terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't sound like a very difficult project. Grab a few standard ornithology textbooks and Bob's your friend. :) Samsara (FA • FP) 18:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In a perfect world, the feather article would go through the feather types and related terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it's redlinked now, so I've struck my comment. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I gave this article a look through between the GAC and the FAC, and I am happy that it is of featured quality as long as the sources are all utilised; I'm happy to accept that that is the case if neither Jim nor FunkMonk have found anything else. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all completely fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only extra info that could be added from the sources I have is more detail on who the people mentioned throughout the article were, when and where each stuffed specimen was transported; stuff that isn't directly related to the bird itself. Most of the modern sources echo each other anyway, and the 2012 book compiles the old and latest info. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note -- structure-wise, just one thing: I don't think the list you provide under Citations should be headed that, rather Sources or something similar; Citations is sometimes used to label what you've headed Footnotes, but I wouldn't expect it to be used the way it is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it, no problem with me personally, it was Br'er Rabbit who implemented this style back in the day. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Literature check – I noticed that several articles came up in a Web of Knowledge search that weren't used in the article. Have these been consulted? Sasata (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title: AN OLD RECORD OF A BLUE PIGEON ALECTOENAS SPECIES AND SEA BIRDS ON FARQUHAR AND PROVIDENCE
- Author(s): STODDART D R; BENSON C W
- Source: Atoll Research Bulletin Volume: 136 Pages: 35-36 Published: 1970 link
- Title: NOTES ON THE EXTINCT PIGEON FROM MAURITIUS ALECTROENAS-NITIDISSIMA
- Author(s): TUIJN P
- Source: Beaufortia Volume: 16 Issue: 218 Pages: 163-170 Published: 1969
- Title: The true Pigeon Hollandais (Alectroenas nitidissima).
- Author(s): Renshaw, G.
- Source: Avicultural Magazine London Volume: 9 Pages: (159-160) Published: 1918 link
- Title: The Pigeon Hollandais.
- Author(s): Renshaw, G.
- Source: Zoologist London Volume: 10 Pages: (49-52) Published: 1906
- The first one refers to potential (hypothetical) blue pigeon species on other islands, not Mauritius. The rest seem so old that I'm sure they're summarised in the newer literature, but I'll try to track them down. Renshaw states the French common name "Pigeon Hollandais" was used to refer to the Seychelles Blue Pigeon after the original had gone extinct, but apart from this, no new info is provided. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link to Renshaw 1918, Sasata, there is a (tiny) photo of a stuffed specimen that might be used... I'll have to see when Renshaw died. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any date of death. Anyone know? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham Renshaw, d. Jan 13, 1952 JSTOR 25377998 Sasata (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. Seems I'll have to upload the image locally then, it's only PD in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham Renshaw, d. Jan 13, 1952 JSTOR 25377998 Sasata (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any date of death. Anyone know? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link to Renshaw 1918, Sasata, there is a (tiny) photo of a stuffed specimen that might be used... I'll have to see when Renshaw died. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one refers to potential (hypothetical) blue pigeon species on other islands, not Mauritius. The rest seem so old that I'm sure they're summarised in the newer literature, but I'll try to track them down. Renshaw states the French common name "Pigeon Hollandais" was used to refer to the Seychelles Blue Pigeon after the original had gone extinct, but apart from this, no new info is provided. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:49, 2 December 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Gilligan was a fairly mediocre cricketer who captained England because he was an amateur. He may have been good, but an unfortunate injury at the height of his powers effectively ended his career. But the real interest is that he was a fascist. No, really. He probably tried to set up fascist groups in Australia while he toured there as captain in the 1920s. On the other hand, he was highly supportive of Indian cricket when few others were, but was (very) indirectly involved in the clash between the cricket establishment and opposition to Apartheid in South Africa. A bit of a mixed bag really, and quite hard to get a hold of. This article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed by Mark Arsten and Brianboulton. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
As usual, a good all-round article. Reading through it, a few little quirks have caught my eye:
- Does "England" really need to be linked in the "Born" and "Died" sections of the infobox?
- No. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..which was never as effective afterwards.." and two sentences later "His cricket was less effective in following years.." is a little repititious.
- Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "All of his teams became good fielding sides under his direction. As a fielder, he inspired his teams to become good fielding sides." is very repititious!
- Ouch. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..he played in the school first Eleven.." Does "Eleven" really need to be capitalised? Could also be linked to First eleven, though it is a very short stub.
- I think it is justified to have First Eleven in this sense, which is probably how they would have written it, and seems to be common enough in the literature. I've gone for First/Second Eleven throughout now, although if anyone pulls me up on this, I'll go back to first eleven as I don't feel too strongly either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, he was selected to play.." The use of the word "However" seems odd to me here: it is generally used to contrast in some way, but here his success for his school seems to logically lead on to being picked for representative cricket, and he appears to have done reasonably well.
- Whoops, left over from a previous version. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..invited him to play for their Second Eleven during.." Irrespective of whether you want to keep "Eleven" capitalised, there is inconsistency here between the school's "first Eleven" and the county's "Second Eleven".
- See above. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "His Test debut came on 23 December 1922 in a match which England lost, but team were more successful during his second appearance." Missing a word here after but?
- Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..and his batting at a crucial stage of the match—he scored 39 not out in the second innings—was crucial in a victory.." crucial, crucial.
- Ouch. Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "On the field" section of the Tour of Australia flogs the same points over and over in my opinion. The tactical inadequacies are particularly repititious, and the word "fielding" gets four mentions in two lines.
- Can't argue with that. Hopefully better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "..the ideology of the British Empire and fascism." On every instance of "Fascism" and "Communism", except this one, they are capitalised.
- Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The team, the first MCC team to tour India, was very successful." Repitition of "team".
- Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In "History of the O.U.C.C." (full ref details on my bookshelf) Bolton says on page 227 that "Knight and Naumann were going well when Arthur Gilligan went on for the second time and brought of the first of those electrifying bowling spells for which he afterwards became famous." If there was nothing about these spells in any of your other references, maybe Bolton is exaggerating things, but it might be worth including if it ties in with anything else you have?
- I've never seen this anywhere else. He was pretty good for about a season and a half, where he and Tate decimated a succession of batting line-ups, but I've not really seen these called "electrifying bowling spells" before. I think they were one-offs, and I can't say that other sources suggest that he was famous for these. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting read, and particularly interesting are the apparent contradictions: a member of the British Fascists, and yet his attitude towards the Indians and the professionals at Sussex suggest a different set of beliefs. Nice work. Harrias talk 11:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've addressed everything, unless I've indicated otherwise. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: thanks for the fixes, good work! Harrias talk 23:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources look reliable, and all citations and reference appear correctly formatted, except for the missing acute accent in "André Deutsch".
- Corrected this. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was one of the peer reviewers. I also provided some information relevant to the "D'Oliviera affair", and did a little (not much) copyediting. I think this is an excellent account of the cricketing life of a not noticeably nice man who knew a lot of even less noticeably nice men. On the matter of Gilligan's fascism, I don't suppose his MCC confrères even noticed; their social and political attitudes were formed in the Jurassic era and remained that way until at least the 1980s. Two very small suggestions:
- Mention M.A. Noble's account of the 1924–25 tour (Gilligan's Men) as "Further reading".
- Briefly say why Sussex CCC demolished the Gilligan Stand (probably just a question of ground improvements, rather than a blow for liberal values).
Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of these done. Thanks for the support and earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I've reviewed about half of the article so far, and it looks solid as usual.
Early life: Does "First Eleven" require the capitalization it currently has?
- You're the second person to comment, so switched to lower case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket at Cambridge: Typo in "A few day later".
- Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Gilligan left Cambridge and joined a General Produce Merchants in London". Is "Merchants" meant to be singular, or am I not reading this right?
- I'm almost certain that is ok in BrEng, but perhaps someone will correct me. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
England captain: "Gilligan played in the next Test match, without much success, and played for the Gentlemen at Lord's." I'm thinking that the second "played" should go. It's a redundancy, and removing it can be done without changing anything else in the sentence.
- Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the field: Remove "on" from "which may have impacted on the series result"?Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think in this case, BrEng sounds a little better with "on", but others may disagree with me, in which case I would change it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political concerns: I don't think that Communism requires the capitalization it has in multiple places."were members of the British Fascists. The British Fascists...". Repetition from one sentence to another, such as this, is best avoided.Remaining cricket career: "He bowled in the first four game of the season". "game" → "games".Personal life: Comma needed after Harold in the first paragraph of the section."but when a player withdrew with injury". In the U.S. we would have "an" before "injury", but perhaps it's handled differently in British English. I think it's at least worth bringing up.Ref 12 publisher (MCC) could be spelled out.All caps in ref 60 shouldn't be there.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All these done, thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK ("PD-Australia", "PD-1996") copyright-wise. Source provided, author unknown. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page
- Support on prose. Fairly easy to follow, even for one with a bare understanding of cricket. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After my long list of comments, and the others, were taken care off, I think this article rises to the level of the other great cricket bio FAs we have and am happy to back it for FA status. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:54, 2 December 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because Vidya Balan is one rare Indian actress who has dared to step beyond the boundaries imposed by a male-dominated Indian film industry. I have worked hard on this article (it recently passed a GA nomination) and I think it meets the FA criteria. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Dharmadhyaksha
- Actor or actress? "Her parents were supportive of her decision to become an actor." Else everywhere it is actress.
- Done.
- So she starred in Hum Paanch while she was 16. And then she went on to do her bachelors? That's the normal chronology i suppose. But this is not clear through the article.
- Done.
- What was her role in her first film Bhalo Theko?
- Added.
- "The film, based on the Jessica Lal murder case saw Balan play the first real-life character of her career, that of Sabrina Lal, Jessica's reticent sister." But she played Safdar Hashmi's wife in 2008's Halla Bol.
- She she did not play his wife in the film. Her character was fictional. Does that point require clarification in the article?
- She played Devgn's wife, who in turn plays Hashmi. Ofcourse, he doesn't play Hashmi, but is named as Khan in the film. When writing Devgn's biography it will be written that he played Hashmi. In that relation Balan played his wife Moloyshree Hashmi. Anyways... i suppose your objection to this inclusion is based on the fact that the film was inspired from Hashmi's life but was not a real biopic. Hence your hesitation, right? In such case i would avoid calling Balan's portrayal of Lal as "the first real-life character". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I see the point. There's a bit of a confusion. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She played Devgn's wife, who in turn plays Hashmi. Ofcourse, he doesn't play Hashmi, but is named as Khan in the film. When writing Devgn's biography it will be written that he played Hashmi. In that relation Balan played his wife Moloyshree Hashmi. Anyways... i suppose your objection to this inclusion is based on the fact that the film was inspired from Hashmi's life but was not a real biopic. Hence your hesitation, right? In such case i would avoid calling Balan's portrayal of Lal as "the first real-life character". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She she did not play his wife in the film. Her character was fictional. Does that point require clarification in the article?
- Her co-starts winning awards is missing. Rani won in No One Killed Jessica. Amitabh won many in Paa. Arundathi Nag won NFA for Paa. The article gives impression that she alone won awards for these films.
- I don't see how her co-stars winning awards is important to her biography. Maybe I can incorporate the fact that Paa won four National Awards and such.
- Its important in the sense that it gives wrong impression that the film was successful all because of her. Paa's success credit goes to BigB, his makeup and acting. For NOKJ Rani's return after 2-3 yrs, her bold and beep-full dialogues and all played quite a role in it's commercial success. Currently it looks like the commercial success is all due to Balan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It never says that Paa or for that matter No One Killed Jessica was a success only because of Balan. I agree that Paa was Mr. Bachchan's film, but it was a career-defining role for her as well. In the articles of the respective films, it needs to be noted that all the actors contributed to the success of the film. But her biography is about how she individually contributed to the film. If you look at other actor/actress biographies, they all follow the same policy. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It sort of gives that impression. NOKJ released - alongside Rani Mukerji - role description - film's contrasting reviews - but Balan was all good good - commercial success - absence of a male lead - FF nomination. Mukerji? Hogi kisi naach gane mein. Wikipedia says that film was all Balan's!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Balan did win a lot of praises for the film. And if you see Mukerji's article you will see the comments that she earned for her portrayal. And I must add that a lot of critics did not like Mukerji's performance in the film. I still think that it is a bit unfair to praise a co-star in someone's biography. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Balan did win a lot of praises for the film. And if you see Mukerji's article you will see the comments that she earned for her portrayal. And I must add that a lot of critics did not like Mukerji's performance in the film. I still think that it is a bit unfair to praise a co-star in someone's biography. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It sort of gives that impression. NOKJ released - alongside Rani Mukerji - role description - film's contrasting reviews - but Balan was all good good - commercial success - absence of a male lead - FF nomination. Mukerji? Hogi kisi naach gane mein. Wikipedia says that film was all Balan's!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It never says that Paa or for that matter No One Killed Jessica was a success only because of Balan. I agree that Paa was Mr. Bachchan's film, but it was a career-defining role for her as well. In the articles of the respective films, it needs to be noted that all the actors contributed to the success of the film. But her biography is about how she individually contributed to the film. If you look at other actor/actress biographies, they all follow the same policy. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its important in the sense that it gives wrong impression that the film was successful all because of her. Paa's success credit goes to BigB, his makeup and acting. For NOKJ Rani's return after 2-3 yrs, her bold and beep-full dialogues and all played quite a role in it's commercial success. Currently it looks like the commercial success is all due to Balan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how her co-stars winning awards is important to her biography. Maybe I can incorporate the fact that Paa won four National Awards and such.
- I feel her "Gooooooood Moooooooorninnnng Mumbai!" needs to be mentioned.
- Is this notable?
- Probably not needed. The dialogue is not one of the very famous ones in Bollywood. The phrase deserves mention in the film article, but not in her biography.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. Ignore this comment. But speaking of dialogues, is her "Entertainment! Entertainment! Entertainment!" dialogue worth noting then? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not needed. The dialogue is not one of the very famous ones in Bollywood. The phrase deserves mention in the film article, but not in her biography.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this notable?
- There is that same old Khalid Mohmed and Taran Adarsh. What did south Indian critics say about Silk? What did Bengali critics talk about Bagchi?
- Included a local Kolkata review for Kahaani.
- I actually removed the mention of the local Kolkata publication, and retained the review itself. Again, the article of this film will definitely need to mention Kolkata based reviews as the city plays a major role in the film. However, in her biography article, whether the critic is from Kolkata or Delhi does not matter. On the other hand, the point raised by Dharmadhyaksha is justified that the critics Khaled Mohamed, Taran Adarsh etc have Ben used many times. So, other noteworthy critis' reviews are definitely good addition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwaipayanc is right. Publishing place does't matter. I was actually expecting some critic who works in those regional films. Maybe there won't be any such reviews for Kahaani as Balan herself did not play a Bengali woman. But her Silk should have been commented by some. Try getting help from Vensatry or SoS or others who might search reviews in regional languages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually removed the mention of the local Kolkata publication, and retained the review itself. Again, the article of this film will definitely need to mention Kolkata based reviews as the city plays a major role in the film. However, in her biography article, whether the critic is from Kolkata or Delhi does not matter. On the other hand, the point raised by Dharmadhyaksha is justified that the critics Khaled Mohamed, Taran Adarsh etc have Ben used many times. So, other noteworthy critis' reviews are definitely good addition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Included a local Kolkata review for Kahaani.
- You know, The Dirty Picture itself is a "Hindi" film and not a Tamil/Telegu/Malayalam film. Out of all the praise that she received for the film, Khalid Mohamed's review was the most precise and to-the-point. And that's why I included it. I don't see the need to include more reviews for that. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Her weight fluctuations" comes suddenly after her religious affiliations. Any better place to park that?
- Her role in promotions of films is missing. Kahaani, The Dirty Picture and Ishqiya had seen her promoting films in the same getup.
- Mentioned the promotions of Kahaani.
Might come with more points. But over all the article looks good. Best wishes for the FAC. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for the comments, Dharmadhyaksha. Some points had totally skipped my mind. Will incorporate them. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No probs! More point below.
- Thank you so much for the comments, Dharmadhyaksha. Some points had totally skipped my mind. Will incorporate them. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For FA, i suppose her every work should me mentioned in words. Maybe a single liner about her cameos in various films would do, especially the only item song of her career.
- Mentioned the notable extended cameo appearance in Urumi. S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "sixty television commercials"!!! I did not know that. I don't think they were all pre-film career. Do you think so? The source says that, but still. I only remember the Krack Cream. Shouldn't selective few ones from her earlier career be mentioned?
- There are other sources which mention that she has done around sixty commercials before Bhalo Theko.
- I don't find it necessary to mention her small appearances on television shows for promoting films, like talent hunt shows and such. But should Kaun Banega Crorepati and Koffee with Karan be mentioned? For KBC i would guess she must have donated her winnings. That definitely is worth mentioning.
- Every Bollywood actor/actress who has appeared on Kaun Banega Crorepati has donated their money for charity. Hence, not notable enough. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And to whom is also non-notable i suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every Bollywood actor/actress who has appeared on Kaun Banega Crorepati has donated their money for charity. Hence, not notable enough. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this topic warrants a larger discussion. Though, I don't see why this should hamper the nomination. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this topic warrants a larger discussion. Though, I don't see why this should hamper the nomination. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She has walked few ramps also. Isn't any of it worth mentioning?§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't see how ramp walks are important to her biography. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, just for the sake of comprehensiveness, may be it is worthwhile to just mention in a sentence or two that she has done (honorary?) ramp-walking in a few fashion shows, like many other Indian actors (so, implying that there is nothing unique about that?). However, I am not really sure if appearing in KBC or Koffee with Karan is notable enough. Probably not (Film stars and celebrities do appear in so many shows as guests). Regarding the quote "Entertainment! Entertainment! Entertainment!", I figured out it is from The Dirty Picture (I did not know as I have not see the film, yet). In my opinion, it is not that notable. Also, that one item number in Ferrari Ka Sawari may be mentioned in the text, as it was the only item number in her career so far. Thanks Dharmadhyaksha for drawing attention to some greater details.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know if they were honorary or paid ones.
- Some media usages: SOTY is Bollywood’s adaptation of “Gossip Girl” on 35mm — entertainment, entertainment, entertainment!, I'm entertainment, says Vidya Balan, Entertainment, entertainment, entertainment - at IPL 5 opener!, Entertainment, entertainment, entertainment… and a raw nerve, Four days of entertainment, entertainment, entertainment!, Ekta Kapoor - "Audience wants - entertainment, entertainment, entertainment!". I won't prove how it is used on blogs, twitter, other forums, comedy shows, chat shows, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, just for the sake of comprehensiveness, may be it is worthwhile to just mention in a sentence or two that she has done (honorary?) ramp-walking in a few fashion shows, like many other Indian actors (so, implying that there is nothing unique about that?). However, I am not really sure if appearing in KBC or Koffee with Karan is notable enough. Probably not (Film stars and celebrities do appear in so many shows as guests). Regarding the quote "Entertainment! Entertainment! Entertainment!", I figured out it is from The Dirty Picture (I did not know as I have not see the film, yet). In my opinion, it is not that notable. Also, that one item number in Ferrari Ka Sawari may be mentioned in the text, as it was the only item number in her career so far. Thanks Dharmadhyaksha for drawing attention to some greater details.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't see how ramp walks are important to her biography. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see why this quote is so extremely important. It was a fun quote, along with a large number of similar ones used in "The Dirty Picture". Why single this one out? --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see why this quote is so extremely important. It was a fun quote, along with a large number of similar ones used in "The Dirty Picture". Why single this one out? --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category check needed. Some are redundant in presence of others; at least per my interpretation of those category titles.
- If she is in Category:Indian television actors and Category:Indian film actors, she need not be in Category:Indian actors.
- If she is in Category:Tamil actors, she need not be in Category:Tamil people.
- And does she qualify under Category:Bengali television actors? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing these out. Done. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - only a few random comments.
- The linking of "Hindi" to "Bollywood" in the lead intro is quite WP:EASTEREGG-ish. She acted in several non-Bollywood Indian films. This was probably already discussed and i have no perfect solution to offer, but maybe just link to Hindi language or even to "Cinema of India".
- avoid idioms and informal terms (f.e. flak, nerd).
- "Due to these circumstances, film producers labelled her as a "jinx" and replaced her in all the twelve films that she had been contracted for." - this statement appears not completely accurate according to the source. The "jinx"-factor is only mentioned for a few of her cancellations, other cases have various other reasons. Some may have been influenced by the first event aswell, but the actual sentence omits all other factors and details. Obviously you can not mention every single detail, but it would be worthwhile to mention, that she was refused for various, different reasons and maybe add 1-2 details about the most notable rejections. It's an interesting phase of her career. GermanJoe (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for your comments, GermanJoe. In the lead, Hindi cinema refers to Bollywood films, while the other Indian language films that she acted in - Bengali and Malayalam - redirect to their respective film industries. However, I have addressed your other two issues.--S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Jesse V.
- I notice that the article has some Soft 404 link problems. Please see its Checklinks entry. • Jesse V.(talk) 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, but the links are fully functional. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Greatuser
- I am in favor of article becoming a Featured article, Every info about her, is provided with a reliable source Greatuser (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I did the GA review for this article. The article meets nearly all the criteria for FA. I am saying "nearly all" because I do not think I am competent enough to judge the article against crieterion 1a (whether its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard); my knowledge of the language is not that good.
- Otherwise, the article is well-researched, comprehensive, neutral, pretty much stable, has appropriate lead and structure, follows consistent citation style, and is of appropriate length.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check all OK. 1 "Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka" and 2 "Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama". Source and confirmation by OTRS-member provided. GermanJoe (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments. This was a really interesting article, and I enjoyed reading it. My review concentrates on prose (nearly there), content, and MOS. I did not evaluate source reliability on a large scale because I am just not familiar with the non-newspaper sources used.
- does the lead need to include where she lives?
- Removed.
- Do we need to know the occupations of her sister and brother-in-law? Seems more like trivia.
- Removed information about brother-in-law, but retained her sister's profession.
- Do we know what about Shabana Azmi and Madhuri Dixit appealed to her? I am not familiar with Indian films, so this means nothing to me.
- Re-worded. Both Shabana Azmi and Madhuri are leading film actresses in India.
- "Balan auditioned for and starred briefly in " - would it not be reasonable to conclude that if she starred briefly in a show that she had first auditioned? This writing appears elsewhere in the article too - too many words, in my opinion.
- Agree. Re-worded.
- Why was it a brief starring role? Did the show end (why?)? Was her part written out?
- Re-worded. She acted in only the first season of the show. Second season onward, she was replaced by another actress. However, no reliable source explains the reason for her leaving the show.
- Any more information on why people thought she was a jinx after Chakram?
- So, the Indian film industry is largely a male-dominated one and Mohanlal (the lead actor of Chakram) is an extremely popular actor. So, when a film starring him was shelved, film producers labelled Balan as the "jinx". Should I include this explanatory note?
- Yes, if you have good sources, please include that information. That also helps to tie together the information about changing the perception of actresses. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation added. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if you have good sources, please include that information. That also helps to tie together the information about changing the perception of actresses. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the Indian film industry is largely a male-dominated one and Mohanlal (the lead actor of Chakram) is an extremely popular actor. So, when a film starring him was shelved, film producers labelled Balan as the "jinx". Should I include this explanatory note?
- "after shooting for the first schedule" - what is the first schedule?
- I meant first shooting schedule. Re-worded.
- Do we know why she was dropped in Run?
- She was dropped without reason. Added.
- Bhalo Theko wasn't first first starring role she was signed on for, per the paragraph before.
- Changed.
- "directed by debutante Abhishek Chaubey" - ??? in my culture, a debutante is a rich teenage girl with a foofy skirt
- Haha, I meant debutant.
- This is not a common word in American English, but I can't think of a short way to rewrite this. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I meant debutant.
- This reference does not explicitly list the source: See Kumar, Alok. "Film review — Parineeta". Retrieved 27 October 2007. I checked PlanetBollywood but cannot tell if it is a reliable soruce or something like IMDB.
- Changed the reference.
- Thank you for the comments Karanacs. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments. Think this will be okay. Some early text is wobbly, as are a few referencing issues, but overall it appears thorough and the text is engaging.
Lede:
- "dressing sense" - Indian Eng? (my google search suggests possibly yes) I would have expected "dress sense"
- Changed to "dress sense".
Early life
- "a mix of Tamil and Malayalam". Don't need quote marks for something so unremarkable, just make it 'both Tamil and Malayalam'.
- Changed.
- "an experience which she describes as "truly memorable"". This seems to be neither engaging prose nor very enlightening. "Truly memorable" could mean good, bad or wierd. I don't think it helps and, unless there is some clarity in the sources about why it was memorable for her, I would omit that.
- Removed.
- "She later pursued a master's degree in sociology from the University of Mumbai." - I don't see this in the source. I'm also not convinced the source is reliable as it appears to be a story by a reader / listener of their knowledge of the person - not sure about quality / editorial control. Source #10 (not cited for this sentence) does cover the MA, but not which University.
- Added a new source that mentions both the degree and the university.
Career
- reference 17 mentions Mumbai University, but appears to be incorrectly titled.
- Thanks for pointing this out. Corrected.
- radio-jockey hyphenated, then later in the para, not hyphenated.
- Removed the unnecessary hyphen.
- "semi-biographic" - I'm not what this means and it isn't good prose. One of the sources (though not cited for this sentence - it appears two sentences later) says "a more than obvious but unacknowledged biopic".
- Does semi-biographical sound better?
- "multi-starrer". What??
- Means an ensemble cast. Changed.
- "skilfull" (in a quote) is I believe an incorrect spelling (accepted are skilful and skillful). Check the source?
- Yes, my fault. It is "skilled".
Media image and artistry
- ""she has toppled all dominating hero," can you check the quote? SHould this not read ""she has toppled the all dominating hero,"?
- Corrected.
Good job. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad that you liked the article. And thank you for all the comments. I've made the necessary changes. Cheers. S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate notes -- Smarojit, I don't think we've 'met' so if this is, as I'm assuming, your first FAC, welcome. Couple of things:
- All award wins and nominations listed in the filmography are mentioned/cited in the main body of the article except the Filmfare Award for Best Actress nomination for Ishqiya -- this should be cited somewhere, and the main body makes sense for consistency.
- I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if one of the current reviewers can undertake, that's great, else we can list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian. Yes, this is my first FAC. Thank you for your comments. I mentioned the Filmfare nomination for Ishqiya in the main body. :-) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian, should I ask the reviewers above to do spot checks for the article? S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed a request at WT:FAC, so let's see how we go there first. Worst comes to the worst I'll do it myself but I've other noms to walk through before we get to that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot. :) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've listed a request at WT:FAC, so let's see how we go there first. Worst comes to the worst I'll do it myself but I've other noms to walk through before we get to that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks (not sure how many is enough, but here are some):
- Article: Balan lives with her parents in Khar, a suburban neighbourhood in Mumbai.
- Source: Vidya Balan is no more a Chembur resident. A couple of weeks ago, the actor moved into a plush 4-BHK in the western suburb of Khar with her parents. Vidya's new house also has an office (for her meetings), the entrance for which is separate from her residence.
- Conclusion: fine.
- Article: Rediff.com added that "her hesitant body language, her faith, her helplessness, her rage, her sorrow and her gratitude all come across beautifully".
- Source: It makes Vidya Balan's [ Images ] stand-out act -- her hesitant body language, her faith, her helplessness, her rage, her sorrow and her gratitude all come across beautifully; you don't even notice her pared down dialogues -- all the more commend-worthy.
- Conclusion: fine, although I don't know about Rediff from a source perspective. Notable? Is "Rediff.com" in the main text appropriate?
- Rediff.com is one of the leading entertainment websites in India. So, I think it is notable enough to be mentioned in the main text. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's well known, couldn't we say "entertainment website Rediff" (not sure about the italics? not my best-known part of the MOS). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If "Rediff.com" is its official name (and not only its colloquial web name), it should be used. But i agree with Grandiose, that a brief qualifier like "entertainment website" (or whatever describes it best) would be helpful for the international reader. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I see. But I am not sure what can be used to describe Rediff.com. It isn't only an entertainment website, but also a provider of news and shopping servies. It's something of an Indian counterpart to Yahoo! Do we really need to elaborate on that? --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the author for the quote and rediff.com is already mentioned previously as review source, so should be ok. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks GermanJoe. :-) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If "Rediff.com" is its official name (and not only its colloquial web name), it should be used. But i agree with Grandiose, that a brief qualifier like "entertainment website" (or whatever describes it best) would be helpful for the international reader. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's well known, couldn't we say "entertainment website Rediff" (not sure about the italics? not my best-known part of the MOS). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rediff.com is one of the leading entertainment websites in India. So, I think it is notable enough to be mentioned in the main text. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article: "She was later cast as Isha Sahni, a single mother, in Sajid Khan's Heyy Babyy. Co-starring Akshay Kumar, Ritesh Deshmukh, and Fardeen Khan, the comedy film was a box-office success,[30] but garnered negative reviews from critics, as did Balan's performance. CNN-IBN's Rajeev Masand mentioned her as the "sore thumb" of the film, and members of the media criticised her wardrobe and make-up.[35][36]"
- Sources: [30] accounts for "the comedy film was a box-office success". [35] says "The final straw comes in the form of Vidya Balan who plays the baby's real mum as a sort of Cruella de Ville character."... " but Vidya Balan sticks out like a sore thumb...Her wardrobe, her make-up, her hair - if I didn't know better I'd assume her staff had conspired against her for not paying their salaries on time." [36] is some sort of poll in a magazine where she "wins" 6.2% of the vote for worst actress.
- Conclusions: well as a close paraphrasing check this isn't a problem. However on a more general point, I think this couple of sentences is badly constructed (as against FA standards - it's still pretty good!). I think we should have a straight-forward source for "She was later cast as Isha Sahni, a single mother, in Sajid Khan's Heyy Babyy." (actually missing - we have "the baby's real mum" but that's it). Perhaps you could says "She was later cast as Isha Sahni, a single mother, in Sajid Khan's Heyy Babyy, alongside co-stars Akshay Kumar, Ritesh Deshmukh, and Fardeen Khan.[New Ref]" Then we have the "the comedy film was a box-office success", which is fine. The final section, despite running across the last two sentences, is really "but garnered negative reviews from critics, as did Balan's performance. CNN-IBN's Rajeev Masand mentioned her as the "sore thumb" of the film, and members of the media criticised her wardrobe and make-up." I can't identify what [36] adds, so that just leaves this passage as a summary of [35], i.e. CNN-IBN. Can't work out what "sore thumb" really means here. In the article, it is impliedly related to costume and make-up, but I think it would be much easier to just say firstly, that she garnered negative reviews (perhaps another source can be found, perhaps [36] would do), and, secondly, one aspect of this was costume/make-up, referenced to the CNN-IBN article.
- Source [36] also votes Balan as one of the "worst dressed" actresses of 2007 (due to Heyy Babyy). Anyway, I re-worded the sentences and specifically mentioned Rajeev Masand's criticism towards Balan's wardrobe and make-up in the CNN-IBN Review. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the comments, Grandiose. :) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ a high quality reliable source? It appears to be a news aggregator, not a true news company.
- Not a news aggregator. Bollywood Hungama is a leading entertainment website for Hindi cinema. --smarojit (talk to me) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.boxofficeindia.com/index.php a high quality reliable source?
- Boxofficeindia.com is a RS. Refer earlier discussion here. (Also you had asked the same question here also.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. BoxOfficeIndia is the "only" reliable source of information for box office figures in India; much like what BoxOfficeMojo is for Hollywood. All the Hindi cinema articles on Wikipedia use this website to quote their revenues. --smarojit (talk to me) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boxofficeindia.com is a RS. Refer earlier discussion here. (Also you had asked the same question here also.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise http://www.dnaindia.com/?
- dnaindia.com is Daily News and Analysis (DNA). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a newspaper source, quite like The Times of India, The Hindu and Hindustan Times. --smarojit (talk to me) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- dnaindia.com is Daily News and Analysis (DNA). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.