- Lead
- For this sentence (It is based on S. S. Vasan's eponymous novel that was serialised in 1934 in the magazine Ananda Vikatan), I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as some readers may be unfamiliar with the concept. I would also flip the last part to have the magazine title first and the year last.
- I do not think the phrase "eponymous novel" is used correctly because the novel is not named S. S. Vasan after the author. I would just say "novel" instead to avoid this.
- Right now it reads, "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which had been serialised in 1934". Outriggr did some c/e. And serial is linked to what you said. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to put the plot summary before the listing of the ensemble cast? Since the list is quite dense with information, it may be helpful to inform the reader about the plot first before identifying each actor. I do not believe there is a policy or standard for this as I have seen some FAs on films put the plot summary first and others put the actors first so it is up to you. Just thought it was worth asking.
- Your suggestion is good and worth discussing at WP:FILMLEAD, but I'm following the example used in most MCU articles: "Para 1: introduce the film, its cast and premise"; "Para 2: Behind the scenes"; "Para 3: The film's premiere/release and reception". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandable. There is not a set standard/policy so it is really up to you. Either way would work for me so the current wording is good. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain about the first sentence in the lead's plot summary. The "man named" is a little clunky to me. I would instead go with something like: (Sathi Leelavathi focuses on Krishnamurthy, a wealthy Madras-based man who is lured into drinking alcohol by his friend Ramanthan.). Also, is "friend' the best descriptive phrase for this character?
- The current phrasing is, "In the film, the wealthy Krishnamurthy, a man from Madras, is lured into drinking alcohol by his acquaintance. Believing he murdered his friend in a drunken stupor, Krishnamurthy flees to Ceylon while his daughter and wife, Leelavathi, are reduced to poverty." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the second sentence in the lead's plot summary, I would just say "his friend Parasuraman" as "other" seems rather unnecessary to me as it is common for people to have more than one friend. Also, based on my understanding of the story, this is his real friend as opposed to Ramanthan.
- Ramanathan is now written as "an acquaintance". Still accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a suggestion for this sentence (Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the theatrical play Pathi Bhakthi but an adaptation was already being made). I think putting a verb like "realized" before the "an adaption" part would pull the sentence together more.
- Done: Since this is an Indian film (despite being directed by an American), I've gone with "realised". To avoid ambiguity, can I write, "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the Madurai Original Boys Company (MOBC) play Pathi Bhakthi but realised an adaptation was already being made". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this sentence (Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, who wrote the play, later told Chettiar about Vasan's novel, which had the same storyline), I am wondering if the "who wrote the play" part could be removed as it is somewhat cumbersome. Maybe something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar...). Also, it may be better remove the comma phrases altogether to say something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar suggested Vasan's novel to Chettiar since it had the same story.) instead.
- Technically, the play was written by Pavalar, but Mudaliar simply rewrote it. So I've gone with you phrasing. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this sentence (Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel and Mudaliar began writing a screenplay.), I would add a comma between "novel" and "and". I believe the rule for commas is that if there are two independent clauses joined by "and", then a comma should go before "and". Another example of this is (D. T. Telang and V. J. Shave were the cinematographers and the film was co-edited by Dungan and Sircar.). I am quite bad with commas and punctuation in general so I would encourage you to research this further.
- Done: It was originally like that, but changed by Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would reduce this part (the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu) to something like the following (the film debut of K. A. Thangavelu and stage actors Radha, Balaiah and Ramachandran) to be more concise.
- All of them were stage actors. Even Thangavelu was, but with another theatre troupe: Rajambal Company. So can I simply say, "the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was honestly trying to avoid the dashes so I think it awkwardly cuts off the sentence. But I would be alright with the current wording, but you would need to change "both of whom were stage actors" to "all of whom are stage actors" since you are referencing more than two people. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was a little confused by this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi was the first film on which Krishnan worked and his second release.) when I read it at first. Maybe a revision to the following (Although Sathi Leelavath was Krishnan's first film, it was his second release after Menaka in 1935.) would make the meaning clearer.
- The current phrasing is "It was Krishnan's first film appearance and his second release". Accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi explores temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers), I would link "temperance" to the Temperance movement in India article to give readers a greater context to the word.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a few comments for this part (It was one of the earliest Tamil films to become the subject of a court case involving copyright violation; the plaintiffs accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play Pathi Bhakthi.):
- I would link "copyright violation" to help any reader unfamiliar with the concept.
- As I said before, "copyright violation" is the writing of Sodabottle, who seems to have retired. I would prefer to say, "It was one of the earliest Tamil films to involved in a plagiarism controversy" (matching Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies), what saith thou? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it seems more like a plagiarism suit so I would go with that wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would clarify what is meant by "the plaintiffs" as it is not immediately clear in the sentence who is suing the filmmakers.
- According to Wiktionary, a plaintiff is "a party bringing a suit in civil law against a defendant; accusers". So it's clear MOBC are the plaintiffs. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware of what the word plaintiff means. Both of my parents work in criminal law. It is not clear that MOBC are the plaintiffs because the MOBC is not even introduced in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain who is being referenced by the phrase "the filmmakers". Is it the director, producers, screenwriter, some combination? I would clarify this point.
- Can I write, "MOBC accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The MOBC need to be properly introduced in the lead first to provide an explanation for the acronym. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would include the title of the Ellen Wood novel in the lead as you have done in the body of the article.
- Done: It's Danesbury House, dunno why it was removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are my suggestions for the lead. I will review the article section-by-section so I can read through each sentence thoroughly and help as much as possible. I am certainly not a great reviewer, but I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot
- I am a little confused by this sentence (Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector.). It is not made immediately clear (at least at this point in the story) what Rangiah Naidu is doing to help Ramanthan, and without this clear connection, this sentence seems rather random. Is Rangiah Naidu present at the tea party and helping to persuade Krishnamurthy to drink alcohol? I think a better transition or strong connection with the rest of the paragraph would be helpful here.
- It seems so. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthy, a rich man of Madras is taught drinking by his friend Ramanathan. He is lured into bad ways... made to indulge in harmful pursuits. A mock tea party is arranged to achieve this end and Ramanathan's collaborator in this is Rangiah, a base individual who disgraced the power entrusted to him." Rangiah is not mentioned again until the end. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the explanation. I was curious about this part because Rangiah Naidu seems to come out of nowhere here, but if there is not further information about this part, then this should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would condense this part (Krishnamurthy is captivated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman with whom he becomes infatuated,) down to (Krishnamurthy becomes infatuated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman,).
- I have a clarification question about this part (and promises to pay her ₹50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936). Is he just giving her money or is he paying for her to do something in particularly (i.e. sex)? I would clarify this in the prose if the information is available.
- The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthi [sic] is made to fall by the wiles of a loose woman named Mohanangi... Infatuated he promises to pay her a sum of Rs 50,000." After this Mohanangi is never mentioned again. But from the looks of it she is indeed a prostitute. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the explanation. I was curious if they did anything together or if there was a clearer reason for the payment, but since the source leaves it rather vague, then it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a clarification question about this sentence (Parasuraman, Krishnamurthy's true friend, tries but fails to reform him.). I am assuming that Parasuraman is trying to stop Krishnamurthy from drinking alcohol? The later parts of this paragraph make it clear that alcohol has become a habitual behavior for Krishnamurthy, but I am uncertain if that is clear at this point so it may be worthwhile to clarify in this sentence exactly what Parasuraman is trying to help his friend with to avoid any confusion.
- Yes, the pressbook says, "Parasuram [sic], a family friend of Krishnamurthy tries to reform him. His methods prove to be useless." I think it's already clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic, then I would be more direct and state that in the sentence as I initially misread the mock tea party as being a one time thing until later realizing in the second paragraph that Krishnamurthy had other experiences with alcohol and developed this problem. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (Krishnamurthy comes home drunk, sees Parasuraman's umbrella, assaults Leelavathi and goes out to shoot Parasuraman.), I would replace the second instance of "Parasuraman" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the rest of the sentence.
- To avoid repetition of Parasuraman's name, how about I write, sees the umbrella? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain about this part (a shot is heard and a man lies dead) as it is very dramatic. I think it may be better to be clearer and say something like (a shot is heard, and the servant is killed) or something along those lines. Something about the tone of the original wording does not really fit with a Wikipedia/encyclopedia article.
- Just wanted to point out that this has not be addressed. You do not need to use my wording, but the "and a man lies dead" part seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this sentence (When Krishnamurthy comes to his senses, thinks he has murdered Parasuraman and decides to escape, leaving Leelavathi and Lakshmi in the custody of his servant Govindan.), I would revise the start to (After coming to his sense, Krishnamurth thinks...). The current phrasing is not grammatically correct, specifically the "sense, thinks he has" part.
- Link Ceylon here to be consistent with the lead. Also a link to tea estate may be helpful.
- Already linked. And doesn't tea estate fall under MOS:COMMONWORDS? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's strange. It was not linked last time I looked at it, but maybe I missed the link somehow. The tea estate link is up to you. I would not consider it a super common word/phrase but I can also understand why the other side of the coin so it does not have to be linked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've even linked tea estate to tea processing as the former redirects to it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (and replaced it in Krishnamurthy's hand), I would use "placed" instead of "replaced". The word "replaced" does not really work in this context.
- Yeah, done. Blame it on Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to pile on this, but I have to agree with Laser that it is not a good idea to criticize another editor who was only trying to help. We are all just volunteers and trying our best to contribute and improve the website. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies Aoba47, my bad. Now that I have addressed your comments (please check if I really have), what next? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cast
- Is there a reason why Rangiah Naidu's full name is not used here?
- Because of WP:FILMCAST, which says to use the character's name as seen in the credits ("All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source"). And in the pressbook, he is referred to as "Inspector Rangiah".
- Since Rangiah is identified as an inspector, I would identify Sreenivasan as a detective.
- Again, WP:FILMCAST. But am I allowed to avoid the "Master" and "Miss" prefixes that appear in the pressbook?
- The current phrasing should be fine. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand since this is a partially lost film, you may not have the answer for this, but is there any information on Balu and Sesha Iyengar's roles in the film? Later in the article, it is mentioned that there is a "comic subplot", but I do not see it represented in the plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot even remotely identify what the comedy subplot may have been about. And I would not say the film is partially lost, but predominantly. Those scenes that you see here appear to be behind-the-scenes footage, although the opening credits are also part of it. So how do I solve this dilemma?
Apologies for the amount of comments as a lot of good work has been put into the article. A lot of these points are minor and more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47, your comments are not as disturbing as Laser brain's (hereafter Laser); I fully agree with them as well as Laser's. I only fear the FAC will be swiftly archived because of his comments. Since Laser was not detailed during the last FAC, I could not identify what to rewrite. Hence I submitted it to the GOCE. Seeing how Baffle gab 1978's edits appear to have worsened the article, I'm baffled (pun intended) since he is among the most experienced editors of the GOCE (no offense, but Miniapolis often does a far better job than him). But if you are going to give further comments, they should be in line with Laser's existing comments and not contradict them. I still haven't lost hope, and believe I can please Laser brain without sacrificing quality. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Once my above comments are addressed, I will collapse them and move onto the rest of the article. I do not think I am contradicting any of Laser's points though? Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will wait to add further comments until the lead suggestions are resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Production
- The first two sentences of the "Development" subsection are in passive voice. It may be helpful to rewrite the second sentence (Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and was staged over 150 times.) in a more active voice to keep the reader engaged. Something like the following could be helpful: (Playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar rewrote Pavalar's play for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe, and this production was staged over 150 times.)
- Now the para goes, "Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s[2] and was successful throughout the Madras Presidency. Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and this production was staged over 150 times". However, I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of this article as it says, "Balaiah joined Rajambal Company, where he met the famous M. Kandaswamy Mudaliar, father of M.K. Radha. They staged Pathi Bhakthi over 150 times and Balaiah’s performance was greatly acclaimed. Sadly, this company too folded up but Kandaswamy Mudaliar roped him in for a film he was writing and where his son was the hero. This was Sathi Leelavathi". Do you think the source is best removed? Because Rajambal Company was evidently not involved, and MOBC did not dissolve as they sued the makers of the Sathi Leelavathi film. Also, I think the "150 times" applies to how many times the play was staged in its lifetime, even before it was rewritten by Mudaliar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (Mudaliar told him a novel titled Sathi Leelavathi,), I would just say "the novel Sathi Leelavathi" to avoid the "titled" part.
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Development" subsection, I would move Reference 10 to the end of the sentence before Reference 11. The current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence and hinders readability.
- Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this sentence (Tandon introduced Chettiar to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and suggested Dungan direct it instead.) could be cut down to be more concise. Something like the following could be helpful: (Tandon suggested that his American friend Ellis R. Dungan could direct it instead.)
- Done. Is this a better alternative to show coherence? Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film but he declined;[c] Tandon instead suggested his American friend Ellis R. Dungan Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Went ahead. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (but Chettiar was persuaded to hire Dungan because he had worked in Hollywood), I would replace "Dungan" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the sentence who is being referenced here.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If directorial debut is linked here, then I would do the same for the lead for consistency.
- Delinked, because it should never have been linked in the first place; Baffle linked it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The current phrasing reads, "Sathi Leelavathi was one of the earliest Tamil films to be involved in a plagiarism controversy", matching the lead.
- I wonder if there is a way to revise this sentence (Balaiah, who is credited as Baliah, played the antagonist Ramanathan while Krishnan played the comic character Balu) to avoid repeating "played" twice.
- Now I've written "appeared as the antagonist Ramanathan". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused by this part "because of production delays caused by the lawsuit, Menaka (1935)" since "the lawsuit" part could be read as a descriptive phrase to describe Menaka and it seems rather abrupt. I think the wording is off here.
- Could you provide a little more detail on the Menaka lawsuit? I think this sentence as a whole could use a little more work for readability and to help inform an unfamiliar reader like myself of the full background with this situation.
- I think you got it wrong; Sathi Leelavathi was to have been NSK's debut film. Because the Pathi Bhakthi v Sathi Leelavathi lawsuit caused production delays (the trouble with casting Leelavathi happened after the lawsuit), Menaka became NSK's first release. It's common in South Indian cinema that an actor's first film project is not always their first release; Mohanlal, Sathya and Arya are victims like NSK here. So what phrasing do you suggest? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe "detective" in this part (Chettiar gave the role of the detective Sreenivasan) should be capitalized as it is done that way in the "Plot" section.
-
- How is this what I have written? Chettiar gave the role of Sreenivasan to M. V. Mani without Mudaliar's knowledge. I have amended an earlier sentence to According to Ramachandran, he was told he would play Detective Sreenivasan and later Krishnamurthy's friend Parasuraman. It appears Detective with a capital D is indeed a formal prefix (as mentioned in Criminal investigation department), similar to Justice, Doctor and Inspector. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asking about capitalizing detective in detective Sreenivasan, which you have now done. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (Gnanambal, who had retired from acting after her marriage to Radha,), I would remove "to Radha" as it was already clarified in the previous sentence that she is Radha's wife.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (Other comic actors were M. S. Murugesan as a Marvadi moneylender), unlink "Marvadi" since it was already linked in the "Plot" section.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would move References 20 and 21 in this part (K. A. Thangavelu, a theatre artist associated with the Rajambal Company troupe, also made his film-acting debut) to the end of the sentence alongside Reference 22 as the current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence into a long and a small part.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain about the placement of "uncredited" in this sentence (J. Susheela Devi played an uncredited cabaret dancer.) as the role not the dancer is uncredited.
- Is this a better sentence? J. Susheela Devi appeared uncredited as a cabaret dancer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Done. Followed the same type of phrasing in "Cast". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain about this sentence (however, he watched the filming and absorbed "the new art form that was cinema"). It seems a little too close to the source's phrasing (But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema). I think it may also be better to somehow incorporate information from this part of the source's sentence (which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931) as it adds more context to why he considered cinema a new art form.
-
- The source reads, "While MGR took his bow in it, Chakrapani did not because of lack of a proper role. But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema, which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931." That's referencing the first Tamil sound film Kalidas. Since it does not seem to add much (or may be bordering on WP:COATRACK), can I remove the "new art form" sentence and write, "...but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming"? This is to avoid WP:COPYVIO, a charge I do not want to be blocked again for. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delay in my response. I would remove the "new art form" part. It does not really add much to that part so I agree with your suggestion. Once this is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935.), I would say "released" instead of "launched". I will not repeat other parts of Laser's comments, but I do agree that the parts that were pointed out need further work.
- The current phrasing says that "principal photography" began in 1935. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (According to film historian Film News Anandan in the book Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru, filming was also done in Ceylon), I am uncertain if the book title is necessary since the film historian seems notable enough (since he has a Wikipedia article) to stand on his own.
- Done, removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Themes
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I like this part (the Gandhian concept of selfless service) since you clarify what is meant by "selfless service". I think adding the "the Gandhian concept" part to the lead could be helpful.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Music
- For the first paragraph, I would put Reference 63 at the end of the sentence with Reference 64 to avoid cutting off the sentence awkwardly.
- I am uncertain about the "with new lyrics" part and I would suggest removing it. A poem really does not have lyrics so it is an odd comparison to make, and since the sentence emphasizes that the melody was based on the poem, I do not think this part adds anything to the sentence.
- The source says, "It modified a song of Bharati’s! The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." So I've removed the "with new lyrics" part since it is understood that he retained the melody and added new lyrics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (The original poem is about the plight), I would just say "The poem" since you are not referencing multiple poems here.
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji and the song explores the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon), I would use "while" instead of "and" to emphasize the contrast in subject matters and add a comma after "Fiji".
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (The song, which is set in the Carnatic raga known as Chenchurutt), I would remove "known as".
- Done. Though many Carnatic ragas have Wiki articles, Chenchurutti does not. If it did, at least a section redirect, would this sentence do? {{set in Chenchurutti, a Carnatic raga}}? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Release and reception
- Is it possible to add a link to "independence-era" in this part (and support by independence-era politicians) to help unfamiliar readers like myself?
- I guess the author actually means "pre-independence era" since India got independence only in 1947. Would it be better to link to British Raj? Because that's the era he's referring to. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful to somehow incorporate the link into the sentence, but if you are having too much trouble with it, then I would not worry about it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain about the repetition of "film's" in this sentence (In its January 1937 issue, the art magazine Aadal Paadal praised the film's social setting and acting.) as it was done in a similar way in the previous sentence. I think you can drop "film's" and just say "the social setting and acting" without losing any meaning.
- Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (, a critic of cinema in general,), I do not think "in general" is necessary.
- Done as suggested. I do not want there to be a mix-up; belief that he was a film critic, but that he did not generally like films. But "a critic of cinema" gives the same impression doesn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For this part (and in another he indicated his fear by depicting his twitching fingers and feet. ), I would add a comma between "another" and "his".
- Done, the comma removal was Baffle's doing. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am uncertain about the word "unsophisticated" in this sentence (however, an unsophisticated audience thought the lighting in the first scene was poor and that the film was stuck in the second) as it seems too much judgmental toward the audience. Since these filmmaking techniques were new, it makes sense that an audience may not understand it so I think a better word choice could be used here.
- Previously, it had been two separate sentence (Sundararajan claimed these techniques not only helped the actors to emote their characters better but also showcased Dungan's talent, yet the audience believed that the lighting was not clear in the first case and the film was stuck in the second. He opined that this reflected the ignorance of the audience), before Miniapolis made them into what you see now. Do I restore this last sentence? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the previous wording was much better as it clearly defines the "ignorance" part as Sundararajan's opinion rather than an objective fact. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy
- For this part (It was the first Tamil film the be successful in overseas markets), I think you mean "to be successful".
- Yep. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, removed and kept the paragraph in balance. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing my comments. I have responded to your questions and pointed out a few areas that appear to be missed. I will do a full read-through of the article again sometime tomorrow. Thank you for your patience with this review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
