Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mullum Malarum/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2016 [1].

---

Mullum Malarum

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a film showcasing the superstar Rajinikanth as a character actor, widely considered his best performance. I have worked on this article for over two years and I feel it is very FAC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

• "is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name" - what year did the novel come out, and does it have an article?
• "Although Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali, his affection for his sister and the tragic loss of his arm" - could read as Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the tragic loss of his arm

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2009 Balu Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", which was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions"" - I don't understand how a statement made in 2009 affected his decisions in the film?

I've now written, "In 2009 Mahendra compared typical Indian hero-heroine dancing to "watching two drunken monkeys dancing", stating that this was why he "kept music as the background while the screen had lead characters expressing their emotions". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Because Mahendran had no previous directing experience, Balu Mahendra" - no need to repeat his first name here

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Mahendran agreed on a montage after Babu sang a line or two (much to the actor's disappointment)" - this could work fine without the brackets

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Chettiar was perplexed by the finished film's lack of dialogue (since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer), and did not expect such a visually-rich film" - again, I think this sentence would read smoothly without the brackets. I'm not sure what to recommend, but I feel that this sentence could be rephrased slightly

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Rare for Tamil cinema, Mullum Malarum has no duets" - could read as Mullum Malarum features no duets, which is considered rare in Tamil cinema

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• " Chettiar apologised to Mahendran, offering him a (politely refused) blank cheque, and the director thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"" - a bit choppy. Could read as Upon the film's release, Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, to which he politely refused. The director also thanked him for "letting [me] make a movie with Rajinikanth"

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander" - missing comma; After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu said that the film" - stated

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil and two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film" - syntax error, should read as Although Chettiar did not enter Mullum Malarum in any award competitions, it won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil, two Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film awards

Those were the minor prose issues I came across during my initial read-through of the article. All in all, I think the article is solid and very comprehensive - good factors for a FA. JAGUAR  10:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them Kailash! With all of that out of the way, I'll support this transition from GA to FA. The article is broad, comprehensive and well written. JAGUAR  13:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• Wikilink "winch" for those who might not be familiar with the term.

I have linked it in the lead and plot sections. Anywhere else I should link it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have a simpler word for "Itinerant"?

I found no synonyms on Wiktionary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "won first prize" — "won the first prize".

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan intervened and Balu Mahendra made his debut in Tamil cinema." — Sounds vague. Why did Haasan intervene and what for? For requesting Mahendra to be the cinematographer? If so, then did he make the request to Chettiar or Mahendran?

The source reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together." Kailash29792 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I've rephrased it myself for you. Do resolve the other comments and let me know by pinging me.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I like it this way. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "since he had hired Mahendran as director because he was a successful screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film" — "as he hired Mahendran as director due to successful stint as a screenplay and dialogue writer, and did not expect such a visually-rich film."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about it from me. The article looks good.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for resolving my comments. This article has my support for its transition from GA to FA.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Will look at it tomorrow if I can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Although Ashok Kumar and Ramachandra Babu were the initial choices for cinematographer, actor Kamal Haasan recommended Balu Mahendra for the job, which Mahendran accepted, leading to Mahendra making his debut in Tamil cinema.[8][9][10]

Although "

-rep of "although"

Reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Mahendran refused to direct the film if Rajinikanth was not cast,[11] and Chettiar capitulated;[6][5] however, he was still unhappy with the director's decision and called it "ridiculous" and "preposterous" every time he visited the set.[15] Ra" -As my good friend Tim riley always says, "however" is rarely needed. The sentence is too long and could be reworded to avoid it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• " Latha said that she was compelled to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts" -compelled isn't the right word here, what you mean is that "Latha was offered a role in the film but had to it turn down due to other filming commitments".

Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. But I prefer your wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "According to Naman Ramachandran's Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography, Umachandran's novel and Mahendran's film metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them.[26] According" -rep of according

It appears to be reworded. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• "He also noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing all that is pristine and traditional; although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -doesn't quite read well in one sentence. I don't follow what you mean by "although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness." -Can you reword?

I have merged the sentences. See now. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

*"with strands of sweetness." -it this a quote, I think it would be best quoted what is said there.

It is a translation. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote it in English and put the original language in a footnote?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done: Added original Tamil quote and my own English translation to footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• ""A good product needs no publicity, whereas a bad product cannot be pushed in the market however much you publicise it"." -is this supported by ref 50 further down?
• Perhaps you could lose a couple of quotes in the retro views of reception to improve readability and flow
• "The winch in Mullum Malarum prompted director P. V. Prasad to use a winch fo" -no need to repeat, replace winch in second instance with "one"
• "Mullum Malarum appears on several lists of great films. In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film on her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[73] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth on her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth"" -mmm it's a bit of an exaggeration in appearing on several lists of great films though as you mostly cite the best films of the actor. It's not as if it is cited among the greatest Tamil or Indian films top 100 or anything. Perhaps reword to something like "The films consistently ranks as one of Rajinikanth's best films in polls."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very good article, I'll be willing to support once the above are addressed. It could still use a little tightening up in the reception section though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Don't know if you've addressed all points but I think it's nearing the line for FA considering the film industry and time period. It would still benefit from a few more people giving it a read and edit in places perhaps but good enough in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

When did the filming take place? Didn't find details yet. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) In order for this to be comprehensive in coverage, it will need such detail since this is a major aspect of films. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) How much did the film gross overall? Unavailable. I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Odd. Box office is a pretty big part of film articles, and it would especially help to demonstrate the claims of commercial success. But back then, a film's commercial success would be measured by the number of days it runs in theatres. And that has been covered here. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Excluding cast member names, the plot is currently 364 words long. It should be 400–700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. I'll try to expand it.Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) It seems redundant to have cast members both in the plot and in a list. If including a cast list, the members need to be referenced; there is nothing in WP:FILMCAST that makes them exempt. Though they have already been sourced in the "casting" section, I don't mind sourcing them again in the "cast" section. But there are other cast members who I have not included in the article due to lack of reliable sources, though they appear in the film's opening credits. Can I use that as a source here? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, can I use the opening credits of the film as a source here, to add the other cast members? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Fine with me. Just remove cast members from the plot section to avoid redundancy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Tragic" in "tragic loss" is not neutral. I never added that term. Blame it on the GOCE, don't blame it on me. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Done. Removed "tragic". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Are "BehindWoods" or "Bollywood Life" reliable? The former, yes. The latter, though owned by Zee Network, does not typically qualify as RS. It does conduct exclusive interviews though, and this is one example. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Twitter and WordPress are discouraged as references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC) But the accounts are of Mohan V. Raman and Baradwaj Rangan, both are noted journalists here. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Even so, I'd recommend using something else if possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: In Baradwaj Rangan's wordpress URL, it states "Copyright 2005 @ Man's World" in the end of the article. Man's World directs to Man's World (magazine). So I've added it to the citation.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Sounds good. Lemme know when all of my points are fulfilled. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Please see how the article is now. Suggest improvements if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I currently count 399 words (less than the recommended 400–700) in the plot section, and there's still no time frame for when filming took place. At the very least include a year for filming. If possible, include months as well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC) I know a film historian named G. Dhananjayan whose email ID I have. I guess I'll ask him if he has any info on this. But does the plot need anymore c/e now? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Plot is fine now. Just get a time range for filming and we're good to go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I concede. Though I got hold of the director's memoir on the film's making, he has not mentioned any filming dates in it (though Danny states in his books that the film was shot in Sringeri, Ooty, Kundha and Chennai in about 30 days, which I have added). What to do? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Very strange. I would definitely add to the time range you did get into the lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Added it to lead myself. Kailash29792, there are some citations with "Check |archiveurl= value" problems. The Hindu also needs to be italicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks Snuggums. This was the reason my activity here reduced in the past several days. BTW, how do I fix the "help" tags that appear on the URLs? I don't know what is wrong with them. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Neither do I, they seem correctly formatted when I preview with edit mode :/. I've posted a notice here asking for assistance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Now that all the citations are fixed, I shall support this nomination. However, if you do come across a time range for when filming took place, by all means include it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Krish

• Support : Just read the article, and found nothing questionable. The article is well-written, and definitely meets the FA criteria. Plus this was very informative for me, someone who barely watch old films.Krish | Talk 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3

Sorry for taking so long to do this! When reading my comments, please bear in mind that I have very limited knowledge of Tamil cinema.

Production

• Since Umachandran does not have an article of their own, I think it would be helpful to give some information about them. Did they specialize in a specific genre of literature, were they well-known... ?

I wish someone would develop an article on him. But I know not much. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Same with Venu Chettiar; was he a well-known producer, what types of films did he produce, was this his first production...?

Repeat above. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that he was not even mentioned in the title credits, I think the bit about Chettiar (in the lead) needs to be trimmed. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think "Although Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, he was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm." should be moved to the beginning of the previous para. E.g. "won the first prize in Kalki‍ '​s Novel Short Story Competition celebrating the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee. Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran only read a part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali and his affection for his sister, as well as the loss of his arm, and decided to adapt it into a film. He outlined..."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Why was Mahendran so insistent that Rajinikanth be cast in the lead role?

I don't know. This may have some info though. Vensatry, it's hard for me to read Tamil (I can read, but, its hard). Can you read and tell me if it has the info you recall? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that they both became friends during the making of Aadu Puli Attam, where Mahendran worked as a dialogue writer. Can't recall the source though. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done: I have written the reason. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Mahendran decided to characterise Manga as a "foodie who loves fish" when he saw the location's marine environment." — I think this is the first time in the article that it's mentioned that the film takes place in a location close to the sea, so this sentence is a bit confusing.

The source reads, "For the Rajnikanth starrer Mullum Malarum, which we shot at Sringeri in Karnataka, I decided on the characterisation of Fatapat Jayalakshmi( she plays Manga, Rajnikanth’s wife in the film). She is a foodie who loves fish. This came to me after I observed how there were water bodies and fish everywhere on the location! The song ‘Nitham Nitham Nellu Choru’ enhanced her character." Can it be reworded in a better manner? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe mention in the beginning of the sentence that they had chosen to Sringeri, a town with a river running through and a lively fishing industry, as a filming location and got the idea that this character would be a foodie from that? -THS

*Why were all these different actors cast? Even if you can't find information on the specific reasons for their casting in this project, it might be worth mentioning if they were already big stars or had only just begun their careers; if they were usually cast in roles like the ones they had in this film, etc.

I don't know.

• "The film intentionally defied traditional Tamil cinema conventions..." I would mention some of these conventions, as the reader of the article might not be familiar with Tamil cinema.

Already mentioned them. They include excessive melodrama, fights, duets and dialogue. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

*"thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"." Needs citation.

This is already used. Guess I'll reuse it, though it may become WP:CITEKILL. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a straight quote though, so it needs to be cited. -THS

• "Although Chettiar held up production by not financing a crucial lead scene before the song "Senthazham Poovil" with Sarath Babu and Shoba, Haasan funded the scene." — Why did he hold up the production?

I guess he did not want the film to go beyond budget. Or it must have been due to differences between him and Mahendran. Or both. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's what the sources say, then you should include it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• You mention that the film was unusually "visually rich" given that Mahendran was a dialogue writer — I'd like to hear more about the specific cinematographic motifs, styles, etc. that were used instead of dialogue. Did the filmmakers refer to any films as inspiration for this film?

The "Legacy" section mentions, "Discarding traditional melodrama, fights, duet songs and extensive dialogue, the film focused on visual realism", with a source. I guess I need not say more. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What I meant was that it would improve the article to explain what you mean by 'visual realism'. At the moment all I know about this film is that it didn't use extensive dialogue, fight scenes, or duet songs; there's little information on the types of effects and motifs the film uses to tell the story instead. 'Realism' is a very broad term, so it's not immediately clear what you mean by it – this is why you should mention specific techniques and motifs that the filmmakers used. For example, filmmakers striving to create a sense of the 'ordinary life' often choose colours and saturation that makes the film look bland in contrast to the vivid colours of Technicolor fantasy films; they might film with a handheld camera in order to give the film a more realistic, spontaneous style; they might prefer to film on location rather than on a sound stage...TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

TrueHeartSusie3, I got something (translated from Mahendran's book): "I was writing the screenplay as if I was writing a personal diary about my thoughts. I knew very well no producer would like it because it did not have the usual melodrama, overacting, lengthy dialogues, duet and routine climax. In other words it did not have any of the commercial formula which I successfully handled in my story-dialogue till then. It happened exactly as I thought." I guess he is saying that he took inspiration from nothing and that visual realism was his own idea. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think adding that quote could work, but what I meant is that you need to explain what visual realism means in this film's case. For example, if you look at "Themes and analysis" in American Beauty (1999 film), you'll find paragraphs like this: "Mendes called American Beauty a rites of passage film about imprisonment and escape from imprisonment. The monotony of Lester's existence is established through his gray, nondescript workplace and characterless clothing. In these scenes, he is often framed as if trapped, "reiterating rituals that hardly please him". He masturbates in the confines of his shower; the shower stall evokes a jail cell and the shot is the first of many where Lester is confined behind bars or within frames, such as when he is reflected behind columns of numbers on a computer monitor, "confined [and] nearly crossed out"". In other words, we not only get to know that Mendes wanted to portray Lester as a man trapped in his middle class life, but we're given examples of how they used film as a medium to express this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

TrueHeartSusie3: Thank you for the comment. I got another quote translated from the book: "MGR told Mahendran that he has proved that cinema is a visual medium with the actor's excellent performance and minimum dialogue." From this I guess they are saying that "visual realism" means the realistic/arthouse feel to a film sans the typical mainstream-attracting commercial elements like fights, dance, out-of-story comedy, etc. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but then what does 'arthouse feel' mean... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"Themes

• I don't understand what you mean by this: "that although the socio-economic system which has made them poor is unchallenged, in that system the male lead will be rich in his moral uprightness". Do you mean that the filmmakers omit any criticism of 'real' poverty and the system which has produced it, instead making a statement that the poor can be "rich in moral uprightness" though not in a material way? I would rephrase this so that it's clearer.

The author S. Rajanayagam states, "In such films, the poor are glamourised, and stereotyped as representing all that is pristine and traditional. The overall socio-economic system, which has made them poor, is unchallenged. Within the system, however, the hero will be 'richer' in terms of his moral uprightness." Does it solve anything? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be better to include that quote. EDIT: even if you don't add the quote, you will need to paraphrase it. At the moment, you've included significant sections of his statements word for word, but without quote marks. –THS

I have included the quote as it is and put it within quotation marks. Anyone may paraphrase it to the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day, he puts henna on her feet at night while she is asleep." What's the significance of putting henna on her feet? This is not clear for someone ignorant about Tamil culture.

I guess he was trying to be kind to her. In fact, women here (in India) love applying henna on their hands and feet. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe add something like "he tries to show his affection for her by putting henna..." But since it doesn't seem that henna is in any way symbolic, but simply a beauty practice that he wants to do to show his affection, I don't think it is actually that important to clarify it; I initially thought it might have some kind of more important meaning at first! -THS

*"Mullum Malarum explores the theme of egotism, with Kali, the community's alpha male, surrounded by sycophants who massage his ego." According to whom?

Naman Ramachandran. I don't wish to overuse the line "according to", so please suggest something else. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Unless its a general fact that MM is about egotism, you need to attribute it. However, you don't have to go with 'according to' every time; how about "NR states that..." or "NR regards egotism as one of the central themes in MM." ? -THS

Done: I have mentioned Ramachandran at the beginning of the sentence. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception

*"there were problems with its release. After Haasan's intervention..." What were the problems? Also, I think you could give Haasan's full name and profession here again, I had completely forgotten who he is. Also, how did he intervene?

This source reads, "When Rajnikanth’s yesteryear classic ‘Mullum Malarum’ had some problem in getting released. Kamal Haasan sorted out the issues and got the film released". Should that solve anything? BTW, Kamal Haasan has already been introduced in "Production". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If we don't know what the problems were, then it's fine not to alter that bit. I know Haasan was mentioned before, but it's worth mentioning his name and profession again, because it's confusing if the reader has to go back and forth. Remember that the reader of this article may not have heard of any of these people before, therefore we shouldn't assume that they'll be able to remember every name, especially if they've only been mentioned once before. -THS

We should either use 'Kamal' or 'Kamal Haasan'. Nobody calls him 'Haasan' (except for a few presses in North India). —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor." Why?

• In the sections on reviews and legacy, you sometimes write simply "X stated..."; given how few of the critics have Wikipedia articles, I think it would be helpful to mention whether they are film critics, film scholars, filmmakers, etc. For example, I have no idea who Baradwaj Rangan is and why I should think his/her opinion is notable enough to be included.

Did you read the section "Music"? Baradwaj Rangan has been introduced and wikilinked there. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I did, but again, you cannot expect your readers to be able to remember every name. You can expect them to remember all the main people involved in this film (e.g. lead actors, screenwriter, director, producer), but if someone has been mentioned only once, chances are the reader doesn't remember them and will be confused. -THS

Legacy

• "There might be very few or even no movie that revolves mainly the brother-sister relationship." Is there a word missing here?

I don't know. Should I add sic? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker though, so you might want to check with someone else before adding sic. -THS

• I think this section would be easier to take in if you began each paragraph with a description of what the para is about. E.g. if you are going to discuss the ways in which specific filmmakers have been influenced by the film, begin the paragraph with "Several filmmakers have credited Mullum Malarum as inspiration for their works.".
• In general I think this section might need to be restructured. For example, in para #3, you begin by listing praise from others, and then in the middle of the para mention that the film was the basis for a tv show. I don't understand the connection between the praise and the tv show.

Agree with THS. The TV show is totally unrelated (except for the name) to the film and is trivial. Ditto with Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed info about the TV show. But the line Ketta Paiyan Da Indha Karthi is a pun on one of MM's dialogues. So I thought it could stay. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's a pun, it would be helpful to have a footnote with English translations of the titles and an explanation of the pun, if appropriate. -Susie

• If several filmmakers have simply said that MM inspired them to become filmmakers, I think you could synthesize by saying "XYZ have stated that Mullum Malarum inspired them to become filmmakers" instead of including very similar quotes from all of them.
• "G. Dhananjayan wrote that it is one of five films the actor considers "close to his heart"; the other four are Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977), Aarilirunthu Arubathu Varai (1979), Enkeyo Ketta Kural (1982) and Sri Raghavendrar (1985)" I don't think you need to mention the other films.

Not mentioning the other four would create vagueness, so I mentioned them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe move them to a footnote? -THS

Yes, a FN would do. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Done: Added footnote. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "However, when his script for Azhagiya Kuyilae had no takers he directed the big-budget Gentleman (1993) and never got to make the small-budget film." What's the relevance of this fact to this article?I also don't think this should be included: "In January 2011 Rajinikanth saw Aadukalam, starring his son-in-law Dhanush. Impressed with his performance, he said: "This film will take Dhanush to the next level just like what Mullum Malarum did to me";[95] Dhanush's performance earned him the National Film Award for Best Actor." Same for the playback singer's opinion.

Yes, the bit about Aadukalam is WP:UNDUE. Also, Suchitra's quote contains this factually incorrect claim (I understand that's her opinion though): 'though it was only his third film'. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

How much of info from the Shankar interview do I keep? BTW, I've removed the information on Suchitra and Dhanush. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any need to include anything beyond a mention that MM inspired him to become a filmmaker. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Shankar has stated, "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". How do I paraphrase this? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still ok to just state that MM was one of the films which inspired Shankar to become a filmmaker. He has his own article, the rest should be discussed there. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

• In general, this section has too little information on MM's place in film history, and too much praise that is not very informative on why it deserves this praise. After reading it, I know that this film is considered a classic, but I am not sure why, beyond the fact that it was more visual than previous Tamil films and portrayed sibling relationships in a realistic way.

Overall, I think this is an interesting article close to becoming a FA. I understand that some of my points might be impossible to address due to lack of available information. When polishing the article, remember that its readers might have very little previous information of Tamil film history. Hope this is helpful! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I'm liking the improvements so far! I don't know if you'll find this helpful, but whenever I'm writing a "Legacy" section, I'll try to keep in mind the question "How would film history be different if this film had not been made?" This helps in focusing on the reasons why a film is notable, without giving undue weight to people simply saying that it's notable.

Unfortunately, I've spotted several issues in "Themes"; you need to add quotation marks to direct quotes, or (preferable in most cases) paraphrase them. For example, the following seem to be direct quotes but have not been attributed as such:

• " to flowers which need sharp thorns to protect them"

* "an angry young man with a kind heart"

Done: put within quotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

* "the Oedipal possessiveness by a married brother of his younger sister"

Done: put within quotes. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "massage his ego"

I accept it doesn't sound formal and is in need of replacement, but the line is already attributed to Naman Ramachandran. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Done: I think "massaging one's ego" means complimenting him (translation source: [2]). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, the issue isn't the phrase itself, the issue is that you cannot repeat the exact words of an author without indicating that you're directly quoting them. Doing that is plagiarism. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

* "presentable and educated"

I thought this is quite formal and neutral. Or should I write "relatively presentable and educated"? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Done: Removed them both as they sound POV; BTW engineers are supposed to be presentable and educated. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• "authoritarian yoke"

Repeat my comment above. But what else can I write? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here isn't the language, it's the direct quoting without clearly indicating that you're quoting directly (which means that you're essentially plagiarizing). I'm sorry but I think I will have to withdraw from this entire process, it's been going on for such a long time now.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

In general, I think you might want to reword most of the material relating to Ramachandran's statements – just replacing couple of words but keeping the overall structure of a sentence is not a good way to paraphrase. E.g. you write "As a subordinate, Kali cannot oppose Kumaran; his frustration threatens to erupt several times", and Ramachandran writes in his book "Being a subordinate, Kaali cannot really oppose him in any way and his frustration threatens to bubble over several times..." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You may withdraw as you please. And I am sorry for delaying to answer most of your comments. But thank you for giving them anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried to clarify what I meant above, but yeah, otherwise I think it's for the best for me to step aside. Personally, I'd like to see more information about the style of the film. Please let me know if I wasn't clear enough with what I've written about certain phrases in Themes – again, the issue isn't the language or POV, it's the direct quoting. Even if you write "X writes that...", and give the source in a footnote, you cannot use X's exact words if you don't put them in quotes. You should always try to paraphrase if possible, because in the worst case scenario the article will end up looking like a quote farm. Best of luck! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You succeeded in clarifying as I actually understood what you said, which is why I removed Ramachandran's quotes "massage his ego" (replaced with compliment) and "presentable and educated" (removed with no replacement). I also attributed the quote "the Oedipal possessiveness of a married brother for his younger sister" to Yves Thoraval, using double-quotation marks. I don't find any other issue. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

Oppose on sourcing

• The article extensively makes use of two books written by G. Dhananjayan—The Best of Tamil Cinema, 1931 to 2010: 1977–2010 and Pride of Tamil Cinema: 1931 to 2013. Although the latter had won a special mention at the 62nd National Film Awards, it looks like a WP:MIRROR, as the book paraphrases stuff from Wikipedia articles and the NFA archives of Directorate of Film Festivals. Since the article relies heavily on these two books, I'm opposing it momentarily. That said, I'm also concerned about the reliability of the following sources: Oneindia, Behindwoods, Raaga.com, VUIN.com, APTalkies.com, india-seminar.com (I know this is from BR), Bollywood Mantra, and Sify (I'm not sure if it's acceptable in FAs). —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed Oneindia, Raaga, APTalkies, Bollywood Mantra and VUIN, even though the VUIN article's title reads, "A VUIN Exclusive". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Vensatry, are you opposing the usage of Sify in articles like this because it is an online source with no print edition? Because you see other web-only sources like Behindwoods, Koimoi, IndiaGlitz, etc. in the same perspective. In fact, Behindwoods have gained remarkable media coverage through their "Gold Medal" ceremonies, and have no reputation for giving false info. And while both Danny's books do contain considerable plagiarism from us (I feel his National Award should be revoked for this), the Mullum Malarum chapters in both of them contain none. I'll even send you the pages for proof. Should that mean that the books can still be used here as sources? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the existing FAs (except your articles) use the aforesaid sources. —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – For those references with Tamil title, please include the English title in the trans_title parameter so that its possible for English readers to know what the reference subject is about. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Yashthepunisher

• Budget and Box-office information should be mentioned in the infobox.

Unavailable; I guess Indians back then weren't so fussy about fiscal information on films. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Its personal, but you might wanna replace some convoluted words like "tumultuous" and "tepid" with something more formal.
• Mention the names who have played "Kali" and "Kumaran" in bracket during plot synopsis.

I actually removed it on another editor's suggestion to avoid WP:OVERLINK. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• Following sources are doubtful as WP:RS: bollywoodlife.com, behindwoods.com, Lokvani.com, and tamilcinemamusic.com. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Behindwoods is a reliable source; it was accepted during Enthiran's FAC. Bollywood Life contains an exclusive interview (I don't know what to do in this case), tamilcinemamusic.com contains an old review of the film by Ananda Vikatan. I don't know what's wrong with Lokvani. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Behindwoods was never discussed in either of the FACs of Enthiran. But i see that its extensively used as a source. And i also see that it was a promotional partner of the film and with such a COI it should not have been used there in the first place. Anyways, arguing that its used there and hence its RS is just OSE. Publishing "exclusive interview" doesn't make them reliable. That way I could catch hold of a minor regional celebrity in a market, ask them some questions and make my blog RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood Life has been removed now. As for Behindwoods, what do I do to prove its reliability? Ssven2, I bet you can rework the Enthiran magic here (i.e., how you succeeded in using Behindwoods as a source there). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Utcursch

I don't have access to G. Dhananjayan's The Best of Tamil Cinema, but his Pride of Tamil Cinema explicitly mentions Wikipedia articles as its sources. It also cites some websites that would be considered questionable by WP:RS standards. Therefore, its use as a reference in an FA is questionable. utcursch | talk 06:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How did you get access to Pride? BTW, please note if there are other "questionable" sources in the article, and I'll contemplate removing them. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's available as a Preview on Google Books. utcursch | talk 19:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Coord note

The main outstanding point of disagreement I see here concerns the reliability of sourcing. @Nikkimaria and Brianboulton:, could one of you pls check and offer your thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ugh! Due to having to remove one source (Pride), now the shape of the article itself has changed. I was forced to remove it because someone pointed out that it plagiarises us (less than 50% of the book is plagiarised, and the Mullum Malarum chapter in particular contains no plagiarism). Still, as you say, I have removed excessive use of that source, except for the instances where the author has quoted other people that is otherwise unavailable. I request that this FAC be withdrawn as I see the article isn't good enough yet and I plan to rework it. Just I would like you to list here the other "questionable" sources used in this article so I can contemplate removing/replacing them. Without further comment I will, for the first time, accept my failure in a self-nominated FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Once the nom is withdrawn and closed, there should be no further edits to this page (a link to it will automatically be put under Article History on the article talk page by the FACbot) -- best probably to use a new section on the article talk page for a list of problematic sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.