Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mullum Malarum/archive4

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [1].

---

Mullum Malarum

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC), Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

After three disappointing FACs in a row (and an intense PR), I massacred chunks of content I no longer deemed helpful (taking inspiration from the Mad Queen, not that I liked what she did) to ensure that the article is now more concise and FA-worthy. Unlike earlier FACs, this one is a co-nomination and that should help. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I will most definitely help Kailash for this article's promotion to FA. Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (clashes with his boss, Kumaran, when the latter falls in love with Valli), I am wondering if there is a way to avoid “the latter”. Maybe something like (clashes with his boss, Kumaran, who falls in love with Valli).

The basic premise at both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes reads, "A boorish villager butts heads with a newly appointed engineer from the city". Can I simply remove the last sentence about Kumaran loving Valli since it is spoilery and not the original cause of enmity between him and Kali? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comment. I think that the part could be removed without any issue. The current wording does imply the Kumaran/Valli relationship was the original cause of the conflict, and that appears to be only true for later in the film. I do not personally have an issue with putting a spoiler in the lead, but I think that just saying (Mullum Malarum tells the story of Kali, a winch operator at a power plant who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with his boss, Kumaran) would cover the basics of the storyline and should be enough. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Done as suggested, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Would it be helpful to wikilink “Tamil cinema” since here is a separate article for it?

Done by Ssven2. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• The word “lorry” is wikilinked twice in the article.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Make sure that the references are in numeric order. For instance, the first part of the “Legacy” section’s first paragraph has reference 59 after reference 88.

Re-arranged. Now can you read [59][88]89]? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything looks great. I will support this for promotion once my relatively minor comments are addressed. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are doing a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Support from Yashthepunisher

• Support My issues were resolved at the PR. Hope it passes this time. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Fowler&fowler

F&f comments of July 2019

• • Lead: Here are some sentences in the lead:

*** 1. Fourth sentence >>> "Mullum Malarum tells the story of Kali, a winch operator at a power plant who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with his boss, Kumaran."

****a) Why is an average reader expected to know what a winch operator does in a power plant? The link provides no clue.

I've only retained the part mentioning he is a winch operator. Removed the power plant. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • • b) Why is the sister's name, or his boss's, needed at this stage in the lead, when it appears again nowhere else in the lead, and when neither name is accompanied by the name of the actor who plays the part?
      • c) Why is a man's doting on his sister (i.e. lavishing uncritical affection on her) notable enough for a mention in the lead but without further explanation of how this ties in with the story?

Because they were orphaned. Should I mention this in the lead? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • • d) The same goes for the protagonist's "clashing" (coming into constant conflict) with his boss; why is that, without further explication, notable for mention?

They clash because of differing ideologies; Kumaran dislikes Kali's unruliness and Kali's nickname for Kumaran ("Law Point") is caustic. Should I mention this? I'm trying to keep the premise in the lead faithful to what RT shows, though I've already added more than what it shows. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • 2. Fifth sentence >>>"Production on the film was complicated by its producer Chettiar's opposition to cast Rajinikanth as the protagonist because of his dark skin and typecasting as a villain at the time, but Mahendran refused to direct the film without the actor."
      • a) There are too many syntactical and semantic errors here ... I am guessing you mean: "In casting for the hero, the producer opposed choosing Rajinikanth whose complexion he judged too dark for such a role, and whose successful roles as a villain he judged to have already typecast him. " But so what if I have rewritten it? The bigger problem here is that the text has little coherence. What you want to say first is that the movie broke new ground in Tamil cinema by casting as its hero an actor with physical characteristics which the conventions of the cinema had hitherto considered unbecoming. Instead, you go off on the complications of the producer's opposition, etc. The reader is left perplexed.

Ssven seems to have taken care of this. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • 3 Sixth sentence. >>>> "Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra, who was already an established director, assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing."

He had cinematic experience; he was a screenwriter, but did not serve as an AD. In India, most men serve as ADs before making their directorial debut. What should I do? Remove the sentence completely or what? But I feel it is important to mention Balu Mahendra as DOP in the lead. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• • • • a) The 800-pound gorilla here is the absence of any directing experience in the director. Instead of telling us how he managed to wangle the role, how the producer was on board, what the director's potential handicaps were, you are matter-of-factly telling us that in such an unsurprising happenstance, cinematographers who are established directors just happen to be around for rendering help. Again, the reader is left perplexed.
    • At a glance I can tell there are similar problems with all too many sentences throughout the article. Have you put yourself in the shoes of an unfamiliar reader who comes to this article? Where are the hooks of elegance to sustain the pleasure of reading, hooks of emphasis to sustain coherence in meaning, hooks of connection to sustain cohesion of narrative? Receiving perfunctory supports after superficial copy edits won't help here. The article has serious issues. You need to double down and think about them. It doesn't help the article, nor is respectful to the reviewers, that a nominator has submitted an article for the fourth time at FAC in such state, and accompanied by such an opaque nomination note. PS Please also don't tell me that this is not actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It appears this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have solved one issue, I hope Ssven2 can solve the rest. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, is this all the comments you have got? Can you please strike them out if they have been addressed? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead reads better than before. I'll try to find time to read the rest of the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Four days later, any update? Can you please reply to my questions which go "Should I mention this"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

F&f comments of August 2019

Fowler&fowler, I've solved all your comments. Is that all? Or are you planning on giving more comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what to say. You have been very earnest and prompt in your responses. I have been unresponsive after my initial comments. I attribute this to my not wanting to offer detailed sentence-by-sentence critiques. I'm not familiar with the material, and there are not enough details in the text for me to learn. The plot, for example, is still written in the style of a bare-bone Aesop's fable. Please read the first few sentences of the plot, and put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary reader: "Kali is a winch operator at a village power plant. Although notorious for his escapades and self-aggrandizing ways, he also does good deeds for the local community. ... The power plant's new supervising engineer is Kumaran, an austere but fair boss. His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules. ..." Winches have different designs, forms, and functions. There are winches that lower things into the ocean. How will anyone ride that winch? You still haven't given us enough details about your winch to make the sentence comprehensible. There are "opposites" set up in the text that are confusing or distracting: "escapades" and "good deeds," or "austere" and "fair." There are surprises: "The power plant's new boss." That is the first time we learn that the old boss, who was presumably more accepting of winch riding, had left. Anyway, all I can see is that the plot remains too sketchy, too uneven, and too anonymous. It is not at FA level, in my limited experience. I know you have worked hard. I haven't read the rest of the article. I don't have specific things for you, but after you're done with this article, howsoever its candidacy ends, you might want to take some time aside and practice writing plots. I know this sounds presumptuous or paternalistic, but I mean it sincerely. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a winch that can be ridden. What to call it? There is no mention of who Kumaran's predecessor was. If you are confused with the plot, you can read the essential plot details from 252 of this book, and pages 80 to 81 of this book, then tell me what to rewrite. However, the former book cannot be used as a source as it has copied from Wiki in large parts, even though the highlighted chapter is blameless. And I removed the "austere but fair" sentence since it sounds POVish. As for your comment that there are "opposites" that are "confusing" or "distracting", I guess that's what the film's title, meaning "thorn and flower", reflects. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose You posted on my talk page, so I'm changing my comment into a vote. Sorry, but I don't see any improvements. It's been two weeks since 11 August when I last made my comment. If you haven't found time in two weeks to pick up a dictionary and figure out that a winch involves a drum and a cable or rope which the drum pulls in or lets out by rotating, I afraid I can't help you. In my view, the article remains poorly written, a combination of haphazard narration and the liberal use of jargon. Fixes there are many, but I don't see any within the ambit of an FAC review. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

PS As I had feared, I see the same issues today, August 30, though the phrasing has changed here and there. Here is the plot again:

>>"Kali is a winch operator at a village power plant."

• We still don't know what a winch operator does in a power plant, despite the link. What is a village power plant in any case?" Most power plants serve an area larger than a village.

>>"Though notorious locally for his self-aggrandizing, hell-raising ways, he also does good deeds for the local community."

• The subordinate clause ("Though notorious ..."), in such abstraction, is a strange thing to saddle a reader with this early. You have given us no example of his behavior. He must have talked himself up or promoted himself in some action (self-aggrandizing behavior) or created chaos ("hell raising"). You have to start with examples of these. Why is "local(ly)" needed in either position. It is a small village after all.

>>"Kali and his younger sister Valli, to whom he is devoted, were orphaned during childhood and have no close family."

• An orphan is a parentless child. After all, the deaths of the parents must have unfolded with some detail, shock, and drama in the movie for the viewer. Where is that in the narration? How did they survive after being orphaned? Did they go to school? How did the neighbors, relatives, ..., the village react to the parents' deaths? They must have helped out in some way for children to survive. How did Kalli go from point A (death of parents) to point B (self-aggrandizing winch operator)? That is too much of a gap. If there indeed is such a gap in the movie's storyline, then we need to be told that.

>>"When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home."

• In a socially stratified society such as India's how does a wandering rural woman just arrive with her (presumably also wandering) mother at the home of two people she doesn't know? Where is the background? What happens then that wants to set up home? Wanderers, after all, are not attracted to the settled life, let alone being ill-equipped for it.

>>"Kumaran is the power plant's new supervising engineer. His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees his unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules."

• How big is the village that its power plant has a "supervising engineer?" What is a supervising engineer? Why isn't "boss" enough for a plot which otherwise eschews details? How does anyone ride a winch (you still haven't explained)? How is the relationship difficult? There must be some specific behavior that causes friction. You need vignettes in between the abstractions to carry the reader with you. I could go on, but ... it is ultimately not a question of whether this article meets the FA prerequisites. It is more whether you want to write an article that communicates something about the movie to the reader. That is a question only you can answer. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

F&f comments of September 2019

Note I have rewritten the plot in 700 words, which, I've been given to understand, is the upper limit of plot length. As my earlier oppose was based entirely on my reading of the plot, I can't very well continue to oppose the nomination. For that reason alone, I am withdrawing my oppose. Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Note 2 I have reinstated my oppose I have examined some other sections. I will post something here before the end of the day. (I have already rewritten the Plot section, so it won't be about that.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Development: (first paragraph)

>>>Sentence 1: Mullum Malarum, a novel written by Uma Chandran, was serialised in the mid-1960s in the Tamil magazine, Kalki.

Comment: Mid-1960s is not precise enough. Whether it is Dickens or Uma Chandran, we need to know the range of serialization (from beginning month or week to end month or week).

Went with 1966 cause that's what Chakravarthy says. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

>>> Sentence 2: The novel, about the love between a brother and sister, (cite to "balu mahendra blog") won the first prize in Kalki's novel competition for the magazine's silver jubilee in 1966.

Comment (a) A claim cannot be cited to a blog. (b) "Love between a brother and sister" is not complex enough description for an FA. More information is being supplied about the first prize than the content of the novel. (c) When so much is being cited to Tamil magazines (in an English language encyclopedia) we need the Tamil script and the English translation. Rather than my requesting it in each instance.

Removed the "love between a brother and sister" sentence altogether, though it was DOP Balu Mahendra's blog. But won't someone ask "what was the novel's premise"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

>>>Sentence 3: After screenwriter J. Mahendran had been pressured fruitlessly by many film producers to write for them, he solicited for novels to adapt, one of which was Mullum Malarum.

Comment (a) "fruitlessly" can mean "uselessly, idly, vainly;" it can also mean "unsuccessfully.' Which sense is meant? (b) We are citing "fruitlessly," a charged word, to the director's memoirs. That is not WP:RS, especially not for "pressured fruitlessly." (c) Minor: you probably don't want "solicited for." Solicited is enough.

Went with unsuccessfully. Blofeld wrote this. He knows better English than me (not that mine is bad, I think in English), yet how is this grammatically wrong? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

>>> Sentence 4: Resonating with the egotistical character of the winch operator Kali, he began writing a script starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, without being faithful to the source material or even fully reading it.

Comment (a) The first half of the sentence says: he was resonating with (i.e. was filled with) the egotistical character of Kali, but the second part does not allude to anything that springs out of egotism. The sentence becomes meaningless. If on the other hand, you had written, "Resonating with the egotistical character of Kali, he wrote a story of a megalomaniac who wanted to win at all costs, even if it meant selling his sister," it would have been a coherent sentence. (b) "Without being faithful" is incorrect because "egotism" is very much a part of Kali's character. (c) The sentence implies that Kali, or the character Kali is modeled on in the novel, was also a winch operator. Is this correct? If so, how is he not being faithful? You can, however, claim that he was not entirely faithful (d) "without being faithful to the source material or even fully reading it." Did he fully read it or not? Is there some doubt about that? If there is, it should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia. If there isn't, then the sentence should read, "without being entirely faithful to the source material and without even fully reading it." (e) The sentence is sourced to a directors reminiscences or memoir. That is not a secondary source. It can be used for some factual data, but not for sentences about the history of the writing. You need another text to quote him saying that, and to make some claim about that with evidence of the claim.

All this is the rewriting of Dr. Blofeld, a far better writer than me. I still don't understand what is confusing about this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to say that the screenwriter (Mahendran) set about writing a screenplay filled with a striking aspect of the personality of the novel's hero, then you should be saying, "Resonating with the portrayal of the egotistical winch operator in the novel, he set about writing a script about two siblings, an analogous winch operator, and his sister, starting with their childhood as orphans." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

>>>>Sentence 5: Mahendran decided to make a minimalist, visually-focused film without formulaic Tamil cinema conventions such as melodrama, overacting, excessive dialogue or duets, claiming he wrote the screenplay as if it was a "personal diary" of his thoughts.

Comment: (a) Again, the sentence is cited to a memoir. It is a primary source. Unless someone else quotes him saying that we cannot write that sentence in an encyclopedia. (b) We have no idea what the actual text says in translation, let alone whether the paraphrase is accurate. (c) I believe in an FAC the burden is on the nominator to provide both the script and the translation so that we can judge if the paraphrasing is correct. (d) Why is only the "personal diary" a claim? The whole sentence is a claim.

>>>>Sentence 6: Unlike the novel where Kali loses his arm to a tiger, in Mahendran's screenplay he loses it when it is mangled by a truck.

Comment:' (a) What connection does this have with minimalist, visually-focused film, etc that was written as of it were a personal diary? (b) the sentence seems to be telling us that the novel and the screen-play are different. It properly belongs in the paragraph with the earlier claim about not being entirely faithful etc.

>>>>Sentence 7: The novel also ends with the deaths of Kali and his wife Manga, which Mahendran did not include in his screenplay.

Comment: (a) Again, this belongs to the earlier bit about not being faithful etc. (b) You probably want, "In addition, the novel ends ..."

Wrote, "In addition, the novel ends". It does have a connect showing how "faithful" the script was to the novel. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

>>>>Sentence 8: One producer rejected the script because it lacked formula, and instead adapted Mahendran's play Rishi Moolam into a film.

Comment: (a) What does it mean that it "lacked formula?" (b) What is the connection between lacking formula and Mahendran not including the deaths of Kali and his wife in the screenplay? Are deaths formulaic? (c) If you are referring to the formulaic elements referred to earlier, this sentence should be grouped with that? (d) Why is Rishi Moolam mentioned? Why is it notable for mention in the "Development" section?

"Lacked formula" means it lacked formula! Melodrama, overacting, excessive dialogue, duets, fight scenes, etc. It's clear he completed the script and a producer rejected it, instead preferring to play safe. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

General comments: These are not ordinary issues of grammar. They are issues of coherence of the text, of using primary sources, of using sources in another language without giving us either the script or the translation. It would be best if you gave us both. These are not problems that can be easily fixed by an FAC reviewer unless they know the Tamil language, and unless they have access to the sources, and unless they are willing essentially to rewrite the article. To expect that, in my view, is to place too much burden on the reviewer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, if you have issues with me not giving you translated pages, here they are. If the text is illegible, I'll type it out for you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Kailash29792 The Tamil language sources are the least of the problems in the sentences above. The bigger problem is the lack of coherence in the paragraph. This may be happening because you have been too pliable to the suggestions of reviewers who are themselves making errors or are not keeping tabs on the changes that are being wrought in the wake of their comments—and this can be one of the drawbacks of the FAC process. I see one complex sentence after another, each with a main clause and a subordinate one, one containing an independent action, the other a dependent one, carrying an air of inevitability, but the overall sequence not fitting logically. Let me demonstrate below with the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Development: (second paragraph)

>>>Sentence 1:When Mahendran considered quitting cinema and returning to journalism, Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films visited and offered him to direct his next venture.

Comment: (a) By putting "quitting cinema and returning to journalism" in a dependent clause, you have given it an air of inevitability. There is nothing inevitable about quitting cinema and returning to journalism. It is not like reaching middle age, which most people do. Rather, it is more like deciding to climb Mount Everest, which very few do. (b) At this point, we don't know that he ever had been a journalist, so "returning to journalism" comes as a surprise. (c) to "consider" is to contemplate. It is a private process, its deliberations or conclusions inaccessible to others. So, how did Venu Chettiar hear about this? (d) You could attempt to fix this by writing: When Mahendran let it be known (that) he was contemplating quitting cinema and returning to journalism, his former profession, ..." This would take care of objections (b) and (c) above, but not always (a). You may still need something to change it from a general action to a specific one, such as: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema and returning to his old profession of journalism, a producer, Venu Chettiar, visited him ...." (e) "offered him to direct" The verb "offer" can either take a direct object (him) or a verb complement with infinitive (to direct) but not both. So, we will need something like: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema and returning to his old profession of journalism, a producer, Venu Chettiar, of Ananthi Films, visited him and offered him a shot at directing his next venture." (f) This is almost OK; however, a new reader might puzzle over whose venture this will be, Mahendran's or Chettiar's. The sentence is ambiguous. So, in order to be truly encyclopedic you will need something like: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema and returning to his old profession of journalism, a producer, Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, visited him and offered him a shot at directing Ananthi Films' next venture." (g) Finally, you could ask, "Does the reader need to know about M's old profession?" "Does the reader need to know that Chettiar visited him? If you think s/he does not, then you could shorten the sentence to: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema, a producer, Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, offered him a shot at directing Ananthi Film's next venture." The sentence now is fine, but you still need to worry about whether it fits with the rest of the paragraph, and sometimes that requires many readings. So, you see, in one sentence alone, such, and such variety of, issues can turn up. So I hope you understand my dilemma. The errors are there, and they are not being fixed, or are being reintroduced in the light of disparate reviewers' comments. Unless the errors are fixed, how can I certify that this is FA material? The only solution, in the end, is for you to learn to do this yourself, confidently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, now I've removed journalism and wrote, "Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, a family friend of Mahendran, wanted to produce a film and offered Mahendran to direct it". Better? Since the translated pages I shared with you seem illegible for you to read (someone else wrote them when I asked), here is a version typed by me. Typing still going on, but I got the development details. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No. It is not OK. You seem to be doing this again and again. I point out errors in your text and point to a solution. Instead of fixing the errors, you rephrase the sentence radically, introducing new errors. (a) This is not a timeless tale you are telling. Things happened in space and time. When did the producer visit Mahendran and where? (b) What does it mean to say, "wanted to produce a film" about a producer? A producer, by definition, is always wanting to produce films. It is his livelihood. (c) Now we have a new unknown, "family friend." Why is that relevant? (d) I just told you above that the verb "observe" can take a direct object or a verb complement with an infinitive, but not both, but you are repeating the error (e.g. offered Mahendran to direct it.), (e) Also, I'm afraid the Mehendran reminiscences are not WP:RS. Please use only the Frontline article of Chakravarthy (Icon of Change), for this section, it has a good description in the "Formative Years," and "The Making of Mullum Mularam sections and it is a secondary source) (f) In any case, you can't present a typewritten translation at a non-Wikipedia web site. You have to present the Tamil script, and the English translation, on a subpage of the article's talk page. The Tamil script has to be in a form in which I can send it to a linguist to verify that the rendering is accurate or input short fragments into Google Translate. I'm not at all confident that the text cited to Mahendran's memoirs is reliably paraphrased, if for no reason other than your seeming to change it constantly. This is not looking good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say I was gonna use MY TYPEWRITING as a source! I shared it with you so you could PROOFREAD and tell me what was wrong! Sorry if it looked like yelling though. It's just that me, Ssven and Mr rnddude became quite annoyed with your behaviour (seems even Blofeld did), and while they have vented out their frustration (see what Ssven said), I haven't done it to the full extent. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My job here is not to be nice to people, only to ensure that WP guidelines are being followed. (For your information, and theirs, I have not read the links you have supplied, nor intend to. I also ignore your edit summaries about your state of mind, downbeat vs upbeat, in the wake of my comments.) You have to understand the problem. You have a good source, Chakravarthy, which has more information about "development" than the Tamil source you are using, whose paraphrasing besides keeps changing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• Links to sources all appear to be working
• Formats

• Ref 15 requires pp. not p.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 42 requires p. not pp.

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 60 does not provide sufficient information to identify or access the source. Is this DVD, CD or what? Can you provide the identifying code number?

Do you know what liner notes are? Alright, here is the link to the original LP cover (alternate link). But then, Discogs is not RS, is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Likewise ref 68, which has the additional complication of Vaidyanathan

Here is the link to Mullu Puvvu's soundtrack. But then using Photobucket to display copyrighted content is not legal is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 82 is missing archive and retrieval dates.

The archiving never works correctly for subscription-only articles on this site. But I added the accessdate. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• The bibliography includes "Rajinikanth 12.12.12..." etc – can you identify where this source is cited?

I've converted it into a proper ref. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Be consistent in use of publisher location in the bibliography

It doesn't matter much, does it? I've removed all locations in the section as I feel it doesn't add much. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Veera Narayana

Okay, the article has been really expanded when compared to the previous review, and I have the following issues with it.

Firstly, the plot:

• "Although notorious for his escapades and self-aggrandising ways, he also does good deeds for the local community." -- Pleasee see if we can rephrase this into something more clear. IIRC, Kali is shown to have a good relationship with the villagers but we are not shown the good deeds he has done (or at least the version I saw did not contain them).

Ramachandran's plot says, "He has a reputation as a local hell-raiser, what with his regular escapades and self-aggrandizing ways. But he also does good deeds for the community from time to time". Anything confusing? Any better wording? But I think this shows Kali is both the mull and malar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have re-watched the film and understood one thing for sure. Kali (or Kaali for that matter) isn't a man doing good deeds, but is actually playing god. IMHO what all good deeds he does, he thinks it is a "favour" he has done to the community he lives in. However, i am not objecting your POV here because Mahendran shows a sequence where Kali is shown to be very friendly to everyone around and helping them in their errands. Hence, discounted. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• "His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules." -- Kali repeats twice in the same sentence.

Done, wrote "His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees his unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules." --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Kali hated Manga right? The winch scene where he runs after her, was it a trigger to their future romance, even if it was one-sided?

Ramachandran's plot says, "Manga takes a shine to Kaali [this is how to pronounce his name] but he is disgusted with her gluttonous ways as her main focus in life is food". The next mention of Manga comes in "Kaali eventually succumbs to Manga's ample charms. But to his bad luck, on the one day that he frolics in the river with Manga, away from his post, there is an emergency and he is absent without leave." Any suggestion? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "Manga developed a liking for Kali, but he is particularly unimpressed with her obsession over food. As time passes, he begins to reciprocate her feelings."

• "Although Manga opposes Kali's decision, he stubbornly refuses her plea to let his sister marry Kumaran." -- "Although" isn't necessary here IMO. Manga opposed and Kali denied. "Although" gives an impressions as if Manga isn't okay with the alliance but is going forward with Kali's plans.

Rewritten as "Manga opposes Kali's decision, but he stubbornly refuses her plea to let his sister marry Kumaran". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Now, off to the Production section. Much expanded compared to the previous review period :)

• "He then developed a screenplay based on the novel, starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, according to his own wishes." -- own wishes? some rephrasing needs to be done in this aspect.

Yep. This source says, "But he wrote the screenplay the way he visualised it". I don't want to get into WP:QUOTEFARM. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See, he's a screenwriter. He has the liberty to start the way he wishes to. What clarity needed here is that, is it deviating from the novel? If it was just the way he visualised it, the very mention of "own wishes" is sheer useless. Give it a thought. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously he deviated from the novel since he did not read it fully. How about this? He then developed a screenplay based on the novel, starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, without being faithful to the source material. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Veera Narayana 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Mahendran believed Chettiar accepted because of the latter's belief that Mahendran would make a successful brother-sister film like the melodramatic Pasamalar (1961)." -- Mahendran repeats twice. If I understood the context correctly, Chettiar expected a Pasamalar-like film from Mahendran, though the latter had an approach that was raidcally different. Mahendran didn't want to betray Chettiar's trust in him and decided to be silent. If yes, please go for rephrasing.

This needs to be addressed. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Balu Mahendra said he avoided incorporating the usual hero-heroine dancing into the film because he thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"" -- to whom did this man say?

During the audio launch of Angadi Theru, to the attendees. But that's not important is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• "When Kamal Haasan asked Chettiar if he did not mind anyone else financing the scene, Chettiar agreed, and Haasan himself financed the scene" -- Can't we go for something like "Haasan convinced Chettiar, gained his consent, and financed the scene"?

Yes, sounds good. But I don't want people thinking Kamal pacified Chettiar into financing the scene. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Rewritten. Hope the current phrasing is good. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• With all due respect to Chettiar, somehow the Production section has portrayed him as an eternal villain cynical of the film's success. I know this is unintentional, but don't you think it teases the neutrality aspect?

I believed this does, so I'll leave it to Ssven2. Let him read Mahendran's book (yes, I shared the pages with him) and see if any correction/addition needs to be made. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I will get around to it tomorrow as I am a little more freer then.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I would wait. No worries. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Coming to the themes, I don't know from when Rajinikanth was politically active, but 1978 was too early to make assumptions. He wasn't even a proper lead actor with a noticeable stardom then. Why should we see it as Rajinikanth's resentment on AIADMK? If there is no proper justification to this, it is better you bid goodbye to this point.

The source reads, "J Ramki in his book Rajni: Sapthama? Sagaapthama? writes that Rajnikanth had ruffled a few feathers in the ruling AIADMK since his Mullum Malarum (1978), where he sings ‘raman aandaalum raavanan aadaalum enakkoru kavalai illai [I don’t care if Raman rules the state or Raavanan]'." I believe it was (and still is) allegorical, like Padayappa vs Neelambari reflected Rajini vs Jaya. So can it be rephrased or simply removed? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. MM was his breakthrough. If he hurt AIADMK's feelings, it is the film's issue, not the actor's. Place any actor there, and the result is still the same. Because the man on screen wasn't a star even then. Rajinikanth vs Jayalalitha is a different issue, as he openly took a stand against her and the references were clear in Muthu, Arunachalam and Padayappa. So, i believe this should be either removed, or needs to be mentioned as an impact of the song's lyrics on the then-existing political scenario. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed as it is not helpful any longer, and also reduces clutter in the section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Going further, i am unable to understand what would the guys at Ananda Vikatan compare the film with Kurinji flowers. I mean why? is it the rarity? uniqueness? visual beauty? subtle colour? Why?

Most probably rarity. This once glorious icon translated the last line of Vikatan's review in his now-unusable book as "This flower is one of those rarest Kurinchi flowers in Tamil Cinema". Can I write the reviewer likened it to Kurinchi flowers because of its rarity? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In Legacy, don't you think we can mention the usage of "Raman Aandalum" in Petta's climax? BR says in his review of Petta, "My favourite nod, though, has to be Anirudh’s number, ‘Marana Mass’. It isn’t till the end of the film that you realise the song is a tribute to (and an extension of) a famous Rajini number that was equally percussion-heavy and also sung by SP Balasubrahmanyam."

Sounds good, I'll added this additional source since BR's review doesn't say "mullum" or "raman". --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's it for now. Veera Narayana 21:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If you have a Prime account, you can watch it with subs and clarify any plot details. The annual subscription pack isn't so expensive. Since I plan on watching the film again from scratch (the last time was a pirated copy on YT, this time will be Prime), I do not want to ruin it by watching bits and pieces. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. As i said earlier, the playing god aspect was the only thing i could highlight in this viewing. Let me know once you are done with the above comments of mine. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Veera Narayana, I've tried to down the negativity regarding Chettiar. Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely responses. Given that my concerns are met, i support this article's promotion to FA. Regards, Veera Narayana 11:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude

Point taken

I'll preface this by stating that I have absolutely zero knowledge whatsoever on the topic of cinema. Moreover, when I copy-edit or review prose, I read the article from bottom to top (a copy-editing trick I learned from Tony1). My comments are strictly related to FA1a (i.e. a prose review) So much for that, my comments are not just 1a related after all. Legacy In 2006, director S. Shankar said - I have two questions here. Which variation of Eng are you writing the article in (BrEng/AmEng/other)? and "director" of what? (I suspect "film director" or similar). There's other instances of "director" with no explanation of "director of what". ... but never got to make any - Is his career over? If no, then past is the wrong tense to use. No, he says, "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." Or is this sentence best removed? Your call. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I'd keep the sentence, but it needs a modification in tense. Unfortunately this is a tough one to modify, but perhaps change "never got" to "has not had the opportunity to". Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) resolved "Raman Aandalum" was later featured in the climax of Petta - What? I haven't the foggiest what this means. One source reads, "My favourite nod, though, has to be Anirudh’s number, ‘Marana Mass’. It isn’t till the end of the film that you realise the song is a tribute to (and an extension of) a famous Rajini number that was equally percussion-heavy and also sung by SP Balasubrahmanyam". The other reads, "Things, in fact, get pretty literal in the climax with Rajini dancing to 'Raman aandalum Ravana aandalum' from Mullum Malarum, clearly taking us all back to the year his stardom began." Whether this is best rewritten or removed is your call. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Ah, the musical piece, not the line from the film. Ok. Perhaps note that in prose, e.g. "The musical piece "Raman aandalum" features in the climax of Petta (Date?). This brings up a new question for me regarding spelling. Under music you write "Raman Aandaalum", but in Legacy and Themes you write "Raman aandalum". Are they both correct, or is one a typo, or something else? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) When I write the song name, I begin both words in caps. When writing the lyric, I begin only proper nouns in caps. Now should I capitalise each word in the lyrics for consistency? I don't mind either way, but we should stick to the rules. Since the song has been introduced under "Themes" and "Music", I don't feel the need to re-introduce it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I'm not referring to capitalisation. I'll bold the difference "Raman aandalum" vs "Raman aandaalum". Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC) The second paragraph, as a whole, is messy. It opens with a comment about "Rajinikath's on-screen name", pivots to a "director"'s opinion on Rajinikanth's performance, pivots to Rajinikanth's favourite films for two sentences, and then pivots round to a piece of dialogue that "attained popularity". There's no rhyme or reason here. For one, shouldn't Ratnam's comments about the performance be in the third paragraph, alongside Shankar's, Kathir's and Rajinth's, or; in the first paragraph directly after the sentence "became a breakthrough for Rajinikanth"? For two, what is the central theme of the paragraph: a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering? Gayathri Sreekanth - Who? Don't assume the reader knows why a person's opinion is significant. ... "from youngsters to the families and the women." - MOS prefers quotation marks to come before periods. Having read through "Legacy" I have a broad comment. You need to think about what you want to discuss in each paragraph. An example of a structure: First, a paragraph on the effect of the film on Tamil cinematography, then a paragraph on Rajinikanth's role and future career, and finally a paragraph on other industry specialists opinions of the film. Now I've decided the Legacy section should be more like an "Impact" section. So please re-assess and tell me what can be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Accolades resolved He also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor - Who's he? (I assume Rajinikanth, but this doesn't gel with the preceding sentence that talks about awards Mullum Malarum (the film) had received) Yes, Rajinikanth only. But I did not want to repeat his name in close-paraphrasing. So what to do? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Perhaps: Mullum Malarum won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil,[83] and two awards at the Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film, and Special Prize for Rajinikanth,[84][32] who also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor.[85]? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Nice one, done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC) ... as part of the Indian Panorama - What is the Indian Panorama? (Google says it's a tour operator and a restaurant in Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia). Explain the significance of things. I'm not an expert on film festivals, so anyone may check the source and rewrite. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Myself even less so. I'll assume western bias on my end. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) It occurs to me that I could be affected by a western bias here. If this was the Cannes Film Festival, for example, I wouldn't have bat an eye. So, if you'd expect that any Indian readers to know what you're talking about, then perhaps disregard this comment. I've added a footnote saying what Indian Panorama is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC) ... saying that "With this film, the talented actor dispelled whatever doubts remained about his acting ability" - When you incorporate a quote into a sentence starting with a capital letter, you can modify it to remove that capital letter like so: ... saying that "[w]ith his film, the talented actor ...". Always note a modification with square brackets. There are multiple places you can do this. I've transferred this to Legacy section. But please check the current phrasing. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC) That works. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Critical response resolved Critical response? I read it as "Critical reception" at first because that's what I'd expect the section to be entitled. Rewritten that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Ramachandran claimed Mahendran achieved a milestone, which even if Ramachandran had desired, could not have achieved - This is poor English not to mention illogical. Rewrote as "Ramachandran stated that Mahendran had reached a milestone beyond expectations". --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) He added that Mahendran demonstrated clearly that cinema is a "visual medium" and had succeeded in that also - Here I was thinking that cinema was all about the smells and tastes. Moreover, succeeded in what? "demonstrat[ing] ... that cinema is a 'visual medium'"? Because you already said that in the first half of the sentence. Again, poor English. Ramachandran said the films which came till this point on brother-sister relationships were full of dramatics, including his own, but Mullum Malarum stood apart and stood tall in realism - Not the cleanest bit of prose. Propose: "Ramachandran [said/commented that] the depiction of brother-sister relationships in film up to this point were full of [dramatics/melodrama], even in his own, but [that] Mullum Malarum stood apart in its [realism/realistic representation]". I'm not sure how "that" is used in AmEng, but it'd be necessary here in BrEng. Rewritten as per this proposition. I went with dramatics as that is more accurate. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) He said the last scene was new not only to Tamil cinema but also to Indian cinema - Maybe this is elucidated upon earlier in the article, but, if not, then explain what scene is being referred to. You might also replace "last" with "closing" or "final" scene. Went with final scene. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Mullum Malarum was well received at the times of its initial release ... - times? how many times could it have received an "initial release"? Blame it on the GOCE. I've changed it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) ... with commentators applauding it for establishing cinema as a "visual medium" ... - This is the second time I see this. Prior to Mallum Malarum, what kind of medium was cinema? Because afaik cinema has been "established" as a "visual medium" (and later as an audio-visual medium) since its inception. Apparently, Tamil films before this were mostly merely photographed plays, with excessive and loud dialogue which only a few filmmakers like Ellis R. Dungan and C. V. Sridhar avoided. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) The writer of a 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu stated that the film reflected the trend of making films ... - Nitpicky, but if there's a trend then maybe you could briefly mention other significant contributors to it. The reviewer further noted that Rajinikanth "shows his mature ... ." - I'd modify the quote to fit the past tense of the rest of the sentence: show[ed]. You have another instance of ." instead of ". here. Done, wrote The reviewer further noted that Rajinikanth showed "his mature artistry in a portrayal of a turbulent illiterate worker with a blind passion for his sister." --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The reviewer also praised Mahendran's filmmaking skills ... and rating it 61 out of 100 - This seems rather a low score for a film receiveing high praise. 61/100 is a failing grade (D-) in the U.S, and it rather indicates mediocrity to me (note, I'm not saying the film is mediocre, just that I'd expect a higher score coupled with the praise). Ironically, the magazine's highest score for a film was 62.5 out of 100. And it is seen as acclaim. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Interesting. Well that would Mullum Mallarum in the 97% percentile, which would be an A+ by an grading system. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Release and receptions resolved It was also dubbed in Telugu as Mullu Puvvu, and was released in 1979 - you don't need the second "was" in this sentence. Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) ... let to a delay in the film's release - Led, not let. Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Themes resolved ... the film's theme is "that people change—and they must" - main theme, central theme? it's clearly not the only theme as implied in this sentence. How about "According to XYZ, the film stresses "that people change—and they must"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) That would work, yes. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) He plays God, allowing the villagers to ride the winch (saving them the exertion of walking), and is jolted when supervising engineer Kumaran arrives - First issue, that's the wrong conjuction to use. Second issue, there is no explanation of why Kali "is jolted" by Kumaran's arrival. Moreover, regarding [a]s a subordinate, Kali cannot oppose Kumara, what is Kali desiring to oppose? [H]is frustration - what frustration, why is he frustrated? I legitimately have no idea what is happening in this paragraph. It jumps too quickly without enough depth. I get that this has to do with "allowing the villages to ride the winch", but it's not clear what the friction between Kali and Kumaran is. Is Kumaran a stickler for procedure? If so, does he order Kali to do/not do something. E.g. "don't let the villagers ride the winch". Thereby annoying Kali who doesn't like being told what to do? Basically, what is happening between these two characters that I need to know, because I have insufficient data here. Now I've removed the third paragraph (except for the first line) because the ref count won't decline. Has this solved/averted any confusion? Please see. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Averted it? yes. Solved it? a bit brute forced, but sure. I've found the pages in question in Ramachandran's book and read them for myself. I can see why you've written it the way you have. Ramachandran is being tight on words and expects the reader to know what is being discussed (presumably by watching the movie). The material may have some value in demonstration. I made an attempt at rewriting: "Ramachandran regards egotism as one of Mullum Malarum's central themes, identifying Kali as the alpha male of his community, surrounded by sycophants who [compliment/praise/adulate] him. Kali wields [clout/power] as winch operator at the power plant, [using/abusing] it to give villagers a free ride on the trolley, thus saving them the exertion of walking. The arrival of Kumaran, a rule-enforcing supervising engineer, generates friction with Kali, who as a subordinate, cannot [effectually/truly] reject the engineer's authority. His frustration escalates, boiling over after he is suspended for abandoning his post. His feelings can be summarised in the line: "Raman aandaalum, Ravanan aandaalum, enakku oru kavalai illai, naan thaan da en manasukku raaja" (It doesn't matter whether Rama or Ravana is reigning, I am king of my conscience)".{{sfn|Ramachandran|2014|pp=79–82}} Honestly, I don't think I did any better with the material available than you did. I'm fine with just removing the third paragraph if that's easier. I'll come back to the matter of the "winch", discussed above by Fowler&Fowler, later. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC) In their 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan ... - How do I know these aren't a couple of Joe Bloggs from down the street? introduce them. Same with S. Rajanayagam in paragraph 1. P. C. Balasubramanian is an entrepreneur, author and speaker. Ram N. Ramakrishnan is an accountant. Do I say, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan, authors of the 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini? Because their occupation seems irrelevant. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC) The change wouldn't make a difference, and I agree, their occupations are irrelevant. I tend to work in an academic area of the encyclopedia (ancient history), and for me, the opinions of an accountant or unqualified author would be too insubstantial to include. There's an expectation that opinions will be cited to experts or qualified academics. However, film isn't academia, and so the same expectation may not be held. Dr. Blofeld, could I request your opinion on this point, since film is more your area than it is mine. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC) ... the Oedipal [sic] possessiveness ... - Why is [sic] here? Oedipal is correct afaik. Oedipus complex means "the complex of emotions aroused in a child by an unconscious sexual desire for the parent of the opposite sex". That is why I put the sic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Ah, because Valli is Kali's sibling not parent, hence the reference to the Oedipus complex is out of place. Got it. I thought you were referring to the spelling. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC) ... he puts henna on her feet at night while she sleeps - I'm afraid the link didn't help, all I got was that it's a paint and is used in body art. Is there some cultural/religious/customary significance to this act? The actual term is mehndi, but Ramachandran got it wrong. Kali basically applied it on Valli's feet at night as an act of kindness, in contrast to an earlier scene where he berated her during the day. But it doesn't help much so I've removed it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Ok, that works too. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC) The Themes section is another confused one. In the first paragraph the last sentence is tacked on and doesn't relate with anything preceding it, nor is it built upon. Here at least I can see a flow, but it's disjointed. I can see that most of the themes revolve around Kali and Valli's relationship first, and then between Kali and Kumaran, as it relates to Valli, secondarily. There's other bits randomly strewn about. All the pieces are there, I think, but they don't flow. I have thoroughly exhausted myself right now; I'll see about coming back to this tomorrow. I can see that a lot of work has gone into the article, but I can also see that there's a fair amount of work to do. Prose here isn't just correcting typos, punctuation and grammar. It's about getting the reader to go from sentence to sentence and be able to follow what's happening and understand why. There are places where I'm just left wondering "wait, what? why is this here?" I'll refrain from !voting at this time. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC) If anything just doesn't seem to add up or help at all, it is best removed. Here is the link to Naman Ramachandran's book Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography for you to do fact-checking. The film is covered from page 80 onwards. I once felt an article needs to have as many refs as possible to stay afloat, but that's no longer the case. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC) I've gone through and hidden the resolved matters, and left a couple of comments. I've still got to go through production, plot and the lede. I'll post those comments when I am done. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Filming resolved ... but Mahendran's friend Pazhaniappan convinced Chettiar and agreed to pay for the Sringeri shooting schedule - I can read this two ways. Pazhaniappan agreed to pay the cost, or Chettiar agreed to pay the cost. If the latter then "convinced Chettiar, who agreed to pay for the Sringeri shooting schedule". If the former, did he convince him "by agreeing to pay the cost"? I.e. "convinced Chettiar by agreeing to pay for the Sringeri shooting schedule". Pazhaniappan agreed to pay for the shooting there. Hope that solves it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Once while passing through Pondicherry, Mahendran saw an Uriyadi game. Inspired, he decided to include two Uriyadi scenes in the film which were not originally in the script. - Mmm... weak prose and two short sentences that should be tied together. "Whilst passing through Pondicherry, Mahendran witnessed a game of Uriyadi, which inspired him to include two Uriyadi scenes in the film which were not originally [part of the/in the] script". Merged into one sentence. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Uriyadi is a South Indian game in which the blindfolded participant must smash an earthen pot with a long stick, while being spun around by others disorienting them from the pot's location - "the blindfolded participant", you say this as if it had already been previously established. It ought be "in which a blindfolded participant". There is only one person trying to hit the pot, that's why I said the participant. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Hmm, I guess this is just me. It seems off to me to use "the" at first instance. For example, if I was describing what a football team (European) was I'd say: "A team of eleven players composed of strikers, midfielders, defenders, and a goalkeeper". I wouldn't say: "... of strikers, midfielders, defenders, and the goalkeeper". But, apparently both forms are acceptable. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) According to Mahendran, Chettiar never arrived at the shooting spot - What shooting spot? any shooting spot? There's multiple shooting spots, and it's not at all clear which spot wasn't visited. Basically, anywhere the film was being shot. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Right, but that's not clear in text. You have "the shooting spot", which indicates that you're commenting about "a specific shooting spot", not about all or any of them. It needs a rewrite. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC) According to Mahendran, Chettiar was discontent with the budget escalating, refusing to finance a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil". Haasan won Chettiar over and financed the scene. - This should be a single sentence: "According to Mahendran, Chettiar was discontent with the budget escalating, [initially/at first] refusing to finance a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but he was won over by Haasan and ultimately financed the scene". I assume Chettiar financed this scene. If Haasan financed the scene then change "and ultimately" to "who". It was Haasan who financed the scene after getting permission from Chettiar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Ok, but I still think it ought be one sentence. In this case: "According to Mahendran, Chettiar was discontent with the budget escalating, [initially/at first] refusing to finance a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but he was won over by Haasan who [ultimately] financed the scene". Ultimately is entirely optional, and probably unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Done exactly as suggested, without ultimately. Since it was the veteran Dr. Blofeld (not that Blofeld) who rewrote large parts of the article, including this sentence, I'm still surprised why it is considered confusing and bad grammar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC) resolved Mullum Malarum's final length was 3,915.46 metres (12,846.0 ft) - Usually a film's length is given in time. Presumably you mean the length of the film reel. Yep. Amended to "Mullum Malarum's final reel length was 3,915.46 metres (12,846.0 ft)". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Casting resolved She was eventually cast as Valli, Sarath Babu as the engineer Kumaran and Fatafat Jayalaxmi as Manga - "alongside Sarath Babu ...". Done as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Latha said that she had to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts - Significance? Agreed, she didn't mention which role (though most likely heroine), and removed. I recall Mahi once saying this was not true, but I wrote from her perspective. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Male supporting roles were played by S. A. Kannan, Pazhaniyappan, Dasaradan, Rangamani, Sarathi, Santhanam, Kumarimuthu, Jothi Shanmugham, Chellappa, Amalraj, Poondigiri and Vairam Krishnamoorthy. Female supporting roles were played by Santhamma, Jayakumari, Vijaya, Jaya, Pushpa, Radha, Prema, Vasanthi, Leela and Kala. - Is it typical to rattle off a list of names of actors like this? Cause it looks weird and unnecessary to me. Yep, because otherwise someone would keep adding all actor names with unsourced character names (in the credits only the actor's names appear, character names don't). If I remember what was the name of Kumarimuthu's character, I'd add it here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Hmm, ok. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Development resolved Mullum Malarum was a novel written by Uma Chandran - It is a novel written by Uma Chandran. Change the tense. Done this way. But how about, "Mullum Malarum, a novel written by Uma Chandran, was serialised in the mid-1960s in the Tamil magazine, Kalki"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Sure, even better. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Plot resolved Relieved that Valli still respects him, Kali then tells Kumaran - remove "then" here as it's unnecessary. Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) ... and asks Kali for permission to marry her - more typically "asks for Kali's permission". Done, but I hope it doesn't suggest there's incest. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) She decides to arrange Valli's marriage with Kumaran without Kali's consent - "Valli's marriage to Kumaran". You get married "to" someone. E.g. I am married to my wife, or, I am married to my husband. See above where you write "to marry her". Done this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Unemployed, Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran, and Manga feels responsible for Kali's plight - "while Manga feels responsible ...". Done this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) On Valli's request, she marries Kali and takes care of him - "At Valli's request ..." Done this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) One day, when Kali is on duty, Manga teases him; he abandons the winch and chases her - "One day, while Kali is on duty, he is teased by Manga into abandoning the winch and chasing [after] her". In any case "when" should be "while". The following day, Kumaran suspends Kali from his job for negligence of duty, ignoring his protests and threats - You used a thesaurus for "negligence of duty", didn't you? It's "dereliction of duty" for a reason, being that it's a legal term. Moreover, I'd propose: "The following day, Kali is suspended from his job for dereliction of duty by Kumaran, who ignores his protests and threats". Done this way, but you read the plot in Ramachandran's book and understood the situation right? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong: Kali, enticed by Manga, abandoned his station to go "frolick" in the water with her (p. 79). While he is gone, there's an emergency at the power plant (don't know what it is), and because of his absence during this emergency he receives a temporary suspension from Kumaran for "dereliction of duty" (pp. 79–80). Kali protests the suspension, to no avail, and so he goes off, gets drunk and ends up passing out on the street, where a truck rolls over his arm. He is taken to the hospital where his arm is amputated, at Kumaran's expense (financially). Because of the amputation, Kali can't keep working at the power plant and is laid off, with Kumaran bringing him the bad news. This leads Kali to develop a bitter resentment of Kumaran. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC) I have another broad comment about the plot section: It focuses too heavily on short sentences, and lacks certain flow. I'll address that a bit later, I must leave now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Comment by Fowler&fowler: @Mr rnddude: Sorry to butt in. I managed to find the movie with the English subtitles. Have watched about half an hour. After Kalli and his sister are orphaned, they become street performers (acrobats) managed by an older boy who exploits them. They are homeless, take to begging, and to sleeping on the street. What Kalli has are anger issues, unresolved anger towards authority figures, especially unsympathetic ones. He's neither self-aggrandizing nor hell raising, mostly just unable to control his anger when he sees injustice. There are several early examples of his behaviour in which he either beats up people or damages their property. For his job, he operates an inclined elevator, a box car on tracks, which is winched down a hill many miles to a power house, and then winched back up again, carrying the employees. Manga and her mother are not wanderers, but residents of a drought-stricken nearby town, who have arrived in Kalli's village looking for work. The problem between Kumaran, the new divisional engineer at the power house, and Kalli have little to do with differing "work ethics." Kumaran is on the whole sympathetic to Kalli's erratic behaviour, cutting him slack, ignoring the gossip mongers, attempting to independently verify the events. ... And so it goes. ... Writing is a compact between an author and the reader. We expect the author to be faithful to the version of reality they have encountered. What we have here is a plot that is not quite the plot of the movie. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC) No problem at all, Fowler&fowler. What Kalli has are anger issues, unresolved anger towards authority figures .... I had interpolated that the friction between Kali and Kumaran related to "issues with authority", but there was little explanation why. For his job, he operates an inclined elevator - Yes, I managed to catch onto that detail: ... he gets to play god when he gives villagers a free ride ... on the power plant's trolley of which he is the suzerain. Manga and her mother are not wanderers ... - To be fair to Kailash, Ramachandran does say they are "poor itinerant"s. Thanks for taking the time to share. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Made changes in the plot as per Fowler's suggestions, and removed the "work ethics" part in the lead. Replaced "Though notorious locally for his self-aggrandising, hell-raising ways" with "Though notoriously ill-tempered". This better? Did he watch the reminder of the movie and find changes needing to be made? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC) I have now watched the movie with English subtitles, and rewritten the plot in 700 words, which I believe is the upper limit of plot lenghth. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Thank you so much Fowler&fowler, your help will never be forgotten. Mr rnddude, just pinging you to check the rewritten plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC) I will revisit this again in the next 24 hours. That will be to conclude the review. Oh, while I'm here, I don't know what's happened, because I don't recall seeing it before, but there's about 40 instances of "Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)" in the references now. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Legacy revisited Rajinikanth's dialogue "Ketta paiyan sir avan" (He is a bad boy) attained popularity. - Without additional explanation this comes across as trivia, which should be removed. Removed, since although popular, hardly as much as "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Themes revisited He noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing "all that is pristine and traditional", adding that 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" - As I said previously, this has no relationship with the preceding material. It sticks out like a sore thumb. At bare minimum, change the start of the sentence to read "[Additionally/In addition], he noted ..." or "He additionally noted". Went with additionally. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) According to the French film historian Yves Thoraval - You don't include anybody else's ethnicity when introducing them, so why is it necessary for Yves Thoraval? Alright, removed. Maybe because he was the only foreign being mentioned in the article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) As a general comment, the second paragraph still has no rhyme or reason. What is the subject being discussed? It pivots from idea to idea with no flow or link. The last paragraph, for example, barring the first sentence, is quite good. It sticks to a single theme "that people change—and they must". Which is explained by referring to significant plot moments, culminating in Kali's "change". That does not exist in the paragraph preceding it. ... describe Kali as "the loving brother, the angry worker and despondent physically challenged person rolled into one" - These are character traits, not a theme. Nixed. I fear I'm becoming like her because of what she did over here. But never mind, because no-one dies here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) ... differentiated the film from Pasamalar because "the sister is allowed to register her rebellion against her brother" - This needs more detail. Why does her being "allowed to" rebel matter? Also, on concise prose, why "allowed to register her rebellion" instead of "allowed to rebel"? What's the difference? Nixed the sentence altogether. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) He also noted that the film ends with Kali relenting to Valli's desire to marry the man she wishes but not before he tells Kumaran that he still dislikes him, "which makes the film open-ended with a feel that life goes on" - This seems more relevant to the third paragraph. Shifted, now rewriting needed? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Ramachandran notes that Kali, like Rajinikanth's character in Bairavi (1978), is responsible for his sister's welfare - What's the theme here? Duty to family? As written, it just refers to a state of affairs, not a theme. How about, Ramachandran compared Kali to Rajinikanth's character in Bairavi (1978) as both are responsible for their sisters' welfare? But Ramachandran made an error, saying that both films have the brother being responsible for his sisters' welfare due to abusive parent(s), which was true only in Bairavi. In MM, it's because they're orphans. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Unlike Bairavi, the siblings in Mullum Malarum are not separated; this leads Kali's protectiveness of Valli to the brink of obsession - More closely related to Thoraval's assessment, then it is to the above sentence. Maybe both statements about Bairavi vs MM should come after Thoraval. That a good idea? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Plot A general comment first: there's a lot of 1-2 line paragraphs in that section, and an even greater preponderence of short sentences. Now I've never written a plot summary for an article before, but it looks unprofessional to me. Paragraph two is a particular offender: The film fast forwards to the present time. Kali and Valli are living in Athipatti village. Kali is an employee of a nearby powerhouse. I think sentence 1 would fit better as a close to paragraph 1. Sentence 2 and 3 should be a single opening sentence: "Kali and Valli live in Athipatti village, where Kali is a worker employed at a nearby powerhouse". Do Kali and Valli live together? or in separate homes? ... and talks to Kali about letting them use of the vacant house next door - Either remove "of" or change "use of" to "make use of". Whichever was intended. Kali meanwhile has been assaulting fellow employees ... - Either "Kali, meanwhile, has been ..." or "Meanwhile, Kali has been ...". ... whom he suspects of snitching on him to Kumaran. Kali is given a last warning. - What? Who gave the last warning, what is the last warning, what's the consequence of failing to follow through? Suspension, termination, etc. In his absence, a child has needed medical attention ... - Why split paragraphs here? You also didn't need to split Elsewhere, on the Chinnamanur canal's bank .... The next day Kali is suspended for 10 days - "Kali receives a 10 day suspension for ..." (presumably dereliction of duty). "The next day ..." doesn't seem all that significant, so you can cut it to save words. ... known for his roving eye ... - Meaning? An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli. Valli is crushed but remains silent - This should be one sentence: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, but remains silent". At the ceremony, Manga knocks a platter of betel leaves—whose acceptance affirms the engagement—out of Kali's hand. Kali is furious at his wife and batters her head against the wall – Propose slight change of the second sentence to: "Furious with his wife, Kali batters her head against the wall". Batters or bashes? Which fits better? Manga remains unrepentant - Hang on, hang on, what the fuck? Manga is unrepetant? That comes off very poorly, particularly given the beating she's just received. Kali triumphantly reminds the onlookers that he remains the most important man in his sister's life. Although his dislike of Kumaran lingers, his ego assuaged, he offers his blessings for the wedding - So did he actually change, or is his ego just sufficiently massaged? (I ask because this scene is the basis for the third paragraph of themes) I appreciate that there's a limit of 700 words, but the writing is too terse, un(der-)refined, and lacking in detail in several places. Pinging Fowler&fowler since you primarily conducted the rewrite for the plot section. That's all I have, but I am compelled to borrow F&F's words, [t]hese are not ordinary issues of grammar[—t]hey are issues of coherence of text, with regard to themes. As a final note, the unhatted comments from my initial review have not been adequately addressed (imo). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Congratulations @Mr rnddude: on writing such a relevant critique. Congratulations also on the lame sarcasm. Did you view the movie? The clear answer is: no. Did the nominator view the movie? The clear answer is: not any time recently. Can you read what the edit summary says for the quick notes I made when I finished watching the movie? It says, "(stopping; authors can decide what to keep and what to not, in keeping with lit-crit & film-crit guidelines Best regards)" What does that tell you? It means I was giving you the factual events as they unfolded in the movie. Can I refresh your memory with doozies you were lobbing back and forth before I appeared? Doozy1: "a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home" (Not a wanderer, just mother and daughter escaping the drought. Was the mother "aged?" Not any more aged than any 22 year old woman's mother is. I listened to movie carefully enough to figure out the name of the town they had come from and to give you the WP link (Ilaiyangudi) for it. It turns out really is a drought-prone area. (Here was my original version: "On the Chinnamanur canal's bank, where she is cleaning a fish she has just caught, Valli meets a young woman, Manga, and her mother, who have arrived from Ilaiyangudi, a drought-stricken town. Both strangers are hungry, and the mother is looking for work. Valli feeds them, gives them shelter in the balcony of the thatched cottage she shares with Kali, talks to Kali about allowing them the use of the vacant house next door, and hints at the mother's suitability for a job that has opened up. Kali at first feigns impatience with his sister at taking in strangers, but soon relents.") That was before I was told I had to reduce it by 300 words. Doozy2: "including allowing people to ride the winch" (How were they doing that? Spinning around on the drum? And when I told you what they were riding after watching the first half hour, you responded by playing wiseguy with me. At least the others thanked me. Really you knew everything all along? Well, why didn't you change it in over a week? Why did I have to find all the links: first inclined elevator, then after wondering if it might not be rack rail—I had to examine the wheels carefully in the movie to figure out that it was a converted brake van which was being used as a cable railway. I even went on the internet to find the site in Ooty (perhaps) where such a system might exist. And, you can't google "roving eye," which means "a tendency to flirt or be constantly looking to start a new sexual relationship" and change it to something encyclopedic? Roving eye might not be encyclopedic but it is more accurate than "philandering grocer" which was in place earlier, (to philander means to engage in casual sexual or romantic encounters) It is not clear that Murgesa, the grocer, did anything beyond making attempts. And I did not mean"bash" I meant "batter," because he did it repeatedly. And what the heck is your next remark about? She is unrepentent. Not in the sense of not repenting for her sins, but in the sense of unapologetic. What do you think I meant? Here is Webster's: "unrepentent: 2. feeling or showing no inclination to change : UNAPOLOGETIC" Unlike Valli, that is, who was sobbing, and saying sorry between sobs, Manga was resolutely unrepentent. "Last warning" were words spoken in English in the movie. Clearly, they meant "final warning," "very last warning." It is not like the expression is not used. Check Google. If you don't like it, change it. And really "suspended for ten days?" You think it ever means hang for ten days? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Oh and I forgot. In your "resolved" Filming section, you must have divined that a participant in the sport of Uriyadi is not really blindfolded. For, in the movie, none were. Also "earthen pot" is the same as a "bag of rice," for what they were striking in the sport (not game) of Uriyadi in the movie did not look anything like a pot. You must have also divined that "marine" environment in that same section ("Mahendran also decided to characterise Manga as a "meen paithiyam" (meaning a "foodie who loves fish") after being inspired by Sringeri's marine environment.") is the same as "riverine" because that town is nowhere near the ocean. Not to mention divining that Mahendran is talking through his hat because Manga just loved to eat fish she could catch in the Chinnamanur canal, in her humble village of Athipatti, whereas "foodie" means "a person having an avid interest in the latest food fads," not to mention also divining that the word "foodie" was first used in 1980 and the movie was made in 1978. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC) When I re-watched the film, I saw that the "Uriyadi" participant was neither blindfolded nor smashing a pot. However, in his memoir, Mahi still called those two scenes in the film as Uriyadi scenes. Or maybe with time the rules have changed. What do I do?! Remove the footnote or rewrite? But Uriyadi sadly does not have its own article (Nope, this ain't it). In this 2013 interview Mahi said, "I always observe things happening around at the shooting location and try to incorporate them in my film. 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." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Fowler&fowler - What is your problem? Congratulations also on the lame sarcasm - I havent employed sarcasm. What are you referring to? Did you view the movie? The clear answer is: no - That's right, and I'd originally only intended to look at the prose. And when I told you what they were riding after watching the first half hour, you responded by playing wiseguy with me - I had said I'd get back to the matter of the winch, which you'd pointed out in your review: I'll come back to the matter of the "winch", discussed above by Fowler&Fowler, later at 07:09, 31 August 2019. I had just been through the relevant section of Ramachandran's book, and I had a general idea as to what was meant. Your comment affirmed my thoughts. So yes, I knew; sorry for mentioning it? Well, why didn't you change it in over a week - I avoid editing articles I'm reviewing except to address typos or obvious errors "p/pp" or a double period for example. And "I knew" less than a day before you pointed it out. And, you can't google "roving eye," - It was meant to be a gentle prod about using euphemistic language which is discouraged because it's not readily accessible to non-native speakers. In your "resolved" Filming section, you must have divined that a participant in the sport of Uriyadi is not really blindfolded - What? I don't know anything about Uriyadi, besides that it receives a mention in Pinata (Uri adithal) and that it does involve breaking a pot whilst blindfolded. That's the sum of my knowledge on that subject. Did you not deride me for not watching the film earlier in your comment? Why then do you think I know the details of what took place in the film? I have also not divined any of the other things you've mentioned. I've skipped over a bunch of criticisms, some of which have no bearing on what I meant (e.g. And really "suspended for ten days?" You think it ever means hang for ten days?, which, no, I don't think it does?). I don't really know what this anger-filled post is about. Are you trying to "knock me down a peg" for criticizing the rewrite of the plot? It wasn't meant personally, none of my comments were. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC) @Mr rnddude:There was an edit conflict. Actually there were two. Here is what I had written earlier. I tried to respond to your "corrections" line by line. I became frustrated with them last night because many are incorrect. (The "diatribe" refers to the post you have responded to. Apologies: Here they are: Apologies for my diatribe below. I was tired last night and may have misinterpreted your analysis. I'm not scratching it though because interspersed in the diatribe are answers to your questions and an explanation of what my plot text is. I am now also responding immediately below. Where I haven't responded, I have very likely done so in the diatribe. Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Paragraph two is a particular offender: The film fast forwards to the present time. Kali and Valli are living in Athipatti village. Kali is an employee of a nearby powerhouse. I think sentence 1 would fit better as a close to paragraph 1. Sentence 2 and 3 should be a single opening sentence: "Kali and Valli live in Athipatti village, where Kali is a worker employed at a nearby powerhouse". Do Kali and Valli live together? or in separate homes? Where is Kali employed in your putative correction? In the village (worker) or in the nearby powerhouse (employed)? The reality is: "He lives in the village, an employee of the powerhouse in the valley below." Do you see the problem in your version? Compare with: "Kali and Valli live in Philadelphia where Kali is an engineer employed in New York." Secondly, it makes Kali's job an aspect of their living in the village. But what about Valli? Why hasn't her job (homemaker) not been mentioned? In my version the habitation and the employement are disconnected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) You are absolutely right. In trying to combine the two sentences I introduced an obvious error. I should have identified it immediately, but didn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC) ... and talks to Kali about letting them use of the vacant house next door - Either remove "of" or change "use of" to "make use of". Whichever was intended. Thanks for catching the careless error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Kali meanwhile has been assaulting fellow employees ... - Either "Kali, meanwhile, has been ..." or "Meanwhile, Kali has been ...". Thanks for catching the careless error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) ... whom he suspects of snitching on him to Kumaran. Kali is given a last warning. - What? Who gave the last warning, what is the last warning, what's the consequence of failing to follow through? Suspension, termination, etc. See my diatribe below. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) In his absence, a child has needed medical attention ... - Why split paragraphs here? You also didn't need to split Elsewhere, on the Chinnamanur canal's bank .... I haven't looked but it may have happened in the reduction from 1000 words to 700. Will respond later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) The next day Kali is suspended for 10 days - "Kali receives a 10 day suspension for ..." (presumably dereliction of duty). "The next day ..." doesn't seem all that significant, so you can cut it to save words. "suspended for ten days" is fine. No need to prefer the nominalization "suspension." See also the diatribe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) I wasn't trying to "prefer the nominalization". I was trying to work around The next day ... for 10 days. I could do that with Kali is suspended for 10 days for [insert accurate suspension reason here, if it's not "dereliction of duty" as stated by Ramachandran] which introduces two fors a few words apart. That's why I changed tack in the writing. The intent was not to be a smartass. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC) ... known for his roving eye ... - Meaning? See my diatribe below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli. Valli is crushed but remains silent - This should be one sentence: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, but remains silent". No. (I'm assuming you mean, ... and Vallie, who is crushed by the arrangement, remains silent.) You've put "crushed by the arrangement ..." in a subordinate clause, thereby giving greater emphasis to her "silence". It is actually the other way round: "Valli is crushed by hearing the news of the engagement, but remains silent." Silence is subordinate. Not what I had intended. I was pointing to two sentences that could be merged, particularly to avoid "... Valli. Valli ...". If anything, I have a misplaced comma: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement but remains silent". Spare me the jaron. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) You have to be careful with the use of ellipsis. If you are going to merge two sentences, "An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli."and "Valli is crushed but remains silent," and your solution is: "An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement but remains silent." You can't represent it with ellipsis of the form: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, but remains silent," for a reader has no way of knowing you are not incorrectly referring to: "An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house, and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, remains silent." It is certainly shorter, and less ambiguous. We already know from an earlier sentence whom Kali has proposed for the engagement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC) At the ceremony, Manga knocks a platter of betel leaves—whose acceptance affirms the engagement—out of Kali's hand. Kali is furious at his wife and batters her head against the wall – Propose slight change of the second sentence to: "Furious with his wife, Kali batters her head against the wall". Batters or bashes? Which fits better? Same issue here. The appositive, "Furious with his wife," makes the anger subordinate, or incidental (e.g. in the version: "Kali, furious with his wife, batters her head against the wall.") The two clauses are of equal value (or emphasis) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Manga remains unrepentant - Hang on, hang on, what the fuck? Manga is unrepetant? That comes off very poorly, particularly given the beating she's just received. See my diatribe below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Kali triumphantly reminds the onlookers that he remains the most important man in his sister's life. Although his dislike of Kumaran lingers, his ego assuaged, he offers his blessings for the wedding - So did he actually change, or is his ego just sufficiently massaged? (I ask because this scene is the basis for the third paragraph of themes) Yup. He is still bristling though. The ending was a little unconvincing for me. Forced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that there's a limit of 700 words, but the writing is too terse, un(der-)refined, and lacking in detail in several places. True, but see my diatribe below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have taken the point. I just hope I haven't contributed to damaging the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Struck: Because I don't think I've done anything remotely destructive.

Just because I still have a significant issue with the writing of the plot, I'm going to briefly, without offering any solution, point it out. The plot contains (too) many short, choppy sentences:

The film fast forwards to the present time. Kali and Valli are living in Athipatti village. Kali is an employee of a nearby powerhouse. - Three consecutive sentences, each one being eight words long.

Kali is given a last warning. Later, as he is fixing his trolley Manga appears. They flirt by taunting each other. Kali's watch is lying nearby, which Manga on a whim picks up. - Three consecutive sentences, each less than 10 words long, and a fourth sentence at 12 words.

In his absence, a child has needed medical attention. At the winch, the alarm has gone unheeded. Eventually, a passerby steps in to operate the winch. The next day Kali is suspended for 10 days. ... Staggering home, he passes out on an unlit street. A passing truck mangles his left arm. - Four and two consecutive sentences each less than 10 words long.

According to Google, since my ability to use it has been impugned, the average sentence is 15 to 20 words long. In the above cases, the average is 8.3. Overall, across the entire plot, the average is 13.2. If I was feeling generous, I would comment that I understand that part, possibly most, of the cause for this is the requisite cutting done to meet the 700 word limit. I am no longer feeling generous.

I don't care who addresses this, or if it's even addressed. I have expended too much time on this review, and likely taken too much of the nominators' time to address my comments as well. This is the very last half-hour I give. I have left a couple of brief responses in the above hat. Thank you Kailash for addressing the many comments I have left, I wish you good luck with this article. I apologize that I'm leaving without a closing !vote, but I'm done, and I am particularly done given that I could have spent all this time (4-6 hours at least) developing an article for FA. Thank you F&F for the derision, and uncharity (since you struggle with identifying sarcasm correctly, this is sarcasm).

— Mr rnddude 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

That wasn't the plot. Just notes I made while watching a movie with English-language subtitles for two people, you and the nominator, who had not seen the movie, but were nonetheless attempting to whip an article about it into shape. The object of the exercise was to give you something you could wrap your heads around and alter for your needs. Instead, you began to subject my notes to an FAC critique. On the other hand, this is a plot written in a style that meets your needs. The average sentence length is 18 words, the average word length is 4.8 letters. (If any of this really matters; it doesn't to me). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

— Mr rnddude 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

PS I am only now becoming aware of what has been happening here. As I say above, neither the nominator nor Mr rnddude had seen the movie at the time I first interacted with them (though the nominator did last weekend). When I first read the lead of this article, and glanced at some of the earlier discussion, I was perplexed by the constant references to people riding "the winch" at a power plant, and also the high frequency of expressions such as "self-aggrandizing ways," "doting on his sister," "poor itinerant ... and her aged mother." I asked repeatedly how it was possible for anyone to ride a winch. The nominator eventually replied to me in this post, with an example of a winch on YouTube, which was nothing but a cable-car (i.e. enclosed snow-lift) of the type seen at ski resorts . At first I thought that perhaps in Indian English the word "winch" has that alternative meaning. But an extensive search in the OED and other sources turned up no reference to such usage. (What such a "winch" might be doing at a power plant is another story.) The nominator had also given me links to two sources from which everyone, it seems in retrospect, had been getting their information about the movie. The better of the two sources, though not exactly scholarly, is a biography of a Tamil movie star, Ranjikanth, by N Ramachandran. At that time I didn't bother with looking at those links. This morning I did. Ramachandran erroneously says, "Rajnikanth plays Kaali who is in charge of operating a trolley to a power plant across the hills." This very likely explains how the YouTube link with the ski-resort type cable car turned up in the post. A few days ago, I rented the movie (with English subtitles) on YouTube. It turns out Kaali operates a winch whose cable is connected to a trolley, in reality a makeshift/converted brake van, or caboose, on rails (see cable railway). The winch is on a hilltop. Obviously such a system, exploiting the force of gravity, can only take the trolley down to the bottom of the valley it overlooks and back up again. The trolley can't travel across hills. Ramchandran's book also has "self-aggrandizing" (being used somewhat erroneously), "doting on his sister," (also somewhat erroneously) and "poor itinerant" (quite erroneously). The second source does use the expression "riding the winch," obviously erroneously. The nominator said in the same post that the source was copied from Wikipedia. So who knows where "riding the winch" originated. But, in any case, that explains how people had come to ride winches across the hills at the time I first laid eyes on this article in July. The other, more serious, problem I seem to be realizing this morning, is that the article might not have the critical mass of reliable sources required for an FA. (I am not sure about this yet, but this is my working hypothesis this morning.) Thus far I have seen only one source, an obituary of the director, who died this past April, written by a well-known film critic. I will examine the remaining sources, and post here again, but this is what I have found this morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Note for Co-ords: The nominators, and particularly Kailash, have put in significant effort in addressing my comments. I will not be !voting, as I am leaving this review. I do want their effort taken into consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Support from Dr. Blofeld

I will review this tomorrow. Mikka nandri! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• " in Sringeri, though some scenes were also filmed in Ooty." -might it be worth adding the state names after them?

Done: I've written in the body, "It was shot primarily in Sringeri, Karnataka, with additional filming in Ooty, Tamil Nadu". Should the lead section also mention the states? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think so.

In that case I've written, "Principal photography lasted for about 30 days, taking place primarily in Sringeri at Karnataka, though some scenes were also filmed in Ooty, Tamil Nadu". --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Although notorious for his escapades" - not clear what the nature of his escapades are, is he a bumbling idiot, a sexual predator, a man child throwing tantrums?, can you find a way to reword it to make it clearer without going into detail? " . "Although notorious for his neurotic outbursts and self-aggrandising ways" -is that was you mean? Something like that.

Page 80 of Ramachandran's book says, "He has a bit of a reputation as a local hellraiser, what with his regular escapades and self-aggrandizing ways. But he also does good deeds for the local community from time to time." That's all he says, got any suggestion for this? Besides, I plan on eventually rewatching the film since it is there on Prime Video with subs (last time I saw was pirated) to clarify plot details and enjoy the film as I should have. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: How about "Though notorious locally for his self-aggrandizing, hell-raising ways." ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran" -in what way? Does he throw petrol bombs at his house, put rat droppings in his cereal, slap him in the face, what?

He harbours a grudge. It looks like he scapegoated Kumaran for his misfortune. Ramachandran says in page 81, "Kaali is now unemployed and a deeply frustrated man with misdirected anger towards Kumaran" but no further. What do I do? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

With plot, which doesn't need to be sourced, can't you get away with being more specific? That won't be considered OR I don't think as we don't source the plot anyway. I think if anything the plot is a little on the short side and you can afford to add more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Mullum Malarum was a novel written by Uma Chandran, and serialised in the Tamil magazine, Kalki" - dates?

This source says 1966. However, it won the award the same year, making me believe the novel began serialisation a year before. To play safe, can I write "in the mid-1960s"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, should be OK.

• "The film adaptation thus marked Mahendran's directorial debut.[14]" - I thought Chettiar agreed to direct it??

Maybe you misread, or my phrasing was bad. Either way, Chettiar agreed to produce. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It's sorted, yup.

Dr. Blofeld, you removed the sentence (accidentally?) where the novel's Kali loses his arm to a tiger. I've re-added it, saying, "Unlike the novel where Kali loses his arm to a tiger, in Mahendran's screenplay Kali loses it when it is run over by a lorry". Does this require reprhasing? Coincidentally, this is where Mahendran stopped reading, is this line worth mentioning? If so, how? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, by accident, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)

• ", "Raman aandalum, Ravanan aandalum, enakku oru kavalai illai, naan thaan da en manasukku raaja" (It doesn't matter whether Rama or Ravana is reigning, I am king of my conscience), resisting Kumaran's authoritarian yoke.[58]" shouldn't it be quoted in the translation too?
• "According to an article published in Cinema Vision India, the film's theme is "that people change—and they must".[59]" -can you elaborate on what they say or not? If not I think that should either be merged into another sentence or remove as it looks out of place and vague currently with what you write next and affects the flow.

• "Ramachandran claimed Mahendran achieved a milestone, which even if Ramachandran had desired, could not have achieved" - don't like the wording here, can you change it? Just saying something "Ramachandran stated that Mahendran had reached a milestone beyond expectations" or something like that, or whatever the source will permit you to say.

Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• What is "Indian Panorama"?

• "became a breakthrough "? was a breakthrough? - I fixed that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Praised for his performance in what was seen as an experimental film, during the 1990s, he stopped acting in similar films because he had become a "larger-than-life" hero.[92" a bit vague, and negative, doesn't seem to belong here.

If you feel it should be removed, I don't mind. But I do not want to leave the impression that he is still a serious actor of this kind (deep down he is) than the vain star he actually is. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support I've given it a polish in places and given that it's an older Tamil film, I think you've done remarkably well to write such an article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments Blofeld, they are appreciated. The sentence reads in the source, "That people change — and they must — is brought out in Mullum Malarum". That's all. I don't mind removing it since I couldn't identify the article title completely (it can't be "Tamil Nadu"), but if it can stay, do I write this? The film stresses that "people change — and they must"? Besides, the Indian Panorama is "a flagship component of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) under which best of contemporary Indian films are selected for the promotion of film art." Should it come under "Release and reception" or "Accolades"? Ssven2, I've fixed 90% of Blofeld's comments. Although he has given support despite some lingering comments, my conscience tells me they should all be solved no matter what. Can you please solve the remaining ones? I hope you got the link to Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography to fix the issues under "Themes". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, will get right on it tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been lingering at the bottom of the list and is nearing the two-month mark with open opposition and issues continue to be found. As such, it will be archived shortly. Please open a Peer Review or work out with outstanding issues with reviewers on the article Talk. It may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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