Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [1].
- Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The article failed its first FAC, despite overwhelming support, because I was not able to address the co-ord's closing comments during a brief period of block. Now that I have, and the article has gone through great copyediting, I feel it is more than ready. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose from Laser brain
[edit]I don't think this is ready, sorry. It's evident from the article history that someone went through it, but I still see lots of awkward writing and what looks to be clumsy paraphrasing from sources. Examples:
- "Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935." The word "launched" isn't standard English for when a film is released. Did someone choose that word to paraphrase "released"?
- Yes, it was Baffle. It was filming that began in 1935 and is implied to have ended in the same year, yet the release was delayed due to the lawsuit. So can I write, "Principal photography began in 1935"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've written "Principal photography for Sathi Leelavathi began in 1935". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it was Baffle. It was filming that began in 1935 and is implied to have ended in the same year, yet the release was delayed due to the lawsuit. So can I write, "Principal photography began in 1935"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- "the film was made primarily at Vel Pictures Studio" Meaning principal photography was done at that studio? Or it was edited there?
- I guess everything; filming and post-production. So should I say shot or filmed? It seems post also happened at the studio as Dungan said, "the Vel Pictures studio manager, Mr. Ramamurthi, used to clean all the exposed negatives by hand – inch by inch, frame by frame" and narrated another incident involving him and the editor, happening at the same studio. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've written "the film was shot primarily at Vel Pictures Studio, Madras". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I guess everything; filming and post-production. So should I say shot or filmed? It seems post also happened at the studio as Dungan said, "the Vel Pictures studio manager, Mr. Ramamurthi, used to clean all the exposed negatives by hand – inch by inch, frame by frame" and narrated another incident involving him and the editor, happening at the same studio. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- "In a 1994 interview with Ananda Vikatan, Dungan said during the first few days of filming" Not even grammatically correct.
- "Dungan corrected this and advised Ramachandran to deliver his lines naturally" This section constructs a narrative suggesting that a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days?
- I got the translation from a book I won't use: "During the first few days of the shooting, MGR did not understand the nuances of film acting and was delivering the dialogues aggressively even his acting appeared to be overacting. I corrected and advised him to deliver dialogues with natural acting. He changed his way of acting after that." What do I do? But I do believe "a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days" simply by dropping exaggeration and overacting, and acting naturally like he would in real life. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Dungan wrote in A Guide to Adventure, his 2001 autobiography, most of the cast were theatre actors..." Not grammatically correct, again.
- Blame it on Baffle, don't blame it on me. My original writing before Miniapolis' c/e was, Dungan wrote in his 2001 autobiography A Guide to Adventure that, since the majority of cast members were theatre actors, he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions". The source reads, "As was the case with Sathi Leelavathi, the cast came from the stage. So again I had to take on the task of subduing the actors’ voices and facial expressions." Can I restore this writing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
These are just pot-shots from one section. I'd reject this for GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Quite surprising to see the co-ord making comments when the FAC just opened, and not when it is about to close. Anyway, please don't swiftly archive this. I agree with your comments and will try resolving them, provided you give more. And I expected better from Baffle gab 1978, who did the c/e. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm commenting here as a reviewer, not a coordinator. I'm recusing. I'm making comments now because I was surprised to see the nomination appear so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time. The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative. This is not best done during an open FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay Laser, sorry for the misassumption. In the previous FAC, you gave comments only about "Music" and I solved them. You also said the whole article needed rewriting, but not how some sentences needed to be rephrased. That is why I listed it at the GOCE. But if you have issues with the rewritten prose, please don't blame me but Baffle, for it is his edits that you find appalling. And the second FAC did not appear "so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time", but almost a month later, and that too only after the GOCE editing was complete, and when I believed Baffle solved the issues raised by you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could you possibly ease up on the hyperbole? It makes working with you fairly unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes and apologies Laser, I will no longer make hyperboles as the comments are easily solvable and I have enough time to do so. I do not want us to be enemies, so you please take your own time to reply to my questions above. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. To the matter at hand: It is not GOCE or a copyeditor's job to understand your sources and create a cohesive narrative, nor to recognize awkward paraphrasing. They will go through a polish the text and correct obvious grammatical errors (maybe). I've given examples only, but I believe this article should be withdrawn as it requires a substantial revision from someone working from the sources. You may have to partner with a stronger writer. Fixing my examples does not address my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- To emphasize a point, I am very disappointed that you continue to drag a good-faith editor's name through the mud (Baffle gab) during this process. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. To the matter at hand: It is not GOCE or a copyeditor's job to understand your sources and create a cohesive narrative, nor to recognize awkward paraphrasing. They will go through a polish the text and correct obvious grammatical errors (maybe). I've given examples only, but I believe this article should be withdrawn as it requires a substantial revision from someone working from the sources. You may have to partner with a stronger writer. Fixing my examples does not address my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes and apologies Laser, I will no longer make hyperboles as the comments are easily solvable and I have enough time to do so. I do not want us to be enemies, so you please take your own time to reply to my questions above. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could you possibly ease up on the hyperbole? It makes working with you fairly unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay Laser, sorry for the misassumption. In the previous FAC, you gave comments only about "Music" and I solved them. You also said the whole article needed rewriting, but not how some sentences needed to be rephrased. That is why I listed it at the GOCE. But if you have issues with the rewritten prose, please don't blame me but Baffle, for it is his edits that you find appalling. And the second FAC did not appear "so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time", but almost a month later, and that too only after the GOCE editing was complete, and when I believed Baffle solved the issues raised by you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm commenting here as a reviewer, not a coordinator. I'm recusing. I'm making comments now because I was surprised to see the nomination appear so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time. The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative. This is not best done during an open FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
[edit]I participated in the previous FAC, and I will do a thorough read-through of the article to hopefully help as much as possible. I can understand Laser brain's comments, and I agree with the parts that they have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments
|
---|
These are my suggestions for the lead. I will review the article section-by-section so I can read through each sentence thoroughly and help as much as possible. I am certainly not a great reviewer, but I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the amount of comments as a lot of good work has been put into the article. A lot of these points are minor and more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your patience and for addressing all of my comments. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Aoba47, I'll read your article today and post comments tomorrow (please remind me on 27 February US time if I forget). Your support is significant progress in my FAC. My next objective: please Laser brain. Otherwise it will end up like Mullum Malarum's fourth FAC: failing based on a single user's unsolved comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Support from Yashthepunisher
[edit]- Support my queries were fixed in the prior nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Yash. If you can lure more reviewers, including those who can help with copyediting (in a manner that will please Laser brain), I'll be grateful. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Support from Mr. Smart LION
[edit]- Support per above. Mr. Smart LION 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Support from zmbro
[edit]- Support – I supported the previous nomination and my support still stands. – zmbro (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
A note to all co-ordinators: I feel the FAC is going good, and it should not be archived simply because I haven't yet solved one user's (Laser's) comments. I am expecting comments from two more users, and hopefully they will help me solve Laser's comments in the process. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Vedant
[edit]Hey, Kailash. I just restructured the Reception section to make it flow better. See if you like it, and feel free to go back to the earlier version if this does not read as well.
I am not sure if I'll be able to go through the entire article as such, but I strongly recommend doing away with the Themes section. At this point, it just doesn't carry any weight as such and has a few repetitive points as well. Let me know how you feel about that. VedantTalk 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Vedant for your recent edits. I agree the Themes section isn't large enough, but is there any way we can transfer its content to other sections of the article? Besides, why did you remove the sentence about the revenue donation to C. Rajagopalachari? I hope you had access to the pressbook while editing the reception section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes! I'm sorry I forgot to mention that Kailash. The bit about the proceeds going to Rajagopalachari was really breaking the flow of the sentences in the reception section. Let's see how we can incorporate that into the first paragraph of the section that talks about the box office numbers.
- As for the Themes, I see Gandhian ideals in the reception section. Let's see what we can do about the temperance and chastity bits. VedantTalk 07:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright, here's my thoughts on the Production section:
"A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar of Manorama Films wanted to produce Pathi Bhakthi as a film but to his dismay, a film version was " - "to his dismay" doesn't sound very encyclopediac.
- Removed "to his dismay", but the sentence is otherwise the same. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
"To please Chettiar, Mudaliar told him the novel Sathi Leelavathi" - "told him that"? Ideally I would say "told him about Sathi...", but that wouldn't work with the rest of the sentence. See, that's what happens with long sentences. We tend to lose track of what was being said and the grammar just goes for a spin. Let me know how you want to restructure this.
- Done: added, "Mudaliar told him the novel Sathi Leelavathi". Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
"Mudaliar soon began developing the screenplay." - See now here, we don't really have much context as to why Mudaliar began developing a screenplay. Wasn't her the author of the play that already had a film adaptation in the works? When and why was he hired for this project then? The reader might have all these questions.
- I don't know why, but we should not overlook the fact that Mudaliar is the screenwriter of Sathi Leelavathi. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've somewhat reworded this section to make it read more smoothly. Hope it helps. VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know why, but we should not overlook the fact that Mudaliar is the screenwriter of Sathi Leelavathi. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
"Vasan was credited in Sathi Leelavathi's opening titles for the original story in his film debut." - a film debut?
- As in, his first tryst with film. What should I write? This source reads, "When Vasan sold the film rights of the novel, it was his first involvement with filmdom." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
How about: "Vasan, who had never previously been involved with a film project, was credited..."VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- As in, his first tryst with film. What should I write? This source reads, "When Vasan sold the film rights of the novel, it was his first involvement with filmdom." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
"Dungan was new to India and did not know Tamil or much about Indian culture, but was persuaded to hire him because he had worked in Hollywood.[14] The film was Dungan's directorial debut." - Now see this is problematic again. The "worked in Hollywood" bit might lead the reader into believing that he had directed films in Hollywood before, so just to clarify you should add what sort of work de he do in Hollywood?
- Most likely cinematography. In this source at page 35, Tandon described him as a "Hollywood-trained technician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)
The Linda Book Records bit could also be better incorporated into the text to avoid feeling like a stray.
- It's Limca Book of Records. But see what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
"S. Panju, who became half of the Krishnan–Panju directorial duo,", who would later go on to become a part of the..."?
"the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality." - "were in turn based on Ellen Wood's 1860..."
The prose might be lacking in a few places, but the more pressing issue should be the flow of the text and if that improves just a tad bit, the article will start reading a lot better. More to follow VedantTalk 07:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you need access to the offline sources, I'll give it to you. And please do something that will help solve Laser brain's comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, you should ask them to revisit the nomination at some point and see if his concerns still stand. Maybe after me and Veera and through with out comments. VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Continued:
- "Mudaliar wanted to launch a film career for his son M. K. Radha, a theatre actor, with Pathi Bhakthi but could not because another thespian, K. P. Kesavan, had been selected for the lead role." - very long and unnecessarily complicated. The grammar falters so maybe split into two and maybe start with the third sentence.
- Written, "Radha, an MOBC actor". Can you do the rest of the honours? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Haven't gone through the source ms, but would the star vehicle bit be fair assesment of ye situation? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Written, "Radha, an MOBC actor". Can you do the rest of the honours? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
"Other MOBC actors who also made their film debuts" - It's not clear that Radha was a part of MOBC so the "others" here makes little sense.
- Now that I have described Radha as an MOBC actor, this should not be complicated. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
"and Sathi Leelavathi was his second" - redundant. Although if you ask me, the entire bit should be a footnote as the article is not about Krishnan.
- I've gone through with this. Really improves the flow.
The problem with the opening of the second paragraph: "Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu, but MOBC owner Sachidanandam Pillai did not offer him a role in the film adaptation" is that we as readers didn't know that MOBC had ownership of the film? Is that so?
- It is not clear who produced the Pathi Bhakthi film. This source says Chidambaram Chettiar of National Movietone acquired the film rights for the play, but this one says it was the MOBC themselves. One thing is clear though: the MOBC had some level of involvement in the film based on their play. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe we leave out names and simply say that he didn't get a part in the film. VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is not clear who produced the Pathi Bhakthi film. This source says Chidambaram Chettiar of National Movietone acquired the film rights for the play, but this one says it was the MOBC themselves. One thing is clear though: the MOBC had some level of involvement in the film based on their play. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
"for a better role in Sathi Leelavathi" - I thought he didn't have a role.
- How about removing better? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- The repeated use of Pathi Bhakthi to refer to both the film and the play just complicates all of this. We need to find a way two separate these two.
- That's why it's better to say "the Pathi Bhakthi film" and "the Pathi Bhakthi play". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but maybe the others can pitch in here. VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's why it's better to say "the Pathi Bhakthi film" and "the Pathi Bhakthi play". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
And again, why does the paragraph become a rather long anecdote about Ramachandran?
- I don't know; possibly because he was the only actor from the cast to later attain stardom and matinée idol status (akin to Rajinikanth)? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Really seems like the article digresses. If I may, I believe that Ramachandran's humble beginnings (The "Ramachandran was paid an advance of ₹100 (about $37.50 in 1936); it was the first time he had seen a 100-rupee note." bit especially) will fit nicely into the Legacy section. Don't you think?VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know; possibly because he was the only actor from the cast to later attain stardom and matinée idol status (akin to Rajinikanth)? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
And then a stray about another actor and then back to Ramachandran?
- Should I put it at the end of the para? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
That'll be a start. Also, put the "Despite Ramachandran's reluctance to play Rangiah, his mother was happy he got a "respectable" role and advised him to perform it responsibly." but right after "a role he disliked".VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)- Okay, how is it now? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Should I put it at the end of the para? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- "because the script required her to be physically abused and mistreated by her inebriated husband" - now there's definitely better ways to write this bit.
"In desperation, the producer asked" - does the source say desperation?
- It says, "In sheer despair the exhausted producer had to request Kandaswami Mudaliar and M.K. Radha to cast Gnanambal (Mrs. M.K. Radha in real life) as Leelavathi." What do you suggest? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not great with writing plot lines and that's why I will not be much help here. The problem with the odd phrasing about requiring to be physically abused bit, and if you can find a better way to phrase it, the rest should follow. VedantTalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- It says, "In sheer despair the exhausted producer had to request Kandaswami Mudaliar and M.K. Radha to cast Gnanambal (Mrs. M.K. Radha in real life) as Leelavathi." What do you suggest? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- "the role and came out of" - but. Also, the "came out of retirement" and "because no other actress would do so" bits are obvious and repetitive.
"N. Lakshmana Rao as the family servant Govindan, and P. N. Ramakrishnan as a devotee of the Hindu god Shiva. Dhanalakshmi played Bama; Santhakumari played Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman; and M. Chandra Bai played Shanbagavalli." - the names and descriptions mean nothing here. You can simply say: "A, B, C, and D were cast in supporting roles" and avoid cluttering. If needed, these descriptions can be added to the Cast section."Parasuraman's son Chandrakanthan, Ramanathan's servant and Krishnamurthy's master in Ceylon were played by actors who are not credited in the film's opening titles or its official pressbook." - an odd detail to mention.
- Someone will ask, "Who played this role?" and I will have to answer them in some way. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Ramachandran's brother, M. G. Chakrapani (also an MOBC actor), approached Mudaliar for a role[46] but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming." - Same. Did he contribute to the film in any way because otherwise I don't see how this adds anything to the article.
- It doesn't add anything, but I guess this somehow helped him later be cast in Iru Sahodarargal (also directed by Dungan). I've removed "However, he watched the filming". --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thangavelu and Susheela can be one sentence. The debut bit isn't all that significant since he was uncredited right?
- Can Susheela be removed from "casting" altogether? I've transferred her source to "cast". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This entire paragraph feels unnecessary. There's a lot of irrelevant content and back and forth. Consider this: Why are we suddenly back on Krishnan and his comedic role. Shouldn't it move up at the first mention of Krishnan. The other comidic actors can be merged with "A, B, C, and D were cast in supporting roles" bit itself, followed by the two uncredited actors. Let me know how feel about that.
More to follow. VedantTalk 15:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Though I agree with your comments, it will take some time to solve them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Take your time Kailash, I've left replies for your queries and taken some liberties. Please take a look and let me know what you plan on doing with the bit about Gnanambal.
- Also, Why not have M.K. Radha's photograph in the Casting section? There's a nice free photograph on his wikipage? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, there are a bunch of PD-India photographs related to the film here, but are they completely copyright free? And this page says, "Wealthy enough to have his way, and bent upon producing Pathi Bhakthi, Marudachalam Chettiar went after Kandaswamy Mudaliar. The smart playwright had a plan to please Chettiar." See what I wrote under "development". --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Lastly:
- The Filming section could also use some restructuring and a few copyedits.
- "Dungan wrote in his autobiography A Guide to Adventure (2001) that most of the cast were theatre actors and he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions"," is followed up with a statement that says that the actors froze in front of the camera. You can say that they were overdoing and blacking out in such close proximity and expect it to make too much sense for an unfamiliar reader.
- The subduing bit would fit better with the Ramachandran's lack of nuance and you should find a way to restructure here.
And this whole section just continues to go back and forth in the next two paragraphs as well. I really suggest that you read through the sentences and take out the bits that add little to the article. This could be easily condensed into two paragraphs of three crisp ones at the most. I suggest you address all the comments that me and tye others have left and then invite Laserbrain to reassess his oppose, which was fair IMO as this did (and probably still does with the few unresolved comments) require considerable work. Let me know if you have any queries Kailash VedantTalk 16:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not that many Vedant. Please read my earlier queries (including what to do about the difficulty with casting Leelavathi episode) and tell me how I can solve them or solve them yourself (I will put thank anyway). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tick tock Vedant, I think the FAC may fail if the comments are not addressed within two months since its opening. And I repeat, please read my earlier queries. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Kailash I'm not sure how I can be of any more assistance. That's mostly because the problems that I see in the article after all of this are mostly just related to translation of the sources or the incorporation on the information into the text. The Filming bit will read so much better if you could find someone who can rephrase (or give it a shot yourself) the direct quotes from the sources and better present some of the information. Especially in the first paragraph. The rest is mostly just rearranging so the text does not feel too disconnected (I'll try and make a few edits to help with the flow once there's some copyedits here). I'm sure if you invite Laserbrain to take a second, they will be more than happy to give another quick readthrough.
- I think you can use the photographs and if I haven't replied to any of the comments, I'm probably satisfied with the changes or am not sure on how to help with the same. Let me know if you still have any queries.VedantTalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Vedant, I've re-added the photographs of MGR and MR Radha (should the captions be ammended?), and seem to have addressed most of your comments. Please strike them out if they have been addressed, or put them within a template like Aoba did. Don't forget to revise the article once more. Also, I don't think "star vehicle" is the right word here since it was MK Radha's film debut and he was not yet a star. Wiktionary defines star vehicle as "A movie, play, TV series, or other production that enhances an actor's career", so suggest a better phrasing. Or can I simply say Mudaliar intended to launch his son in film? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Tick tock Vedant, I think the FAC may fail if the comments are not addressed within two months since its opening. And I repeat, please read my earlier queries. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- Vedant, if you believe you need just access to the offline sources to restructure the filming section, here they are: Starlight Starbright by Randor Guy (1997) and Memories of Madras also by Guy (2016). Laser brain, would you please see if the article has improved? Further comments may be in your section. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Support from Krish
[edit]- Support: A well-written solid article that meets all the criteria for FA. Kudos to Kailash29792 for tirelessly working on old Indian cinema film articles and making them FA-worthy. I know how hard it is to work on these old articles. Keep it up.Krish | Talk To Me 07:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support from Veera Narayana
[edit]I didn't find anything much problematic, but the Themes section is somewhat unnecessary. What all you tried to communicate through that section, can actually be part of the writing process. That the writers incorporated the following themes into the script. I made some edits to the Filming section and shall return tomorrow for further review. Veera Narayana 05:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Veera. Numerounovedant and I are already trying to find ways to transfer the "Themes" content to other sections. You are welcome to make suggestions. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I hope everything is fine there Veera. Now I have incorporated "Themes" into the "development" section (mirroring Spider-Man 3's comments on Eddie Brock's journalism style). Owwizit? Also pinging Vedant, and hope everything is fine for him too. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- I apologise for the delay. I read the article again, found it better now. I support the candidate's promotion. Veera Narayana 12:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- I hope everything is fine there Veera. Now I have incorporated "Themes" into the "development" section (mirroring Spider-Man 3's comments on Eddie Brock's journalism style). Owwizit? Also pinging Vedant, and hope everything is fine for him too. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]Reading through now -- I decided to take a look because of the high number of supports along with an unstruck oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Given that Laser brain only looked at one section, and there have been multiple other reviewers since, I took a look at the edits since Laser brain's review. Quite a bit has been smoothed out since that point, but I do still see problems. Just jumping around randomly:
- In the legacy section, four short paragraphs, three of which start with the film's title; this is clumsy.
- Plot section:
Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu
: "collaborator" is not the right word. - Cast section: "Additionally" is unnecessary at the start of the last paragraph.
- Casting: "thespian" is an odd word to choose; it has connotations of pomposity which I think is not what you intend. And "initially" can be cut in that same sentence.
- Filming:
One scene required Ramachandran to ride a bicycle but he did not know how to ride one.
Unnecessarily verbose. - Music:
The music composer of Sathi Leelavathi...
: what other kinds of composers are there?
-- This is not a complete list of the problems I saw, it's just some examples. About half the sentences I read could be improved (I didn't read the whole article). I saw nothing ungrammatical, but finding this many problems so quickly is a bad sign. I see the review has been running a long time, so I'm sorry to oppose, but I don't think the prose is ready. It needs work from someone who can do more than simply make each individual sentence grammatically correct; it needs a run-through by a good writer who understands the material. And looking back at Laser brain's oppose, I see he made exactly the same point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Coord note
[edit]Okay it's time to close this and ask that we pls act on the above recommendation re. another writer versed in such articles, after which I'd suggest a formal or informal PR prior to a new FAC nom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2020 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.