Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andha Naal/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2017 [1].

Andha Naal edit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC), Vensatry (talk)[reply]

This article is about a milestone in Tamil cinema, the industry's first film without song or dance sequences, that won a National Film Award, even if it didn't succeed commercially in its original release due to its experimental nature. I have reworked the article over the course of months to ensure it is FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • The film's name, "Andha Naal", is overused; substitute "the film" and "it" where possible.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those edits Dank. I'm travelling till Sunday, and I hope Vensatry will address any issue with this FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Thanks for the copyedits. I've edited out a few instances, but couldn't do much in the "Themes and influences" and "Legacy" sections as they compare several films with this one. —Vensatry (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a minor tweak: Where you say "Sivanandam and Naidu decide to interrogate Pattabi...", it would probably be better as "Sivanandam and Naidu interrogate Pattabi..." This brings the focus on to the action, rather than on the decision to take action. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coemgenus: Slightly rephrased the bit, thanks for the support. —Vensatry (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source and image review
  • Just make sure you are consistent with linking publishers. An article about The Hindu exists, so wiki-linking in note 5 would be useful, for instance.
  • We have only one image in the article i.e. the poster that is appropriately licensed and captioned, although you need to provide an alt text. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Your comments have been resolved, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I've copyedited -- please revert anything I've screwed up.

  • "Sivanandam asks Usha, who tells him how she and Rajan fell in love": I think "asks" is the wrong verb; it implies a particular question. Do you mean "questions"?
    Changed to 'interrogates'. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Tamilian professor": elsewhere you use "Tamil" as the adjective form; is there some reason to say "Tamilian" here? Are the terms interchangeable?
    Tamil professor would mean that he taught Tamil at St. Xavier's College, Kolkata. 'Tamilian' denotes his ethnicity. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a link for the first use of "₹"? Most readers won't recognize it.
    Unfortunately, there seems to be some issue with the template itself. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what the problem is -- I added a link here; is there an issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Themes and influences", I'd suggest cutting the titles of Vest's and Pillai's books; they're given in the citations, and it interrupts the flow to include them in the main text.
    I'm not sure if the author is same as the namesake investigative journalist. If that isn't the case, the book carries more weight than the author. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but the book title and author are both available in the footnote. Currently we have "According to Jason P. Vest's Spike Lee: Finding the Story and Forcing the Issue, the three films follow a nonlinear narrative by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. In his 2015 book Madras Studios, film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that Andha Naal is unrelated to Rashomon except for its whodunit plot, where the murder is explored using various angles." About half of this text is just describing where we got the information, and we have no reason to believe it's particularly interesting to the reader, do we? I'd suggest "Film journalist Jason Vest describes the three films as following a nonlinear narrative by presenting diverging accounts of the same incident. Film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai notes that Andha Naal is unrelated to Rashomon except for its whodunit plot, where the murder is explored using various angles." Actually this makes it clearer that the sentences are a little too plainly declarative; we could probably link the second one to the following sentence, but let's see if we agree on this first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, done —Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When she discovers that her husband has betrayed India, she does not hesitate to kill him": but she does hesitate, doesn't she? According to the plot section, she changed her mind.
    There seems to be some discrepancy with the source. Will leave this to the co-nom. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better to re-watch the film on YouTube and find out. I currently can't do that since I'm travelling, but I'll return this night. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased the bit —Vensatry (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded it; "goes to the extent of killing him" seemed a bit clumsy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was later re-released after winning the Certificate of Merit for the Second Best Feature Film in Tamil at the 2nd National Film Awards": suggest giving the year of re-release here; a reader unfamiliar with the award might not realize this was the very next year.
    The source isn't clear either. Mentioned the year of ceremony. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reason for the hidden comments at the top of a couple of sections? They appear to only contain URLs.
    Removed —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in accordance with international parameters": what does this mean?
    Removed —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [a] seems to say the same thing three times: what's the difference between the "widely considered" claim and Saravanan's claim? And Guy's claim seems less broad; he's only talking about south India, so why is that worth mentioning if we've established that it's the first in all of India?
    Limca Book of Records' claim cannot be disregarded; it's the Indian version of Guinness World Records. The South Indian cinema (it's a subset of Indian cinema) bit seems reasonable to me as it's a well-established fact supported by a book published by the NFDC. —Vensatry (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not quite what I meant. I meant to say that you have three claims in that footnote: "Indian cinema's first sound film without songs", "the first songless film in India", and "the first of its kind in the whole of South Indian cinema". These all say more or less the same thing, don't they? Except that the last one only mentions South India? Why do we need to say the same thing three times? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Principally, all three claims are nearly one and the same. But isn't it good to note 'perspectives' and 'facts'? —Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. If I assert the sky is blue, I may want to put in more than one citation, but I wouldn't write "The sky is blue, according to Joe Scientist; Jane Scientist also says the sky is blue; and another scientist said the sky is blue too." I'd write "The sky is blue.[1][2][3]" What are you suggesting is different about this situation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure the "sky" analogy works here because it's clearly a case of WP:OBVIOUS. Okay, consider this: Telugu film actor Brahmanandam holds the Guinness record for having acted in most films (~700) in a single language – this is an established 'fact' (strictly) according to the Guinness Book of Records. On the other hand, multiple sources claim that the late Tamil actress Manorama supposedly had more than 1,500 screen credits (with majority of those being in one language); however, her record did not make it to the Guinness. Now, how would you clarify this in both of their articles? —Vensatry (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote a reply to this and then realized I'd been misreading something in the note. Sorry! It's fine as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. Would you mind revisiting the nom? —Vensatry (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look this evening; thanks for the ping -- I meant to check in on this last night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Out of time for now; will follow up on the remaining points tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Any update yet? —Vensatry (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear -- I did revisit after my note above, and I responded to all the remaining points. There are still a couple of unstruck points above that I don't think are dealt with yet -- the one about the book authors and titles, and the one about footnote a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: My bad, I've hopefully resolved your concerns. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, after rewatching parts of the film on YouTube, I corrected some plot points. Can you please review my last change? Also, Muktha Srinivasan is credited onscreen by his real name V. Srinivasan, and he did not get the "Muktha" prefix until 1961, when he launched Muktha Films, named after his nephew. How do we balance this? Do we write V. Srinivasan – who later became popularly known as Muktha Srinivasan – assisted Balachander with this film? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your change looks fine, and I like the suggested "later became popularly known as". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

Please refer to my comments at the peer review here, I'm continuing it from there.

  • Thrillers do use elements of suspense to sustain their narrative. What is the reason for specifically mentioning it as a mystery-thriller?
I don't know; perhaps because the entire mystery of the film is who killed Rajan? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who did it? is always a suspense. Anyways, anything to say Vensatry?
I'm no expert, but this should be referenced. —Vensatry (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that it is possible. So, assuming good faith here. What to do, is left to the nominators and other reviewers.
  • Can we have sub sections for Production section a la Mayabazar?
I hope that can be done. But the section's length and mixed up content is the obstacle to splitting it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No compulsion.
  • Please follow WP:FILMRATING
    Vensatry and Mike Christie, the "U" certificate sentence is fine, is it? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think so -- the rating given is the Indian one, which is what's relevant to this film; seems reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! is that so! I'm so sorry then. I was ignorant of that.
  • Researcher and ethnographer Preeti Mudliar compared Ratha Kanneer (1954) to Andha Naal because in both films, "the sin of foreignness is [neutralised] by a chaste Tamil woman, the virtuous wife". -- I find this more appropriate in the Themes section.
Actually, RK came afterwards. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable.
  • Given Chimbu Deven's acknowledgement, can we know what exactly it was on his directorial?
In the credits of Deven's film, it is acknowledged as an influence on that film's plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable. Pavanjandhyala 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support — My concerns are addressed and i have nothing else to say. Pavanjandhyala 09:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I read this few weeks ago and was kind of impressed with the article. Definitely FA-worthy. Congrats Kailash29792!Krish | Talk 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Glancing over this with a view to promotion, I'm not entirely convinced that we are there on prose. For example, "critic"-based words are overused in the reception section, and "film" is overused in the production section. There also appear to be a few run-on sentences ("After watching Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950) at a film festival, director Sundaram Balachander was inspired by it and wrote a play in the same narrative style") and possibly a few instances of redundancy, albeit nothing major. I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this. If nothing happens in a few days, I'd be prepared to recuse and have a go myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro1. I hope an admin will conduct an image, prose and source review soon. As for offline sources, I have them uploaded online, and will share if necessary. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88 edit

I think the prose is OK after input now from quite a number of people. I've made some suggestions myself, including to the example that Sarastro1 has raised above. I also have three sourcing issues thus far:

  • "Andha Naal is set in World War II, during the bombing of the Indian city of Madras by Japanese forces in 1943. Residents of the city moved to nearby hill stations to protect themselves from further bombings and invasion." - It seems to me that Bayly and Harper at page 192 are talking about events in 1942, not during the bombings of 1943. The chapter is entitled "1942" and there is no talk of Madras actually being bombed: only unfulfilled rumours that it might be attacked.
Replaced with another source. —Vensatry (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 33, cited on four occasions, is a dead link.
Done: added the field deadurl=unfit. But the archived link still works. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Production" twice cites this reference to explain the history of how the film came to be produced. On each occasion the information is based on quotes from Balachander's wife Shanta. I don't think the article can take her word as gospel: anything she says needs to be attributed to her rather than spoken in Wikipedia's voice as if it were incontrovertible fact. This becomes a particular issue because the article states unambiguously in the "Production" section that the storyline was inspired by Rashomon. This statement is based on footnote 5 and Mrs Balachander. But the article later says, based on other references, that this is highly debatable.
I see your point. Given that the film is very old it's difficult to find information about the production. If we were to remove the bit, we would miss out on the context. What do you suggest? —Vensatry (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the content is important. You could possibly attribute it to Mrs Balachander. For example, "According to Balachander's wife...", or "In [YEAR], Balachander's wife recounted that..." Syek88 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks —Vensatry (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also made one significant series of changes here. In hindsight I should have left that to the article's authors. The article repeatedly referred to the term "murder" to describe the precipitating event of the plot. I think this is the wrong word. There was no murder: Rajan was killed, accidentally, by his wife. Even if the event were a murder, neither the investigator characters nor the audience would have known that, so it would be unsafe to say, as the article did: "Purushothaman Naidu, a local police inspector, arrives at Rajan's house and starts investigating the murder." I think the article should refer to a "killing", a "death", or similar, when it describes the precipitating event. Please undo me if I have acted upon a grave misapprehension. Syek88 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, he wasn't 'assassinated'. —Vensatry (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Syek88 thanks for this, very helpful. Are you happy with the prose and sourcing now? If so, I think this is good to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Vensatry might still be considering my third point but I am happy to support on faith that it will be done. It is not a big issue in any case. Syek88 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Syek88, just two things left to clarify: can translated titles be added to the non-English sources? Also, there is a footnote reading "the Film Preservation and Restoration Workshop India 2016 gives it's exact length as 13,165 feet" (source). I don't know how to rephrase this footnote, but I know it needs to be rephrased. After reading, can you please suggest something? --Kailash29792 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think translated titles would be good. I had noticed the Tamil titles in the footnotes and felt it didn't give much of a clue as to what the references were about. I deleted an apostrophe from the footnote - otherwise the footnote looked OK to me. Syek88 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Syek88: Thanks for the copyedits and review; both are much appreciated. —Vensatry (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - I've marked my comments as a support. Syek88 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Syek88: Thanks for the support. The problem with adding translations (for titles) is they mostly border WP:OR. Besides, there needs to be some consistency over figurative/literal usages. And, Tamil dailies are notorious for using colloquial phrases for which there are no English translations available. If the reviewers want to have a clue about the titles, they can very well be explained in the talk page. —Vensatry (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that translating the title of a reference amounts to original research; we translate all the time. The Founding Ceremony of the Nation is another article nominated here at the moment in which the titles of Chinese-language sources are translated into the footnotes. But your point about untranslatable colloquial titles could be insurmountable! Syek88 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Andha_Naal/archive1&oldid=1136098909"