Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chandralekha (1948 film)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Chandralekha (1948 film) edit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to take this article about a 1948 mega-budget Indian film to featured status because of its historical significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support from Graham Colm edit

  • The prose is engaging and well written. It shows evidence of an accomplished copy-editor. I think FA criterion 1a has been satisfied, but the quotations are distracting, particularly the long one at the end and the one in the box. The one at the start of the Legacy section has a good impact and is of appropriate length. The nominator might want to consider using the information given in the long quotes in a less direct manner.
Will do as promised. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find much significance in the quote box's quote, and it seems very impossible to trim it down. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course this is a new subject for me, but the article seems comprehensive; very much so in fact.
  • The prose is encyclopaedic and there is no evidence of disputes regarding content or bias.
  • It is compliant with our style guidelines apart from my concern about the quotations.
  • We need to double check our policy on the use of You Tube as a source (as opposed to a published disc) and one of our regulars with a keener eye than mine needs to check the formatting.
Can I use the official DVD as a source instead? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better, but of course the You Tube link is useful as long as the film is out of copyright. Graham
Done: Rm Youtube in favour of DVD sources (and the film is out of copyright in my country). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think two of the images may be a cause for concern: The screen shot and the poster from Japan are tagged.
But the Japan poster satisfies two of the criteria for Japan PD: It was published after 1946 and before 1956. Does that settle it? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see a "clean" source page - no tags. Graham
Done: Rm Japan image, and kept drum dance image as non-free file. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The length is appropriate for a film article.

I would be interested in reading any comments from our Film regulars and will be pleased to add my full support later. I think the prospects for promotion are looking good. Well done. Graham Colm (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: My first opportunity to use your 'new' name BTW, congrats...! Anyway, did you want to make any further comment before I look at closing this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Hi Ian, no more comments from me. Graham Beards (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment

A recent discussion on Commons supported keeping URAA-affected images and rejected mass-deletions of such material. However, i am not sure how "final" this decision will be in a year or two. Featured articles should have the best images possible (including their copyright situation). Even if such images are "tolerated" for now on Commons, i am not sure they qualify as featured material here on en-Wiki. The whole URAA-situation is a grandiose mess and almost impossible to handle by average editors (including myself).

Considering this background, i suggest to:

  • add a date to the FUR-description parameter of the infobox image.
I don't understand. You mean to write the date of the poster? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, the template doesn't even show this kind of background information. Removed that point, please ignore. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • change the drumming screenshot information on en-Wiki to contain a detailed fair-use rationale.
The same image now exists on Wikimedia Commons as this, where I think it is properly tinted and licensed. I have nominated the Wikipedia image for deletion. Any admin may delete it ASAP. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the whole URAA-situation and its handling is less than clear. Fair-use would probably still be is the better approach here. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written, our policies and guidelines consider images to be free only if they are free in the US, regardless of their status in their country of origin. See for example WP:NUSC. Per GermanJoe we likely will need to hold a Wikipedia-wide discussion about how the changes on Commons might affect our practices here, but for the moment this image is not free in the US and can only be used under a fair-use claim here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove the second movie poster (in "Marketing") for now. GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, even though I thought it satisfies PD-Japan by being published before 1956. But how are all the Godzilla posters' ([2], [3] and [4]) PD-Japan status still being accepted, while this image is not? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of images on Commons still have dubious or incomplete copyright information - checking and maintenance is done only by a few interested volunteers. We can't assume, all images are OK there and need to double-check them ourselves. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dwaipayan edit

  • I have not read the whole article yet. In the lead, it's mentioned that the film was filmed in Tamil and later in Hindi. Does that mean that there were two versions of the film that were shot separately? Or, was the Tamil film dubbed in hindi?
Yes, the Hindi version was shot instead of being dubbed, according to sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Filming section of the article. There is nothing written about separate shooting of hindi version (unless I missed any passing mention). Who directed that version? Were the actors same? I am not convinced yet. Can you tell which sources say so?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vasan directed both the versions. Though some sources (G. Dhananjayan's The Best of Tamil Cinema, this article by Mohan V. Raman and this article in The Tribune) state the Hindi version as being shot, a famous director told Baradwaj Rangan in Conversations with Mani Ratnam that Chandralekha was "dubbed, I think. Or maybe it was partially remade", while this Hindu article claims that it was "the first South Indian film to be dubbed into Hindi." What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see there are some details in the section titled difference between two versions. Still, some info may be needed in the filming section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No source explains in detail about the changes to the Hindi version. As far as I know, there was a slight change in cast (N. S. Krishnan and T. A. Madhuram were omitted in the Hindi version, in favour of Yashodhara Katju and H. K. Chopra). But is it good that the section stay? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's a very difficult problem. We are not sure whether the hindi version was totally remade, or just dubbed, or in between: portions remade and portions dubbed. I think the best thing to do would be to add an explanatory note and state that sources differ in defining the extent of remake or dub. Then mention the differences between the sources, as you have explained above. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Dwaipayan, look at the "Release" section now. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the language of the film should be mentioned win the very first (or, second) sentence of the lead. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Written as how? I think the sentence should be as short as possible. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to suggest something later. In any case, it is not as important an issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. My concerns above were appropriately addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Editor 2050 edit

  • Very well-researched article about a very monumental Tamil film, looking as complete as it can be. Is there no scope for further images? Editor 2050 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor 2050, I wish that those images are out of copyright throughout the whole world; only then I can use them here (sadly, PD-India does not mean that an image free in India is necessarily free worldwide). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editor 2050, to every Indian film buff's joy, an image of the drum dance now exists in the article because of the scene's popularity and significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AB01 edit

  • don't think we need the three characters' names in the lead
Maybe, but FA's like Sholay and Mughal-e-Azam do so, don't they? why this be different? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began in the early 1940s, when (comma should be here, instead of where it is now) after two successive"
Done: Written as "began in the early 1940s when, after two successive hits". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • first sentence under Development is ambiguous. did both the films collect 4 crore (each/collectively?), or the latter only?
Done: Written that the films netted profits of INR 4 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it important to mention that Janaki is the future wife of M. G. Ramachandran?
Done: removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • second last sentence from "Casting"-->i'd reword it as "V. S. Susheela, Varalakshmi and Velayutham, in addition to "100 Gemini Boys
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kittoo said about Ramnoth's work, "In those days, we ..."--> the date of the interview is necessary here.
Unfortunately, no date available. What is the only alternative? Remove the whole quote? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd write "In retrospect, Kittoo said..." AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it redirects there. I want some ambitious editor to develop an article on the most expensive Indian films ever made. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carnatic, Hindusthani [sic], Bharatnatyam, Latin American and Portuguee folk music, as well as the Struass [sic] Waltz"--> all these words should be wikilinked, cos I don't know what they are, haha.
They are already linked in the start of the music section. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Marketing" section, it's written that newspaper publicity was Rs. 574,500 and Rs. 500,000 on publicity, but the next line says the "entire publicity budget" was Rs. 25,000. I don't quite understand that. And then it says the entire publicity for most films is Rs. 100,000, which is supposedly 1/10th of 25,000???
This source may have the answers. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get it now AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Marketing", from "An abridged English-language version of Chandralekha..." to the entire last para of the section--> I think this info should be under "Release". I don't see how it relates to marketing
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also shift the entire last para of Marketing, since it is concerned with the film's release AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Japan episode? I have shifted it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to know how well Apoorva Sagodharargal was received commercially and/or critically; if you can find info on it
Done: Written that it was also a commercial success. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question purely out of interest; how long was the sword fight? AB01 I'M A POTATO 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No source mentions the exact amount; but after watching the scene again, can I write the amount based on my own analysis? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, that would be awesome; I was just asking out of curiosity AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written its duration as at least two minutes. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you didn't actually have to write in how long it was. I was only asking cos I personally wanted to know. It'd be better to remove it..sorry for the confusion AB01 I'M A POTATO 08:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, one more suggestion-->I'd change the heading "Release" to "Reception" and change "Reception" to "Release and box office". AB01 I'M A POTATO 08:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All comments resolved, so I can give my support (on text/content). You're a good writer, Kailash :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 11:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment images - all OK edit

I am sorry for the back and forth hassle caused by the complex URAA-situation. But File:Chandralekha_drum_dance.jpg still needs to be copied to a local en-Wiki version with "fair-use" rationale. (Done) While Commons may accept such images now, WP:image use policy only allows 4 distinct types of images:

  • own work or
  • freely licensed by the copyright owner or
  • public domain in the USA or
  • used with an appropriate, detailed "fair-use" rationale.

The current usage would fail all 4 points and would be a copyright violation under US law. If you need any help with the FUR or have further questions, please let me know. The infobox image is OK, so this is the only remaining image problem. GermanJoe (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the final word: because the drum dance scene is the film's most recognised element and an image of it will stay in the article, can I upload it as a non-free file here? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images with copyright problems will very likely not pass any FA-nomination (atleast none has passed in the last few years). But this image is usable under en-Wiki "fair-use" rules, avoiding any possible copyright problems: The drum dance as a central element of the movie, its reception and its influence on later movies are all mentioned in some detail in the article. Without an image the reader can't possibly visualize its setup. So the image meets all points of WP:NFCC, after a detailed rationale is added on en-Wiki (maybe you'll need a slightly different filename to avoid a naming conflict with the current Commons image). GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: this is the new file. I request any admin to delete the other one commons. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Status updated accordingly - thanks for providing a detailed rationale. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90 edit

Lead
  • "After two successive hits" sounds like a tabloid story. Would be better to say "box office hit".
Done: Written "box office hits". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It became a huge success but was unable to recover its production costs". I don't think you can describe a film to be a success if it doesn't recover its production budget. I think you mean that it earned high revenues but didn't manage to recover its budget.
Done: Maybe it scored more than other Tamil films that time, yet failed to recover the budget. Whatever, I removed the statement "huge success". Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It opened up the theatres of the North to films made in the South and gave opportunities to film producers in South India to market their Hindi films in North India." Okay, firstly Western readers will be quite confused by what North and South India refers to. So I suggest wikilinking them. Also, in "..film producers in South India to market their Hindi films in North India" I think you mean South Indian films dubbed in Hindi, right?
Maybe, or even directly shot Hindi films. But the latter is of more significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Krimuk90, the only problem anyone may have in the lead is, "it opened up the theatres of the North" sounds a little idiomatic. You know any formal/literal alternative for it? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • Very well written. No comments.
Production
  • In the filming sub-section, is this really necessary: "Vasan became so involved in the project that he did not find a husband for his daughter Lakshmi Narayani, despite his wife's continuous nagging" Sounds very trivial to me.
Done: Removed as it is of less significance. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing
  • "No expense was spared for the publicity campaign." Again sounds like a tabloid. Can you reword this?
Done: Removed, as the para before already explains the publicity campaign as being very expensive. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
  • The New York Times described Rajakumari as a "buxom beauty. Were there no notable comments about the film in that review?
Unfortunately not. The year of the review is not even mentioned in the sole source I found. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References

(Note: The ref nos. refer to this revision)

  • When naming the authors, please follow this convention uniformly: [Last Name], [First Name]
Done: as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref No. 28, 43, 50, 69 , 131 does not include publisher information. I see that most of these refs that don't have publisher information are blogs, which aren't considered high-quality sources for a featured article. Can you find some better sources for these?
  • Ref 47 - Upperstall.com, 61- Raaga.com, 81 - IBOS, 85 - Rediff.com, 92 - Box Office India, are incorrectly formatted.
My comments on the refs:
  • This ref is reliable as it is an article by S. Theodore Baskaran, a reputed film historian. But I don't know what name to type in the "Publisher" field.
Apparently the publisher is "Seminar Publications, New Delhi" (please double-check). I usually check the site's entry page for such information (see footer of [[5]]). GermanJoe (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Based on that information, I have typed "Seminar Publications, New Delhi" as the publisher. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher should be United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written "UNESCO". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Publisher should be Senri Enthological Studies, Reitaku University. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written as "Senri Ethnological Studies, Reitaku University". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some other minor corrections, but overall excellent work Kailash. Happy to support on prose when the above comments have been addressed. However, I remain skeptical about the usage of blogs as high-quality references. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:USERGENERATED, I think all the sources are satisfactory. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent work Kailash29792 (talk · contribs). -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: I hope you fix some of the ref format inconsistencies. For e.g. Rediff ==> Rediff.com and GlamSham ==> GlamSham etc. You know the drill. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff edit

  • Pictures are missing alt text
Done: Alt texted both images. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two duplicate links in casting section and three in legacy section
Done Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is is possible to replace ref 53 glamsham with something more reliable?
Done: Removed Glamsham. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you remove or replace ref 127 behindwoods, if ref 126 Hindu will not suffice on its own?
Actually, The Hindu states that the event is going to happen (future tense), and Behindwoods states it happened. What do I do? I can't find any alternative for Behindwoods, which I think satisfies WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can use a primary source in this case, such as this? I don't want to see behindwoods in an FA is possible. I have been told numerous times that it's not RS. Same for glamsham. BollyJeff | talk 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: What an excellent alternative! I have replaced Behindwoods with it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upperstall external link is useless, Bollywood Hungama link should be italicized
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One entry in bibliography is missing an author name
Might it be Indian cinema: A Visual Voyage? I can't find the author name on it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some links here list National Film Development Corporation of India as the author, so I would go with that. BollyJeff | talk 12:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography and Categories should both be placed in alphabetical order
Done: Sorted books alphabetically. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually done by last name of the author, the first word that appears on the line. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good, but need more time to look it over better. BollyJeff | talk 13:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting section: "who later became Sivaji Ganesan" sounds odd. Maybe use "who later became known as" as is done later in the paragraph, or some other verbiage. Why do they change their names?
I dunno why, but the actor got the prefix "Sivaji" after acting in a play as Shivaji. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because she was then moving to Modern Theatres, Salem permanently" could be "because she was then permanently moving to Modern Theatres in Salem". Also, explain why would this make a difference.
Either way, it should explain that she completely quit working for Gemini Studios. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the problem. It was not clear to me as originally worded, and maybe still to other readers, which one was moving. BollyJeff | talk 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming section: $105,000.11 ? A little rounding wouldn't hurt. Also remove space between rupee sign and amount here and everywhere
  • Themes and influences: first paragraph - put films in time order in the sentence (Ben-Hur last), and put separate opinions in time order as well if you can. This same comment applies to Critical response-India sectoin.
  • Box office: I would definitely not use the IBOS figure. These tend to be highly inflated. The two films at the top of that list are both already FAs (by yours truly), and do not use the figures from IBOS.
Done: Rm IBOS as box office source, but retained it as a purported source for the Hindi version's release date. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all - very impressive. BollyJeff | talk 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - BollyJeff | talk 19:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Redtigexyz edit

  • File:Chandralekha drum dance scene.jpg is PD-India and not copyrighted as per Indian laws. Screenshots of movie are in PD after 60 years from date of release. Just tag it PD-India too and mention in comments in fair use rationale.
I tried convincing several other reviewers about the same, but they said it is still copyrighted in the US (after the British Raj, are we now under the rule of the Americans, who can determine the status of our property?) Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is copyrighted per URAA. I am just saying. Also tag it as PD-India and write rationale in fair use rationale. This is good to have thing. :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: As per your advice, I have added the PD-India tag to the file, which is still marked as a non-free fiel with FUR. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead para should have the language/industry (Tamil cinema) of the film. See Pather Panchali.
As how? "a 1948 Indian Tamil historical fiction film"? I would also like to call it an "epic film" due to its spectacle. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a 1948 Indian Tamil historical fiction film" works for me. Epic film: not sure. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written the same way. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Hindi version: Since there was difference in versions, was the entire film reshot in Hindi OR was it dubbed in Hindi? Since there is a difference in cast, may be it was reshot. This part is unclear from the article.

Except for one source which provides no deep analysis, the others clearly mention the Hindi version as being shot (the slight change in cast also explains the Hindi version as being shot), although Mani Ratnam is unsure whether the film was shot or dubbed in his claim. So I will write the Hindi version as being shot only. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read a para about it in Release. Move to the "Differences between versions". I will also suggest renaming it as "Hindi version".--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest that Hindi version from "Release" be moved be moved to "Hindi version", as it is seems amiss in Release section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just what and all do I move? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did Chandralekha premiere?
Are you referring to the claim that comes under "Marketing"? I am too tired to do anymore research, so I think I'll just remove the claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about "Chandralekha was released on 9 April 1948 at ______ ". Premiere show was at which theatre.. Sadly, research needed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Written that it released throughout South India at the same time. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about this? Generally, even Indian films as early as 1920s had premiere shows. If this film did not have one, I will take your word for it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the only source, I have written it as having released throughout the South at the same time. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trusting your research.--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was the first Indian film to be dubbed and released in English" needs a better reference. The source is a book on stamps, which is not the best source for an extraordinary claim like this one. The Hindu says "He also pioneered making South Indian films in English"
Is "Post Haste Quintessential India" the book you are referring to? I think I'll just remove the claim, and reduce the length of the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think you should mention "He also pioneered making South Indian films in English" (copied from the Hindu). Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz Talk 12:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Rm dubious claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became the most expensive Indian film at that time" extraordinary claim needs ref from film-related reference. Not a local Chennai magazine.
The reputed film historian Randor Guy is the author of this source, which reads at the end "Excerpted from Starlight, Starbright with the permission of the author". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot: "of a fictitious region" seems unnecessary, remove or replace with name of kingdom in film. In the film, the king had a real kingdom. Right?
I saw the film last year, and don't remember whether the kingdom's name was specified. So I have just referenced the kingdom without a name, although someone may ask, "what was the kingdom's name?" Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "outwits a vicious bandit, delivers the final insult ..." quotes need inline references
Done: Included ref at the end of the paragraph it is in. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subbu's wife M. S. Sundari Bai : who is Subbu? Is it the storywriter K. Subbu. May be write "storywriter Subbu's wife"
Done: Written Kothamangalam Subbu. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music: film historian M. Bhaktavatsala, film critic V. A. K. Ranga Rao, B. D. Garga say the same thing. Remove repetition: carnatic, Hindustani ... Merge "Critical reception". No separate heading needed. It has no contemporary views.
Done: Sections merged, and identical views deleted. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical response" has become a WP:QUOTEFARM. Can something be done about it. Also, add dates for all reviews.
The best anyone can do is trim down William K. Everson's quote. I earlier put the whole quote as I couldn't figure out which of his sayings should go out. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Dates already there, and quotes are at suitable level. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: The opening titles of both versions include a line reading "100 Gemini Boys & 500 Gemini Girls". Not a difference. Already stated.
Done: As asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz Talk 13:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is again repetition about J. Mahendran and K. Balachander--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtigerxyz: Was there anything you wanted to add before I look at closing this review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, there are minor things to do. I am ok with passing it in its current form too, if you deem appropriate. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, Done. :)Redtigerxyz Talk 14:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all the comments he has. Once they have all been solved, I think this FAC can be closed; it does look like the article will pass. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (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/Chandralekha_(1948_film)/archive1&oldid=1208173142"