Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eega/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2016 [1].

---

Eega

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Eega, a 2012 Indian bilingual film, which narrates the story of a murdered man reincarnating as a fly and avenging his death. This is my first solo attempt for FA. I thank my friends Kailash29792 and Ssven2 for helping me throughout the process. A special note of thanks to Miniapolis, copy-editor from WP:GOCE. Looking forward for constructive comments. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to FAC delegates: In order to avoid any resemblance to a case of WP:VOTESTACK, i hereby list the names of those editors whom i have requested to take part in the discussion; other interested editors are welcomed to comment: J Milburn, Krimuk90, Cowlibob, FrB.TG, Bede735, Jaguar, Jimfbleak, Yashthepunisher, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Vensatry, Dharmadhyaksha, Bollyjeff, Krish!, and West Virginian. Nikkimaria and SNUGGUMS were requested to conduct source and image reviews respectively. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Had my say at the PR. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yash! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why are you citing the Youtube version for runtime?

I could not find a better alternative for the same.

Is there not a DVD version or a runtime mentioned in a review? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally, The Times of India mentions the runtime in its reviews. It didn't for Eega. Neither Amazon nor Flipkart did mention the runtime of the DVD version. Thus, i am directly citing the DVD. Would that suffice? My friend found help from BBFC official website. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use Rediff.com or just Rediff

Fixed.

• FN100 and similar: missing italics on publication name

International Business Times (ref. 100) is an online newspaper which has no print edition. Thus, i treated it similar to a website by not italicising it.

Our own articles on IBT shows that it is typically italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. I've italicised all the three instances for IBT. Did it for Twitch as well. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Several of the Sify refs appear to be republications of other sources, of varying credibility. What makes these high-quality reliable sources, and if they are why not cite the originals? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Sify is listed as a reliable source in WP:ICTF and has been a part of many featured contents here, esp. lists. As per a discussion at WP:RSN, i came to know that the website mentions a note "The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com" if something is not published or checked by the website. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but the sources I'm talking about aren't by Sify originally, they're by other sites and are being republished. So whether Sify itself is reliable or not, that doesn't really tell us whether these other sites are. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed all the Sify sources which have republished the content from Telugucinema.com. Coming to Moviebuzz, i learnt from the discussion at WP:RSN that it is a part of Sify and no separate website with such name and content existed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

FN70 is from telugucinema. Do you have a link to the RSN discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed ref no. 70 and the statement there. This is the discussion at WP:RSN regarding Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I was hoping there was a link to show the connection, as I haven't found one on the site itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried searching Moviebuzz on Google and managed to find it only as a topic/author at Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Moviebuzz is a part of Sify that deals with the things that are going on in the industry (like how the Cinema Plus section is to The Hindu). If it were a private news/agency, it would have a website of its own like IANS, Press Trust of India (PTI) or Reuters.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

I have offered a c.e. here here and here for the "Critical Reception" section. Feel free to revert any changes you disagree with (though IMO the section is now in a better shape). I do have some concerns though -

• Certain reviews are not qualitative additions - point(s) in case: Rediff.com DNA, IANS (the last one could do much better with some commentary)
• I believe if you decide to keep the DNA review you need to expand it, and add it to the previous paragraph as it does not belong in the last para which is mostly critical of the film.
• "Sify called" - "A reviewer in Sify"?

Hope the c.e. helps. NumerounovedantTalk 13:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Thanks for the c/e and the comments. Ssven2 has managed to resolve them in my absence. Coming to the DNA review, i have merged it with the above paragraph, but i see no actual use of expanding it. Let me know if you have anything else to say. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's it for me. I see that you have a couple of supports and the article underwent an extensive PR too, so I'll leave it to the rest of the editors. Good work though and Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I took part in the PR and I conclude that this article is in a better shape since the last time I read through it. I think this meets the criteria, so I'll support. Well done! JAGUAR  19:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jaguar! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Not an area of expertise for me, but I was involved in the PR, and it reads very well now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jimfbleak! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I am not an expert when it comes to writing. An article with an understandable and concise prose is worthy enough to be FA to me, which is the case here. Well done! FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks FrB.TG! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro1

Drive-by comments: I had a quick look at the plot section, and did a quick copy-edit (and feel free to revert anything you don't like, or that I messed up). Just a few quick points on that section. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In a chain of events, his money is burnt to ashes": I think we need to say what the chain of events are, rather than just saying "in a chain of events"

Added a footnote regarding this.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• "a contract affecting his professional life is rescinded due to the death": Can we clarify what this means?

I leave this to Pavanjandhyala.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In the film, Sudeep undertakes a construction contract which can be his fate changer. He begins the meeting on a promising note, but completely messes it thanks to his poor mental conditions worsened by the fly's acts. The meeting ends on a very bad note, and the other party plans to sue them. As his business partner is dead, that contract is rescinded and an insurance of 7 billion is claimed. I thought this detail would be too intricate and abstained from adding it. Thus, i request you to suggest me a better way to include this into the plot. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What about "a potentially lucrative contract is rescinded owing to the death"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Added as per your suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think normally we spell out units of currency on their first mention, and link them. It makes it easier for the reader in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I leave this to Pavanjandhyala.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused where to do so. Can you kindly mention the place where should i mention rupees? That would be a great help. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "₹1.25 billion" in the lead (and it is sufficient to link to the ₹ I think) and "₹1.5 million" in the plot section (the first mention in the main body). I've usually seen it done like this "₹1.25 billion", although the MoS doubtless says something else! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Budget is already linked in the lead. I've linked the INR in the plot as per your suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article looks generally OK but I think another copy-edit might be needed in places. Also, the Origin section is a little tricky to follow for someone who is unfamiliar with the film. For example, "Rajamouli chose the concept of a man reincarnated as a fly for the script" does not really say what script we are talking about, and "For the first time in his career, Rajamouli began casting after the script was completed" is a little abrupt: I assume he usually cast before the script was done, but why not spell it out for the reader a little more? These were just two points that jumped out from a quick skim, so I think a few more eyes would be beneficial. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tweaked the sentence. Do make sure the corrections are alright.  — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think there's a slight mix-up in refs. "Rajamouli revisited Eega's script, since he wanted to "try something which had never been tried by anyone", adding that comedy, horror, and romance did not suit him. He decided to make Eega a bilingual film in Telugu and Tamil languages as the script had less dialogue. Each scene with dialogue was filmed twice, once for each language" is cited to ref 11 in this version, but that does not support the given information. However, ref 10 does support it. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The last part i.e. bilingual was sourced by ref no. 11. I've shifted ref no. 10 to the end of the sentence "...comedy, horror, and romance did not suit him". Hope that solves the issue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Thanks for leaving some constructive comments. I await a full review from you and opine that it would help me polish the article well. :) Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Origin, scripting and casting: I've read to the end of this section now. I've made a few little tweaks, but there's nothing particularly standing out here. Just a few queries and things I'd like to know a little more about. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Daggubati Suresh Babu presented Eega with his Suresh Productions": This is a little difficult to understand, so I would suggest moving the text in the accompanying note into the main body.

I respectfully disagree. It surely would distract the focus as the article of presenter is already linked. A footnbote was added only to avoid confusions if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Samantha turned down other offers to appear in it, calling her decision "well-thought out"": Do we know why she turned down other roles?

Perhaps to avoid scheduling conflicts. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "due to creative and scheduling conflicts": Do we know more about the creative conflicts?

Source says nothing. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The original version, filmed over a six-month period, cost nearly ₹110 million; Rajamouli felt that the quality of the outcome was poor and started from scratch": If I've read this right, he spent ₹110 million, decided he wasn't happy, and remounted the whole film! I think we need to know more about this, such as how much of the film had he shot, why wasn't he happy, what did the producers and cast think about this; was it his decision alone?

Wish i really could. Though i found something, it wasn't much encyclopaedic. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• The one thing missing: we don't really find out what role, if any, the production company had in all this. Presumably the film had backers of some sort or other. But maybe it's there and I've missed/misunderstood it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Hopefully, i've managed to answer your concerns here, and am thankful for your participation. Let me know if you have further comments/suggestions for this article in store. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Sorry for the delay in reading this, reading shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the short first paragraph in plot really necessary? Can't you merge in a continue with the story there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is, Dr. Blofeld. I wanted to start and end it as a bed time story, just like what the director did. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• "The Tamil version, Naan Ee, was his Tamil directorial debut." -why link Tamil?

Mentioned it properly as Tamil cinema. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Sudeep called his character the "only human being who is battling against a fly and carrying all the emotions",[18] and considered his character a "bad guy" with "grey shades" rather than an antagonist." =rep of "his character"

Changed the first one to "eponymous role". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "would check low-end" -what is "low-end"?

Removed it as i too couldn't understand what it was. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Although Indo-Asian News Service called Eega the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2012,[106] Bangalore Mirror called it the second-highest" -rep of "called"
• "Although Indo-Asian News Service called Eega the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2012,[106] Bangalore Mirror called it the second-highest (after Gabbar Singh) in box-office revenue.[" - would write as "Although Indo-Asian News Service stated that Eega the highest-grossing Telugu film of 2012, the Bangalore Mirror claimed that it was the second-highest (after Gabbar Singh) in box-office revenue."

Done as you suggested. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In Hindustan Times, Anupama Chopra gave the film four out of five stars and called it a "mad roller coaster ride that's worth taking" and the "most outlandish film [she has] seen in years".[120] Shabana Ansari gave Eega " -rep of "gave"

Changed the latter to "rated". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In a September 2012 interview for The New Indian Express, filmmaker Sekhar Kammula said that "good, sensible and alternative" films are favoured by audiences and cited Eega as an example." -strange context, seems like padding.

Removed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In a September 2012 interview for The New Indian Express, filmmaker Sekhar Kammula said that "good, sensible and alternative" films are favoured by audiences and cited Eega as an example.[146] Speaking about the centenary of Indian cinema at the CII Media & Entertainment Summit 2012, filmmaker Shekhar Kapur said that regional cinema is surpassing Hindi cinema in content and story and cited Eega as an example." -again rep of "cited as example"

When the above sentence is removed, this issue too has been indirectly addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• "In July 2015, Geethika Chandrahasan Sudip of The Hindu listed Eega for the letter E in "ABCD of Telugu Cinema"." -trivial, not sure why we care, or why that matters.

Removed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

While I think this article meets the FA criteria in terms of research and content (being a contemporary Tamil film) I wasn't too impressed with the quality of prose. In many places I admittedly found it a little plodding and lacking the flow and panache of an FA quality article. There were a number of examples of repetition and poor choice of wording. I think it could use another copyedit by a native English speaker before this is promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now. The prose just isn't up to scratch and I suggest it is copy edited to within an inch of its existence. I struggled to understand the plot, and had to take two or three reads to fathom it out. I'll take the opening paragraph from the Release section as an example:

Eega, with Naan Ee and Eecha, was released on 6 July 2012 in approximately 1,100 screens.[73][i]": This may be Indian English, but in screens? I'm more familiar with in cinemas (or theatres/theaters) and on screens.

"The premiere of Naan Ee took place on 5 July at Sathyam Cinema in Chennai, with the cast and crew in attendance.[76]": Why are we going back in time a day? When I read this, my (admittedly factious) mind asked what, all of the cast and crew? (and the cast and director are nearly always at a premiere – name the key ones and drop the rest)

"The Central Board of Film Certification gave the film a U/A certificate without any cuts, citing a few instances of actors smoking.[73][77]": Was this after the release and then premiere? Why do we need to know about smoking? Of all the insubstantial details of a film and it's release, this is one of the smallest

"A 30-percent entertainment tax was levied on Naan Ee by the government of Tamil Nadu.[78]": Where did this sentence drop from, and what's the context? Taxed for the making of, the broadcast of or something else? This, and the remainder of the paragraph on distribution rights are a separate point to the release info and should be in a separate paragraph.

The opening two sentences of the next para are a mystery too. They are about the film and its production, not the release, so why are they here? (I also see we have the names of two pirates of the film: do we care about their names? I also had to read the section more than once to understand that the piracy wasn't the counterfeiting of DVDs, but the broadcast in a cinema of a pirated version)

This is just one quick look – skimming through I see other problems with the prose and context. From the Origin, scripting and casting section: "K. V. Vijayendra Prasad jokingly suggested the concept of a housefly seeking revenge on a human during a conversation with his son, S. S. Rajamouli, in the late 1990s". Who and who, is what I'm wondering when I read this (so much so I may click on the link to find out who one of them is and never come back to read the rest of the article). "The Indian screen writer and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad..." may be more helpful in providing context for me. This isn't just a one off - there are a few parts where I need a little more context.

The article seems to cover all the areas of information I would expect and seems to be full and interesting, but I struggle to read this smoothly and have had to re-read too many parts to understand the prose. – SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat: Thanks for taking out time from your busy schedule and providing your comments here, which are surely helpful. I have requested the GOCE for a thorough c/e. I will let you know once it is done, which i expect would satisfy you. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think part of the problem with the flow and readability on this is that I detect a lot of "padding" in places done to lengthen the article and appear more like featured article length and weight, which is very common in Indian cinema articles. Personally I think the article will read much better without a lot of the padding, even if shorter. I'd be tempted to trim it throughout and revamp the way a lot of the information is presented to the reader to improve the flow and standard. I would suggest you remove anything which you added to pad it out and stick to what is of primary importance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I wanted the article to be comprehensive enough, but that never meant i would add "padding" to lengthen something; i don't stoop to such a worse level. Anyways, i did, do and will believe in your expertise and skills as a copy-editor and a reviewer. If you are willing to, please ruthlessly trim the article wherever you feel necessary. You have also watched the film, so that may help you to an extent. I await your response. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but sometimes when you try to make something really comprehensive that happens.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So, are you willing to trim? If you let me know, i can think about my next moves. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you'd like the result if I edited it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am ready to accept whatever that is going to happen with a smile. It is your decision that matters. My efforts will not go in vain. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to the delegates: I don't think so that i can do proper justice to this due to my current state of mind and real life disturbances. I thus am withdrawing the nomination. Thanks for everyone who has participated in the process and tried to make Eega a better article. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I was initially concerned that this was because none of us had edited the article, but Pavan seems genuine on this. I've made a start on it and I think it needs even more work than I'd initially thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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