Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pather Panchali/archive3

< 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 Graham Colm 07:30, 17 May 2014 [1].


Pather Panchali edit

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first feature film directed by Satyajit Ray. This film is the first from India to enjoy international critical success and features in several lists of great films. The article has undergone a productive peer review, and then copyedit by User:stfg. A recent FAC was closed due to lack of reviewers. I believe the article meets FA criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - It's nice to see how this article has evolved since its GA nomination, which was actually reviewed by me back then, almost six years ago. I'm so proud of the way articles related to Indian cinema have become so much better off late, in terms of writing and effort put into them. This is a great example - it is insightful, very well researched, and as comprehensive as it can get. Very well done Dwaipayan, way to go. Shahid • Talk2me 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very nice article. It would have been awesome if I had some time to work on it as desired earlier. Nevertheless, good job and all the best. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments from Dharmadhyaksha
  • Excellent suggestion. I have added several authorlinks in the reference section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead there is this line "A special screening was attended by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru." Does it give impression that Nehru was PM as well as CM? Or is it just me reading it that way?
  • Now after reading your comment, when I read the sentence, it seems as if Nehru may seem to be both CM of WB and PM of India!! I have removed Nehru's name. The designation is important, the name not so much.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did want to have Nehru's name in it, one way would be to turn it round: "A special screening was attended by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India." Another would be to name the CM of WB :) --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that needed at all? It doesn't seem leadworthy at all; films are specially screened for heads of state all the time.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not needed. It was only a suggestion in case it was wanted. The name is present later in the article and that's fine. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rest all seems good. Well written. Nice job Dwaipayanc and others. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

  • File:Pather panchali poster in color 1.jpg - is low resolution and has appropriate non-free use rationale
  • File:Patherpanchali 1.png - is low resolution and has appropriate non-free use rationale, as the scene is referred to in the text
  • File:Dia5275 Ravi Shankar.jpg - appears to be an own work and OK
  • File:SatyajitRay.jpg - appears to be an own work and OK.

That's all. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read most sections - it's getting late here, so couldn't check everything carefully - and found it to be excellent. None of the usual problems I normally find in Indian movie articles at GA and FA, like a tendency to purple prose and trivia about the actors, appear here. There has obviously been some good copyediting at some point. A well-prepared article on an important subject in the arts. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff. I made a number of comments on the article talk page just before this was re-nominated. Once those are addressed, I will be able to support. BollyJeff | talk 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Does anyone know how to fix the citation error in the notes? Note a. shows three links a, b, and c. A and b actually go somewhere, but c does not. An error message at the bottom of the section says "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)."BollyJeff | talk 00:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's very good now. BollyJeff | talk 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, this is a great article, the best line being 'the government recorded the loan as being for "roads improvement" '. :) I copyedited the article and have a few comments before I can give my full support:

  • There are only two jarring notes in the article: the Google Doodle and the Rotten Tomatoes rating. Both are highly trivial 21st-century accolades that intrude upon a classic work. The former didn't even feature on the main Google site, just the local one. The latter includes all manner of blogs in its assessment, and excludes the likes of Pauline Kael. Both should be relegated to the external links, if not removed altogether.
I would keep the doodle info even though trivial. It only shows how the "classic" is still part of 21st-century culture. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideologically, I am somewhat with Indopug here. Google doodle and Rotten Tomatoes may seem intruding. However, we see Rotten Tomato info in many film articles. That is why it may be a good addition for some readers. For google doodle, I am neither in favor nor against it. Here, Indopug is against and Dhama for its inclusion. Any more voices?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with you on that: weak keep for RT, weak remove for the doodle. Those doodles' main effects are to keep Google in people's minds and to reinforce celebrity culture. But I'm probably old-fashioned, and I wouldn't push the point at all. --Stfg (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section it is under is "legacy". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am for keeping it. Legacy section is okay for newer stuff. BollyJeff | talk 12:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a particular trivial accolade among the newer stuff. Note that it isn't even on Google.com, just the India homepage.—indopug (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, due to lack of a clear decision, I am maintaining status quo, that is, keeping both of these info in the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add an image of Ray's storyboards? Even if non-free, it will add value.
  • Done.
  • Is it "The Apu Trilogy" or just the "Apu trilogy"? I see both here. (I prefer the latter, it looks less pompous)
    • I added a question to the talk page before I saw this. The article The Apu Trilogy styles it with all caps and all italics, but I agree with your preference. --Stfg (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roger Ebert calls it "The Apu Trilogy". I have not changed the usage to the "Apu Trilogy" yet (I don't mind changing it at all). Since both Indopug and Stfg prefer the "Apu Trilogy", I hope it is preferable. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understood the two options to be about capitalising "the" and "trilogy" (as part of a title). That is, either The Apu Trilogy or the Apu trilogy. I don't think we'd want to omit the definite article except where some other determiner replaces it, as in Ray's Apu trilogy, for example. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, now the article consistently uses the Apu trilogy (no italics).--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While many critics celebrated Pather Panchali as a eulogy of Third World culture, others criticised it for what they took to be romanticisation of such a culture" → can you confirm that this is what is said in the source? I find it hard to believe that celebrating Third World culture should be criticised. (If there's an explanation at the source, please add it to the article.)
  • Actually, I found this sentence had too close paraphrasing with the source. So, I changed it to a quote, with author attribution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After watching the film, François Truffaut is reported to have..." → didn't he exclaim that during the film, as he walked out?
  • the source uses "after". We are not sure. Your provided source (the Hindu article), I think, is a better source for this than the source used in the article. But is itvery important to differentiate during and after. Please advice. I am ok with either. May be we can avoid using either.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just "On seeing the film, ..." --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't Robinson have anything to say about the Themes?
  • Added one sentence (including one quote) from Robinson that seemed suitable for the themes section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Rs. and that symbol are used.
  • Now the symbol is used consistently.
  • DVD info: is that technical info really encyclopedic? Also note that the film's probably been released in a variety of home media over the years (VCR, VCD...), so there's no need to specifically mention this one format. The restoration information is more important though and you should promote that from the footnote into the main article.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, moved the restoration info to the last paragraph of Release and reception. I am not sure about the necessity of the technical details of the DVD. Surely, the film has had several video tape, VCD, DVD releases. Mentioning those two is probably not needed. I am inclined to delete this info, but have not yet.
  • Ton of thanks for reading the article in such detail, the copyedit, and the suggestions.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a fantastic article and should be promoted. Great work.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kailash edit

I feel that to correct the cite error, the explanatory notes should be edited like how they are in Sholay. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayanc, thank you for fixing the cite error issue in the manner I suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for suggesting the solution :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Dwaipayanc, I see the cast makes excessive use of hyphens, eg: "Kanu Banerjee – Harihar Roy" instead of "Kanu Banerjee as Harihar Roy". Won't it look good to write "as" instead of the hyphens? The cast sections of many Indian FA's like MeA and Sholay do not include hyphens. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular choice between "as" and hyphens, and not aware of any guidelines. However, you are correct that many articles do use "as". So, I changed the hyphens to "as".--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc, I have a doubt: Pather Panchali is included in NDTV's list of "India's 20 greatest films", but the year when the list was published is not mentioned in the article. Do you know? I cannot find the year in the source. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no date of publication for that NDTV article. The earliest archive date from Internet Archive is in July 2013, so it is not after that. We are not sure about the exact publication date.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (ping) (minor ones)
  • "After Pather Panchali, Ray went on to make a total of 37 films, including feature films, documentaries and shorts". His filmography shows that he made 37 films (including this film)
    • yes, the total number of films (including Pather Panchali) is 37. This sentence has a falacy, depending on how you read. So, I think this should be changed to: "After Pather Panchali, Ray went on to make a 36 more films, including feature films,..." What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's misleading, shouldn't it be changed? —Vensatry (ping) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • Did he ever work as cinematographer, art director, film editor?
    • this article explains the cinematography question. It says, "Mitra also operated the camera until Charulata when Ray himself decided to take over. Soon after that Ray and Mitra parted company and Mitra's assistant Soumendu Roy took over the lighting. The last film Mitra photographed for Ray was Nayak. (Unlike in Hollywood, in India almost all the cinematographers also operate the camera.)"
    • Art direction and editing: usually Bansi Chandragupta is credited, or others. The art designs were usually planned by Ray himself. It's a really difficult question, as technically he is not credited, but he is the general planner, and had an overarching presence over so many departments of film making. SImilarly, usually Dulal Dutta edited, but Ray was present physically throughout the editing process, and instructing Dutta. See this.
    • So, it seems these departments were quite collaborative in his films. To answer your question, "Did he ever work as cinematographer, art director, film editor?", he was not credited in the film credits in those roles. But he worked on those aspects of filming, to a degree probably more than expected/seen in directors. Does my argument satisfy you?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • May be, but haven't we come across Indian directors who supervise all these aspects of film-making? (editing in particular). You mean to say Ray was the creative brain behind his crew? —Vensatry (ping) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed the sentence to "he worked on". Perhaps I mean to say that Ray was the creative brain behind his crew, but I do not have a source that exactly says so. The sources suggest that he actively operted the camera, and was very much directly involved in editing and art direction, alongside the specific crews on those departments. I think yes, many other Indian directors may have played similar active roles, but Ray did surely, according to the sources. So, now after the sentence constrution change, oes it seem more acceptable?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film has definitely influenced eminent India film-makers as this is considered a path breaking one in parallel cinema. A line or two about how it influenced them could be included in "Legacy".
    • Unfortunately, I am not finding specific examples how Pather Panchali influenced other Indian directors/films. Have yu come across any? Of course it did influence, but I am not finding literature to support that!--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (ping) 14:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read somewhere that Swayamvaram (which you might be knowing) has some traces of Pather Panchali. I'm not very sure as I've seen neither of these films. —Vensatry (ping) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Regarding my last point, it's only a minor suggestion which may not prevent the article's promotion. Rest all have been sufficiently addressed. —Vensatry (ping) 16:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Scholars have commented on the film's lyrical realism." I'm not sure what "lyrical realism" is. "Lyrical Realism" redirects to "Poetic realism". Is this what is meant? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I do not know the anser. It's beyond my realm of knowledge. This epithet "Lyrical realism" has been used based on usage in some sources referring to this film. If it feels awkard, we can replace this with "lyrical nature and realism". Thoughts?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how about just "realism" as in Realism (arts)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I cannot feel the sense of "lyrical realism", the separate qualities of "lyrical nature" and "realism" are tangible, and are important to mention (as these are important thematic aspects covered in the Theme section). So, I'd prefer to have both "lyrical" and "realism". If we need change the sentence construction, we are open to suggestion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later in the article we have quotes from Ray himself (referring to the book) and from Seton and Robinson, referring to the film, so I feel the use of the word is well justified. The wording "lyrical quality and realism", which you put there today, seems perfect to me. --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new wording is fine. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Production", subsection "Script", paragraph 2: "In Apur Panchali (the Bengali translation of My Years with Apu: A Memoir, 1994), Ray wrote that he had omitted many of the novel's characters." Was the book originally written in English and subsequently translated into Bengali? If so, that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the book was originally written by Ray in English as My Years with Apu: A Memoir and published after hi sdeath. Some translator later translated it to Bengali. I had access to the Bengali version, so I've specfically mentioned the Bengali version here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Legacy", paragraph 1: "Pather Panchali was followed by two films that continued the tale of Apu's life—Aparajito (The Unvanquished) in 1956 and Apur Sansar (The World of Apu) in 1959. Together, they constitute the Apu trilogy." The second sentence could imply that the two films, Aparajito and Apu Sansar, constitute the trilogy. Although it could be argued that a trilogy self-evidently includes three films. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid tripping readers up, I've changed they to the three films. --Stfg (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source review - I will start this off, since no one else is doing it:

  • In source 2, is dvdcompare really needed? It appears nowhere except in the URL.
    • Removed dvdcompare.
  • In source 10, I found a new working original here: [2]. Also, could you list the 2012 copyright date rather than no date at all?
    • Updated to new live original. Added 2012 date.
  • The Senses of Cinema ref is missing the date, I saw 'May 2002' near the bottom of the article. Please scan all of the sources for dates.
    • Great find. somehow it was missed earlier. Now updated.
  • It is allowed (and encouraged) to have one wikilink for each publication in the notes section, even if it is already linked in text. Missing links in the notes include LA Weekly, The Gaurdian, rogerebert.com, The Times of India, The Tribune, Senses of Cinema
    • Now wikiinks provided in the notes section. Did not wikilink rogerebert.com as this redirects to Roger Ebert, which is linked from author name in this note.
  • On the other hand, 'British Film Institute' is already linked three times in the notes.
    • Decreased to once.
  • The reliability of the sources look pretty good to me. I believe that the very few sources that are not of the top quality are not making any claims that would be challenged. BollyJeff | talk 13:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for taking up this painstaking job. However well the editors try, I always see that there is always room to improve in this section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:30, 14 May 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/Pather_Panchali/archive3&oldid=1136458136"