Talk:Drishti (film)

A fact from Drishti (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1990 Hindi film Drishti, which follows the story of a married couple who divorce and later meet again, has been praised for its "harsh look at monogamy"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Drishti (film).

Wikipedia

Sources

HT. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

~~... that Drishti (1990) is the only film for which classical vocalist Kishori Amonkar composed music?~~ Sources: 1) Arunachalam, Param (2019). BollySwar: 1991 - 2000. Mavrix Infotech Private Limited. p. 35. 2) Ghosh, Devarsi (4 April 2020). Goodbye Kishori Amonkar: Exploring the legendary singer's tryst with Bollywood. India Today.
- ALT1:... that the 1990 Hindi film Drishti was restored by the Film Heritage Foundation in 2018? Source: Das Gupta, Ranjan (8 June 2018). "Birthday present for Dimple Kapadia: Her film, Drishti, is going to be restored". Hindustan Times

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Taylor (cricketer)

5x expanded by Shshshsh (talk). Self-nominated at 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

While at first glance the article appears to be of an appropriate length and sourcing, neither of the two hooks appear to be that appealing to non-Indian audiences. Could new hooks possibly be proposed here that would be more broadly interesting to a wider readerbase? Hooks based on the many review quotes could be a good start. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Narutolovehinata5 - Hi there - I'm sorry but I can't think of other hooks, and I personally don't think that someone from India will necessarily like a hook on Indonesian cinema. The "appealing" argument is very relative and subjective. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Some of the review quotes seem to be promising and have hook potential. For example, there's the quote from The Tribune saying that it is one of the "masterpieces of 1990", or the mentions of how it "brings up an issue that is universal" (presumably about marriage separation? it's not very clear in the article text), or even how it has been described as "a harsh look at monogamy". A hook about the reception it's received for its themes would likely have broad appeal, even to non-Indians, and right now I have reservations that either of the initially proposed hooks would be approved as-is, although an alternate wording of ALT1 mentioning that the film was found to be in poor shape could potentially work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. I'm not sure reviews are very good because hooks are about facts and not opinions but if you can think of something concrete, feel free to offer your suggestion. I sort of agree about ALT1, maybe ALT1a: ... that the 1990 Hindi film Drishti was restored by the Film Heritage Foundation in 2018 for being "in a very poor condition"? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2:... that the 1990 Hindi film Drishti, which follows the story of a married couple who divorce and later meet again, has been praised for its "harsh look at monogamy"?

How about this? Probably something else could be added there. I'm also not sure if the current version of ALT2 would work given that it's based on the plot section and thus requires a citation (which plot sections normally wouldn't need), but it was a way to give context to the "harsh look at monogamy" quote. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Very interesting - and actually, the source you use does provide exactly the plot element you mentioned in this hook. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that information will still need to be cited somewhere in the article. Since usually plot sections aren't sourced, maybe it could instead be mentioned and cited in the lede or in the Reception section? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 - cited in the lead. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: the article is not yet a 5x expansion. Before expansion began, on August 13 the character count was 1075. As of today it is 5128 characters. An additional 247 characters are needed. Yoninah (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 247 character expansion is not insurmountable so it's probably too soon to fail this nomination just yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can expand it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Character count is now 5677 characters, well above a 5x expansion. Review can continue. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5:, in case you didn't notice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to finish the review tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 5x expansion has now been accomplished, the article is well-cited, and the hook facts are cited inline and verified. Although a QPQ was done, the tool suggests that the nominator has only one prior DYK credit, please confirm if this is the case. Owing to broad interest concerns, ALT0 and ALT1 have been struck, leaving us with ALT1a and ALT2; I will leave the final choice to a different reviewer as I proposed ALT2. However, there is one issue with the article: Earwigs finds a positive with this Amazon link, and while I am not sure if the article copied from Amazon or vice-versa, to be on the safe side I would suggest rewriting the plot summary, though in such a way that the article remains a 5x expansion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs)
I don't know which tool counts one's number of DYKs. My latest DYK is Wahan Ke Log a month or so ago and, indeed, my last DYK before this one was many years ago (there were several of them actually about ten years ago) but the tool probably doesn't count so far back. You can see my userpage for a list of my old DYKs.
Both hooks look very good to me (although honestly the first one wasn't that bad either - Kishori Amonkar is regarded as a legendary classical singer in India, and I think it is an interesting fact that she had only one venture into film music, which is this one, but anyway).
Plot copyedited now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you forgot, Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs). Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding her for a while. I had already indicated in my above comment that I would be requesting that another editor finish the review as I had proposed a new hook. The comment about prior DYK nominations is noted, meaning a QPQ was indeed needed, and it has been done. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a full review: 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. ALT2 is very hooky; hook refs verified and cited inline. Image is fair use. QPQ done. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]