Talk:Gujarati cinema/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this; it might take me a couple of days to complete the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC) @Mike Christie:. First of all thank you for taking up GA review. I have waited long 11 months for this. I am on vacation but have to be come here as its long awaited review.-Nizil (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Starting on the review; please revert any copyedits if I make a mess of anything. I'll leave notes as I go through.[reply]

It's not necessary to have citations in the lead for non-controversial information that is repeated in the body of the article. You can leave them in if you prefer, but most editors remove them, since everything in the lead should be repeated in the body and will be cited there.
Done removed/moved as per your suggestion.
Dwarkadas Sampat bought a projector and held shows in Rajkot: it's not immediately obvious to a reader why this is relevant; we don't know who Sampat is or even if he's Gujarati, though he probably is since Rajkot is mentioned. It would help to make this something like "Dwarkadas Sampat, an early Gujarati director, began his involvement with the industry in Rajkot, where he bought a projector and held shows". What were the shows -- his own films, or those of others?
Dwarkadas Sampat brought a projector and held show of films made by others. In short, he ran a cinema. He later founded a film production company with S. N. Patankar. I think it is relevant to show his interest in films. You may reword or change if you like.
I'm not saying it's not relevant; I'm saying that as a reader, knowing this article is about Gujarati cinema, the sentence is baffling, and doesn't get explained for a couple of lines. The previous paragraph explains in the first sentence that Dhotiwala is a Parsi Gujarati, so that makes him relevant. This sentence says nothing about Gujarati cinema, as far as the reader can tell. Looking at the Routledge Handbook entry, I see he was a producer, rather than a director. How about "Dwarkadas Sampat, an early Gujarati film producer, began his involvement with the industry in Rajkot"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with your suggestion. Your sentence is more understandable for readers. Done
~~What is a "social film"?~~
I realised that what I meant by social film is Social problem film, not Social film which is something new. I meant films about social issues and society. Should I change this in article? Social problem film feels like the film talking about social problem only. Some such films talk about society and family relationships etc.
Well, the sources says "social film", doesn't it? Assuming I'm looking at the right place. If you're confident from context that the author meant "social problem film", then yes, I'd change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure about it. These social films were actually social problem films. So change it.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for more suggestions and issues. Thank you,--Nizil (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

~~This shows some dead links: refs 12 and 39, at least.~~
Rescued and archived. Archive links added. Done
I tried looking in the Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinema, most of which I can see on Google Books, for the discussion of Gunasundari and Chandulal Shah, but a search of the book doesn't find a reference to it, at least not in the pages you cite.
I have added reference there but weirdly I can not add proper page numbers from Google Book does not show it in book. It just gives 1994 for them. Fix page number if possible. Search Gunsundari in that book for detail.
I think the number that comes up in the search is in fact the page number; several of the hits are on 1994 so that's why they're repeated. At least one was 1993 so I haven't added it; please add which the correct page number is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page number 1994 added. But still it is bit unclear numbering. Please go through Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema and suggest help.
What is a sati story? If this refers to sati (practice) a link would be helpful.
Sati is used in two contexts. One is a wife who committed sati (practice) (burn herself on funeral pyre of husband). And other is ideal and pious wife especially from folklore, religious and moral stories etc. Here is used in second context. Several Gujarati films are produced depicting ideal and pious wife characters such as Sati Savitri of Savitri and Satyavan story or Gangasati. So sati (practice) should not be linked. Any other way to add this clarification?
I would explain it just as you do here, perhaps in parentheses, and with a citation supporting that description. I don't think you can leave it unexplained, particularly since we don't have a suitable link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add it. See ([1] page 11 onwards).
I can't see page 12, but page 11 does look relevant. I would rather not add it; if I do much more than copyedit the article I would disqualify myself from being a GA reviewer for it, so please add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done note on Sati with ref added.--Nizil (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~The last two sentences in the second paragraph of "Post-independence (1946-1970)" are uncited.~~
Can not find citation for now. The exact same sentences are found in History of India Cinema by Renu Saran which may be copied from Wikipedia. (link is blacklisted so can not post here.) Will try to find or will remove these sentences. If you can find suitable reference, please add.
OK; let's wait till there are no other issues and see if you have a reference by that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the sentence and can not find reference even after searching hard. Done
The prose is clean enough for GA, but I'll just comment that in places it is rather listlike. The third paragraph of "Rise and decline (1970-2000)" is a good example; if you were to go to FAC I think this paragraph, and similar prose elsewhere in the article, would be criticized.
I understand your concern. Those listlike sentences refers notable films directed by directors of that era. What should be done? Is there any other way to write about notable films of notable directors of that era? Especially when the articles on directors are not there.
Getting this sort of prose right is not easy, and I don't have any obvious advice. A general comment I would make is to think about how you would tell someone about this topic in conversation. You probably wouldn't simply list the films and directors, right? You would frame it in some kind of narrative, and that's exactly what you do at the top of the 1946-1970 section -- "there was a surge in the production of Gujarati films". That gives you a basis for giving some numbers, and you do that; and for naming some films -- but the films should be presented as illustrating your narrative. E.g. "Popular [or successful] films from this era include..." or "This era saw the rise of X and Y actors/actresses, who became popular in films A and B", or "The most influential [or productive, or financially successful] studios [or producers, or directors] were X, Y and Z". There should be a reason to name each film, and the reader should be clear what the reason is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats good suggestion. Well, I will try if I can make some changes in that direction. Most list-like sentences are written with at least some kind of reason/narrative with it. If you find specific sentences which I need to change, tell me.
The two paragraphs that would be worth looking at for this issue are the second paragraph in the "Post-independence" section, and the third paragraph in the "Rise and decline" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some info in Rise and decline (1970–2000) section to avoid continuous longlist like sentences. "Post-independence" section have two list-like sentences. Would try to add more info later there.--Nizil (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~It boasted superlative performances, fine camerawork: this shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice; either cut the adjectives or attribute the opinion inline.~~

reworded. Done

~~Avoid repeating "urban audience" at the start of the second paragraph of "Revival (2001-present)"; and you use it twice more in the next paragraph.~~

merged two sentences. Done

In August 2011, the Gujarati film industry crossed the production of thousand films: "crossed" is an odd word-choice; plus do you mean over the entire history of Gujarati cinema? How about "In August 2011, the Gujarati film industry reached a milestone, having produced over a thousand films since the beginning of the silent era" or something along those lines.

Done. Your sentence was better. (minor change: since beginning of the talkies)

That's it for a first pass. I'll review again once the points above are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:. I have edited as per your suggestions and answered you queries. Please go through it. Thank you for your suggestions. Waiting for more. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:. Done some changes. More comments are awaited.--Nizil (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're getting close now. If you can explain "sati" inline, there are just one or two more points:

~~The lead is a bit short for the article; I think you could expand it to two paragraphs and give a few more details.~~
Lead expanded. Please check grammar.
~~There were twelve films released between 1932 and 1946: but in fact these were all released between 1932 and 1940, weren't they? Since there was nothing between 1941 and 1946?~~
Well, both sentences are equally true. I had written as per reference and as section discusses about films between 1932 and 1946. I am changing it to 1940 as per your suggestion. Done
~~An entertainment tax exemption of Rs. 3,00,000: should this be "3,000,000", or "300,000"?~~
In India, separators are used in different way. See Indian numbering system#Use of separators. Should I write according to western style?
Interesting; hadn't run into that before. I've struck the comment; I would guess WP:ENGVAR covers this and it should stay as you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of films produced reached seventy-two in 2012, the most in the history of Gujarati cinema: Since the source dates to 2012, this isn't necessarily still true. I think the wording should be changed to say either "As of 2012" this was the record, or say that it set a new record which implies the same thing.
Changed to In 2012, the Gujarati cinema produced a record number of seventy-two films. Is it OK?
Marking as Done.-Nizil (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maiyar Ma Manadu Nathi Lagtu (2001) directed by Jashwant Gangani, starring Hiten Kumar, was commercially successful. The film's sequal was released in 2008. Gam Ma Piyariyu Ne Gam Ma Sasariyu (2005) and Muthi Uchero Manas (2006) were commercially successful. A bit clumsy to have the two sentences identically structured so close to each other; can you reword this, perhaps combining the sentences so you only have to make the point once? Search for "commercial" and you'll find it appears seven times in the last section -- it would be nice to reword a couple of them.

Reworded to Gam Ma Piyariyu Ne Gam Ma Sasariyu (2005) and Muthi Uchero Manas (2006) were also well received by audiences. Reworded commercial successful at several places.

Done

The lives of popular saints and satis of Gujarat, like Narsinh Mehta and Gangasati, were made into films: unless I'm misunderstanding something, both Narsinh Mehta and Gangasati were saints; if you're going to mention saints and satis I think one of the examples should be a sati.

Gangasati is Sati. Done

~~I see both Gunasundari and Gunsundari; which is the correct spelling?~~

On point of transliteration, both are correct but will follow schwa-dropping in Gujarati and changed to Gunsundari. Done

I think the prose on the list-like paragraphs could be improved a bit, as discussed above, but I won't hold up GA for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue is that you do not explain "sati" when the word is used. Can you put in a footnote or a parenthetical explanation from the source you linked to? Once we have that sorted out I will pass this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added note on Sati.

Done-Nizil (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:. Any more issues or suggestions? Regards,--Nizil (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it a bit. I'm going to pass the article, but I would suggest you convert the inline reference to the dictionary in the new note to be a citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for passing it for GA, @Mike Christie:. I am bit confused about your suggestion. What do you mean by convert the inline reference to the dictionary in the new note to be a citation? I read it twice but can not understand what should I do. Please clarify. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to "(Hindi Shabda Sagar dictionary)", which is used in the note to source the definition -- any reason why this can't be made into a footnote like the other citations in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I get it. The page 12 of Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India mentions that it sourced this definition from Hindi Sabdasgara dictionary. I am adding reference to that original dictionary too as its available online too. But one have to search the word to get the result. Page number of dictionary is added also. [dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.17.dasahindi.3388936 I can not cite this URL as its bad URL.] So I have linked to the main page. Is it OK? @Mike Christie:--Nizil (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]