Talk:Kalidas (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Will review within 48 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will await DrBlofeld's review. Meanwhile, congratulation to Kailash for working on this important film. The article looks good :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

You might want to start with the norm and say is a 1931 Indian film, the first sound film made in Tamil and the second sound film to be made in South India.
"The film was based on the life of the third-century Sanskrit poet Kālidāsa; it " -new sentence please
Reword the sentence which begins with Although primarily a Tamil film as "Although primarily a Tamil film, due to additional dialogue in Telugu and Hindi it is often considered India's first multilingual film".
Swadesamitran - in the Tamil newspaper Swadesamitran
" However, because all of its fifty songs were in Tamil, it is considered a Tamil film only". Contradicts what you said earlier with the dialogue. It can't be considered both can it?

Done. All concerns here addressed. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Is "cowherd" really used in India?

I don't know, but if it is used in British English then it should be acceptable in Indian English as well. (After all, Indian English borrows lot from British due to the British Raj). Kailash29792 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In the forest, the minister comes across a foolish cowherd sitting in a tree and cutting down the branch on which he is sitting. The minister persuades the cowherd to come to the palace and has Vidhyadhari marry him. When Vidhyadhari realises she has been cheated and is married to a cowherd, she prays to the goddess Kali for redress." Vague. Why is he foolish and how does she realize that she's been cheated? It would seem she was the fool!

I have changed "foolish" to "illiterate". Does that settle all? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production

It was -repetition
Avoid rhetorical questions in section titles
"Because Venkatesan's first language was Telugu and could not get his Tamil right, his dialogue was in Telugu.[2] Because the" -repetition of because.

Music

"The film had compositions" -The film featured compositions
" Scholars Selvaraj Velayutham and Birgit Meyer believe that the nationalistic songs featured in the film had nothing to do with the main plot.[23][24] Film News Anandan believes " -repetition of believe
What is "Film News Anandan"? Is it Film News or Film News critic Anandan or what?

His name is Anandan, Film News was a company he worked in. But it has been added to his name. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Bhaskara Das was the lyricist". Too short and snappy. Merge into "The film featured compositions by the carnatic musician Thyagaraja, with lyrics by Bhaskara Das" further up.

Release

30th -against MOS
"along Wall Tax Road throwing rose petals" -add comma after Road.

Done. Settled both these issues. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Would be best merged into Reception and legacy

Shouldn't "Kalidas was remade as Kaviratna Kalidas in 1937 and Mahakavi Kalidas in 1955, both of which were critically appreciated and commercially successful. " come after the mention of the only film of 1931 and lost film? Can you mention the directors/actors of each?

I do not know if they are exactly remakes, I'll rewrite them as other Kalidas based films. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have removed Kaviratna Kalidas as I cannot find any other RS that proves its existence. As for Mahakavi Kalidas, I have added the director's name, although the source does not mention it. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Why is the Deccan and CNN linked but not The Hindu in publishers?
Why is the first book not linked and the others are?

Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little rough still, but given the period of Indian film I think it just about covers the basics. Try to merge a few of the shorter snappy sentences to improve flow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Much improved. Would be good if you could find a bit more, but it's fine for GA given the period in Indian film. If you can find the names of the crew an infobox might be worth it, but me enforcing an infobox would look kinda hypocritical LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]