Jump to content

Talk:Mullum Malarum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateMullum Malarum is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleMullum Malarum has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
November 8, 2015Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
February 6, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 28, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
September 5, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 27, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 13, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
September 6, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
November 11, 2021Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Useful sources

[edit]

Tamil sources

[edit]

Anyone who can read and understand Tamil can add content from these sources. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the first source, rest won't qualify WP:RS. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, although the second source (Rajinifans) contains excerpts of Ananda Vikatan and Thina Thanthi's reviews on the film. The other sources may also contain information that can be searched for. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English translation to the review in Tamil by Ananda Vikatan

Copyrighted text has been removed Soham 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rating:

First half: 31/50
Second half: 30/50
Overall : 61/100

Regards. -- Sriram speak up 05:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sriram Vikram, but I'd prefer the translated review of Thina Thanthi, located on the same page bcos Ananda Vikatan review is already there (taken from a source where there is an "official" translation by Dhananjayan). Kailash29792 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English translation of the Tamil review by Thina Thanthi

Copyrighted text has been removed Soham 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. -- Sriram speak up 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English translation of the contents from here

Mahendran became a director through Mullum Malarum

Copyrighted text has been removed Soham 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. -- Sriram speak up 13:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaipayan's comments

[edit]
  • In the plot, "He has a reputation as a hell-raiser" what does that mean? What is a hell-raiser?
Wiktionary defines hellraiser as "A person who engages in wild, wanton behavior." I don't know to rewrite that to fit it here.
  • "but while he frolics in the river with her when he is supposed to be working, there is an emergency and he is absent without leave" difficult to understand. Frolics "in" the river? They were making fun within the river? " there is an emergency " where? Can it be more specific? I guess this sentence needs to be re-structured.
The source from which I took that line reads: "Kaali eventually succumbs to Manga's ample charms. But to his bad luck, on the one day that he frolics in the river with Manga, away from his post, there is an emergency and he is absent without leave. Kumaran suspends Kaali temporarily for dereliction of duty." Any way to rewrite it here?
  • "Mullum Malarum is a novel written by Umachandran and published in the Tamil magazine Kalki" When was it published?
The novel was published in Kalki in 1966, the same year when it won its award. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Venu Chettiar decided to freeze the film's budget and did not provide finance when Mahendran wanted to shoot an important lead scene—the song "Senthazham Poovil" with Sarath Babu and Shoba. However, actor Kamal Haasan provided funds to ensure that the scene was shot and included in the film, giving it the necessary depth" How did Kamal Hasaan come to the scenario? Was he related to the production in any way?
He was not officially part of the crew. He just helped settle many problems like the scene u just read about, and its release problems. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the rest of the song can be picturised using the montage technique, which Balu Mahendra had introduced in his directorial debut Kokila" Balu Mahendra did not introduce montage technique, it was first used years before him.
Removed the Kokila sentence.
  • I suggest you to retain the sentence. If you look at the blog, he actually says that he wanted to shoot that song using montage technique like he did in Kokila; sounds like he used the technique for the first time in Kokila. —Vensatry (Ping) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was supposed to have fully lip synced for the music video, and was upset that he could only do a little of it due to the director's change of mind. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This can be removed as it borders on WP:TRIVIA —Vensatry (Ping) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sriram Vikram's comments

[edit]

Kailash29792 The first time you name Dhananjayan, can you tell a word about who he is? -- Sriram speak up 11:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you add 'debutant' before J. Mahendran in the first line of the lead? -- Sriram speak up 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He ain't just some author or a film historian. He's a leading film producer. -- Sriram speak up 13:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792How about, "A deeply hurt Rajinikanth vowed to play the role with as much zest and put his heart and soul into the character Kali"? And this, "Chettiar wasn't convinced with the fact that there is no romantic lead for the hero and a villain plays the main role as he felt it was "ridiculous" and "preposterous"; he voiced ...." ? -- Sriram speak up 16:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Have a look at it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, I think it is not necessary to say, 'Gayathri Sreekanth, the author of The Name is Rajinikanth states that ...', since it is followed by the appropriate ref. It also bogs the continuity from the previous sentence.
Also, can you move the last sentence in the second para of the lead, a couple sentences behind; i.e: before 'After Mullum Malarum'? The sentence looks a little out of place there. -- Sriram speak up 16:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done both of them. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we say, 'Heated arguments ensued ..'? -- Sriram speak up 17:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second para of lead: 'After Mullum Malarum was complete'? Doesn't is sound weird? Wouldn't it be better if written as "When production concluded or filming concluded'? Or maybe, 'After seeing the rushes, the producer ..'? -- Sriram speak up 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sriram Vikram, however this article says, the statement should be written according to that. Also, I doubt if u have seen the film, but can it be classified as a romantic drama film? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. I haven't seen the film yet; so don't know if it can be called a rom-drama. And with regards the other thing, I think it would be more appropriate to say that when filming/production was completed, more so when used under filming heading. -- Sriram speak up 15:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the film has no romantic lead for the hero and yet classify it as a romantic drama. —Vensatry (Ping) 16:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He does have Manga (Jayalaxmi) who he later marries, and Kumaran has Valli. I think The Name is... misquoted Venu Chettiar. What would you write as the film's genre, having seen it? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Paasa Malar, Sivaji and Savithri both have pairs. Do you call it as a romantic drama? —Vensatry (Ping) 18:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply say drama film. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mullum Malarum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Soham (talk · contribs) 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing the Article per WP:WIAGA. Soham 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Excellent, not a single ref excepting one note regarding the name translation, provides a summary of the entire article. Can IPA be added?
Reply: I would love to add IPA, but I do not understand how they work. Because IPA was one English lesson I was never taught in school. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash, no need to if you can't, many FA's don't have IPA. Does not matter much. Soham 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

Short, concise. Does not exceed WP:FILMPLOT limitation of 700 words and is only 360 words.

U know that GA reviewers are allowed to give minor copyedits to the articles they review? Pls do so if any needed. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I know, will do if I see something. smile Soham

I see one inconsistency though in the plot, in the cast section its mentioned than Kali's wife is Manga but there is no mention of him getting married to her, do they simply have a romantic relationship or are they married? Soham 11:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do get married later in the film. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YesY Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]
  • "Ridiculous! Preposterous! You say there is no romantic lead for the hero and you also say a villain plays the main role,", adds nothing but drama to the article, was he a talking parrot or a robot programed to utter the same sentence each time he was at the sets? Soham 16:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He would speak like that whenever he came to the shooting spot, and was not a parrot or robot. Can I write something like "The producer thought that the fact that there is no romantic lead for the hero and a villain plays the main role was "ridiculous" and "preposterous"; voicing this opinion whenever he came to the location."? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Much better, I've c/e'd. Soham 11:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Rewritten, saying she could not accept the offer due to her tight schedule. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are two different people. Balu Mahendra is the cinematographer, and J. Mahendran is the director. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. So this issue has been settled by adding the director's initial "J". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sify described it as such. But I'll rewrite it soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)  Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it for the day. I'll review the sections, Reflective reviews and Legacy tomorrow. Soham 17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

[edit]

Soham, Sriram Vikram and Vensa, is the "themes" section all right? I feel some content can be deleted, but I cannot decide which, as I have rarely written such sections before. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is pretty good. No need to remove anything. If need be, checkout Mother_India#Themes -- Sriram speak up 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope this is after a good analysis? Well even if all the content there can stay, I think it can be written more neutrally. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be rewritten, in case it has close paraphrasing. -- Sriram speak up 16:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

[edit]
FYI, "reflective reviews" section contains modern day reviews of the film. Is that the best title for the section? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think not, but I am struggling to find a better alternate myself, I suggest you merge the two sections as part of Critical reception section with a para containing old and a para containing the new one. Soham 05:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be off till 6pm, but I named the section "Reflective reviews" bcos that is how many James Bond film articles name them (all of them are good articles). Till then, someone please try giving it a CE. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh where's is a BO section? Soham 11:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No information available on the film's box office collections. As a result, there is no box office section. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt if box-office figures would be available for a Tamil film that was released 35 years ago. If this was popular like MEA or Sholay it's worth adding in the article, but not for this three-decade old film unfortunately. —Vensatry (Ping) 13:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 2012, Aishwarya Bhattacharya of Koimoi included the film in her list of "Top 10 Rajinikanth Movies".[57] Daliya Ghose of Bollywood Mantra ranked the film fourth in her list of "Top 10 movies of Rajinikanth", saying "This film brought out the human side of the actor".[58] In 2007, Settu Shankar of Oneindia.in called it "a perfect blend of literature with mass entertainment".[59] S. R. Ashok Kumar said Shoba's performance as the hero's sister was "a brilliant performance" in May 2002."

Koimoi, OneIndia, BollywoodMantra are not the most reliable sources you get but there is no need to list who placed the film in what position. A one line mention like, "It was mentioned in other top 10 list of Rajnikant films, like in those of ...." Something like this without emphasising too much, remember the section is already too long, therefore provide it in a summary style. Remove the fluff. Soham 11:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi and OneIndia have articles on Wikipedia, does that make them reliable enough? Also, BollywoodMantra has frequently been mentioned by International Business Times in their news articles ([1] [2] and [3]), does that make it reliable? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources, no doubt but all I am asking to is to present it in a concise form. Soham 16:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Shifted content like "Top 10 movies" etc. to a new section named accolades (following the style of Pather Panchali). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

[edit]
  • "established Rajinikanth as an actor par finenesses" cites The Name is Rajnikant, biography and per WP:PRIMARY "an actor par finenesses" sounds a bit biased. Will affect criteria 4.
    • I don't think it violates NPOV, since it's placed within quotes, but I think it should be attributed to the author's name. —Vensatry (Ping) 13:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The person is Rajini's personal biographer, of-course there will be puffery. S/he has done that in the book, has every right to do so but not necessarily mean that it has to be included. I would not have objected had a reviewer said this. Soham 16:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't really matter who said that when they are placed inside quotes with proper attribution. It's up to the original contributor to include whatever stuff they want. —Vensatry (Ping) 03:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I an a simple man, the author is paid by Rajni for writing good about him. Independent reliable source need to say that it "established him as an actor par finesses". Soham 14:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have settled this by writing "Rajinikanth's biographer Gayathri Sreekanth states that the film "gave a new dimension to brother and sister relations on screen", and established Rajinikanth as an "actor par finenesses"." How abt that? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Soham: The author Naman Ramachandran is not Rajini's personal biographer as you say and mentioning that he was paid by the latter to write a book sounds ridiculous. Naman is a reputed writer and film critic who works for Variety. Read this article to know more about him and how he got into writing the book (He attacks Wikipedia in one of the points as well). Now coming to quotes, they are perfectly allowed in articles, see WP:QUOTE and WP:ATT. If you're still not convinced please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Hence, there is absolutely no harm in adding quotes in articles even if biased, provided an attribution is there. —Vensatry (Ping) 15:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Has underwent a C/e from WP:GOCE so no issues regarding prose, there were few, I fixed them while reviewing. Quotes use " " and have sources backing them up. So Criteria 1a is good for me.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Complies with WP:MOS but I have placed a [which?] tag, no big issue. Sort it out quick.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    cites books, news daily's but has few behindwoods citations but not for big claims so passable
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Koimoi, OneIndia, BollywoodMantra things need to go
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Okay, now that the attribution is provided. I opposed to the unattributed one.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

I won't be able to edit for a few days cause I will be in school, I'll complete in Sat/Sun. Hope you'll wait and would'n't mind. Soham 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Just your absence should not automatically fail the review. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: and @Soham: Great job guys. Very good quality. I've added some gloss to it and improved the structure of the reception a bit. A worthy GA, very well written. Keep up the good work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of author's name

[edit]

The lede spells the author's name as Umachandran, yet this source spells it as two words Uma Chandran.[4]. Amazon and Flipkart also spell it as two words.[5][6]. Anyone know Tamil who can decipher the spelling on the book cover?TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone with "Uma Chandran" as the book cover reads. But most Tamil people often speak full names as if they are a single name; sometimes they write it the same way. This raised another doubt for me: "Kali" is actually pronounced "Kaali" and should be written that way, but I went with the single A spelling as it is how Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema (the source) reads, though there are many sources reading "Kaali". How do I solve this? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The English alphabet, without diacritics, is not sufficient for phonological description. For example, the spelling, "Kaali," does not indicate whether aa is pronounced as "a" in father or as "a" in far, the latter "a" sound being a little longer. It doesn't tell us that the "i," at the end, represents the sound of "i" in fit, fist (a little longer), fir (different sound altogether) or "i" in machine, where the sound is ee. Listening carefully to the soundtrack of the movie, I thought I heard it pronounced with "a" as in far (i.e. longer) and i as in fit (shorter). The "a" sound stretches more than in the North Indian pronunciation of Kali, the goddess. But if you are going to use only the English alphabet, then, perhaps, "Kaah'-li" might be more accurate phonetically (the emphasis is on the syllable Kaah.) How you would render this in Tamil IPA, I would not know. (Parenthetically, I noticed too that Tamil speakers seem to enunciate more (i.e. open their mouths and speak more clearly) than speakers of North Indian languages. At least all the actors in the movie, with the exception of Rajnikanth, seemed to do this. Is he not a native Tamil speaker?) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS Similarly, "Valli" seems to be pronounced like "Vurl'-li" (u as in but, the hyphen indicating a prolonged l, and the r marking a strong retroflex l, and the apostrophe marking emphasis on the syllable vurl"); Kumaran seems to be pronounced, "ku-mah'run"(first u as in put; second u as in run, and the apostrophe indicating the emphasis on the syllable "mah.") "murgesa" seemed to be pronounced as "mur-gay'sah" with u as in put, and gay stressed. But I don't know the language, so I might well have been wrong about what I heard. Clearly, a proper pronunciation guide to the names is a good idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rajinikanth was born into a Marathi family but was raised in Bangalore (where they speak Kannada) and acts mainly in Tamil films. The character Kali's name in Tamil is காளி, pronounced "Kāḷi" (Tamil pronunciation: [kaːɭi]), while Valli (வள்ளி) is pronounced "Vaḷḷi" (Tamil pronunciation: [ʋaɭɭi]). If you start asking about Manga, it's not what you'd expect but "Maṅkā" (Tamil pronunciation: [maŋɡaː]) --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. He sounded more like the Bollywood stars, such as Bachan, Khan, and Chopra, who talk as if their jaws are wired shut. Anyway, here's one other question: Is the name of the movie pronounced pronounced [muɭɭum maɭaɾ̪um] or pronounced [muɭɭum maɭaɾ̪am] I thought I heard the latter in this death notice for Samikannu, at the 14-second mark.
I'm thinking now, you might want to have both the Tamil IPA and an .ogg file with pronunciation in the Cast section. Also, who was the actress who played Angayi (?), Murgesa's girlfriend in the movie? And what was the name of the character played by Samikannu? You might want to add those too with their pronunciation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is Samikannu and IIRC he played Maayaandi. The correct pronunciation of the film's title is "Muḷḷum malarum", for Kumaran it is "Kumaraṉ" (Tamil pronunciation: [kumaɾ̪an]) and Murugesa it is "Murukēcā" (Tamil pronunciation: [muɾ̪uɡeːsaː]). I can't ID the actress who played Angayi, but it's not so important is it? Because Angayi's not mentioned in the plot. Since the actor's names are only credited, not their characters' names, what do I do under "Casting"? Annihilate all whose characters I can't ID? I can't do something like "XYZ as Angayi<ref>Character name mentioned at 2:00:000</ref>" even if I knew the actress, right? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary error in my FAC review

[edit]

In my remarks here made at 10:56 on 5 September 2019, I made an elementary error. The "direct object" in my edit is really an indirect object. I make a similar error a little later. Please correct. Many apologies. A simpler way of describing this is: you can say "Chettiar offered to produce the movie" (here "to produce ..." is a verb complement with an infinitive (to)." or "Chettiar offered Mahendran the job of the director." (Here "the job of the director," a noun phrase, is the direct object, and Mahendran is the indirect object.) But you cannot say: "Chettiar offered Mahendra to direct the movie." (PS I've made this example up from memory. The actual edit of the link above might be a little different.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what happened, the quotes are rough not exact. Chettiar was Mahi's friend. He visited Mahi's home and said, "I want to produce a film. Will you direct it?". Mahi agreed, and when Chettiar asked for a story, Mahi outlined MM which was finalised. Does this sentence solve any confusion? "Producer Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, a friend of Mahendran, offered him the job of directing his next film". Because Indian producers don't typically pitch projects, they only finance them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of my post was to point out an error in my explanation of your grammatical error. I can't do anything with your explanation here as it addresses something else, and it is not sourced. I've already told you to cite to Chakravarthy, whose tribute to Mahendran published in Frontline is a reliable secondary source, who writes accurately, and who says,

"By the time this film was completed, Mahendran began to experience symptoms of burnout. He was equally assailed by guilt as he was well aware that he was promoting the kind of cinema that was contrary to his spirit and against which he wrote many a scathing review. He decided to stop writing, but his fascination for the potential of the medium nonetheless remained. So when producers put pressure on him to come up with more stories he told them point-blank that he had exhausted all his ideas and all that he could do was perhaps adapt a literary work. That was how Uma Chandran’s novel Mullum Malarum (1966) landed on his lap. Abandoning any faithful rendition of the novel, he followed his own instincts and transformed it into a screenplay. Quickly realising, though, that the kind of treatment he had arrived at would have no takers in the industry, he quietly filed it away. He was certain that producers would reject it as it had no scope for routine melodrama, excessive dialogues, overacting, duets and a typical climax, all of which he was always highly critical about since he made that speech in front of MGR during his college days."

In that paragraph and the four that follow, you have enough material for the Development section. You could even add earlier material about his career as a film critic, and frustration with the conventional Tamil movie. I'm not sure why you are taking this complicated route of using a Tamil language primary source, and then running circles around potential objections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is simple; get info straight from the horse's mouth. The Frontline article has numerous omissions and some errors; it says, "When it was eventually released in theatres, for the first three days there was not much of an audience to talk about. The producer felt that his judgment had been vindicated. On the fourth day, large crowds began to gather to see the film, clearing the path for Mahendran to make more films and for Rajinikanth to adorn lead roles." It was for the first three/four weeks that the film did not have a strong audience. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is your personal opinion. Wikipedia guidelines about primary sources are pretty clear. Please read WP:NOTRS:

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Frontline is a highly respected Indian magazine. If you think it has made an error, please write a letter to the magazine's editor and request the author to recant it, or find another reliable secondary source that points out that error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemavum Naanum

[edit]

Okay Fowler&fowler, I want to solve all issues before I attempt another FAC. I rewrote the development section yesterday, and I had help. Is it better and more coherent than before? I know it is accurate, because someone fluent in both English and Tamil sat near me to proof read. Now where all do you want me to remove Mahendran's book as a source from the article? If a statement is available only in that book and nowhere else, you cannot call that OR worth removing. Maybe I can write, "According to Mahendran...". The Frontline article is not a carbon copy of the book in English, and has maybe one or two factual errors. I believed primary sources should only not be used for highly disputed info like box office collections. The book does not lack complete third-party coverage, here's proof. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is in much worse shape than it was before. Instead of fixing a piece of text in the manner in which I had suggested, you have rewritten it with more errors than before. I'm cutting you some slack now because I see that you are not able to write encyclopedic prose. Before long I will lose patience and stop responding until the next FAC. I am not obliged to help you outside of that. An article in the movies section of a newspaper about a 5,000-book private collection that has been opened to the public, and that states,

"In a sense, one can find the book Cinemavum Naanum by J Mahendran as well as Hitchcock/Truffaut by François Truffaut in the same shelf. Designed by Pa Ranjith’s wife Anitha, the interiors of Koogai are densely packed and lit with vibrant colours. Anitha believes that Koogai was started with the intention to act as a social gathering."

is not third-party mention in the sense of a discussion of the contents of the book, its publication history, or its critical worth, in a reliable secondary source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest favour you could do is to not take part in the next FAC. But don't worry, I will get all your comments resolved in less than a month, no matter how many eggs I have to break to make a single omelette. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest also that you not attempt to bait me with comments such as "The biggest favour you could do is to not take part in the next FAC." I am not here to do you any favors, only to ensure that substandard articles, written in poor prose, citing primary sources, do not receive the FA imprimatur of Wikipedia. I am not the only one who has noticed your non-standard use of the verb "offered," the subject of my post above. An earlier reviewer did the same in April. Instead of listening to him, you blew him off with an incorrect explanation and continued to make the error two months later, when I had to point it out twice. Finally, you replaced the sentence with an entirely new one, with other errors:

  • "When Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films offered Mahendran to direct his next production," this may be an ENGVAR thing but it reads oddly around "offered Mahendran to direct his new production". How do you offer someone a verb?
I'm pretty sure it means the producer Chettiar wanted Mahendran to direct a film for Ananthi Films, and "production" is also a noun. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The verb he is talking about is not "production," but the verb complement with infinitive, to direct his new production. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, sorry for that last edit. I didn't know about the policy. Looks like I will never be able to add a worthy link to Mahi's memoir. Since you got angry with me for seeking your help outside an FAC and opening a PR without informing you, what should I do to make you happy? Ssven may not be available till he finishes his exams in October. Because only you can tell me how to solve the comments raised by you, which are all harder to understand than rocket science. And please finish editing the "Themes" and "Plot" sections. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing you can do is to not be in such a hurry, and not keep prodding me to do this or that, for example, to request me in one instance to "finish editing" some section, and in the very next instance to editing it yourself and asking me to respond in the edit summary. Please understand that I'm busy. I have limited time for Wikipedia and that time I have to apportion carefully. I may only be able to attend to issues here every two or three days. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Dr Gayathri Sreekanth, Opthalmologist

[edit]

A book, The Name is Rajinikanth, authored by an opthalmologist, Dr Gayathri Sreekanth of Chennai, is being cited for the quote: "A good product needs no publicity, whereas a bad product cannot be pushed in the market however much you publicise it".{{Sfn|Sreekanth|2008|pp=324–325}}

Her book is available on snippet view in Google Books. I am able to see that she has:

"... product cannot be pushed to market, however much you publicize it." He thought he was doomed, but that was not to be. With the word of mouth publicity and rave reviews, the film picked up by the end of third week, and went out to be a phenomenal success. "Finally Tamil cinema is coming of age. Movies are getting more visual." The critics raved. Chettiar, of course, apologized to the director, offering him a blank cheque. Mahendran gently refused the cheque, and thanked Chettiar for letting him make a movie with Rajinikanth. Rajinikanth was catapulted to the next level with Mullum Malarum. (p 321)"

Unfortunately, I cannot read the content before "product cannot." See here for an image of the few lines beginning "product cannot be pushed to market". Also, the page number 321 not 324–25.

  • Question1: What is the precise quote, and page number? On Google Books neither "bad product" nor "good product" show up when searched for in the book.

The book has been reviewed with little mercy in the respected magazine Outlook. That review is available in full view: Menon, Sadanand (31 March 2008), "Can Rajini Rescue This Book? Capturing the phenomenon that's the Tamil superstar requires narrative and analytical skill. Here it's myopia. Review of The Name is Rajnikanth by Gayathri Sreekanth, Om Books, 375 pages, Rs 495", Outlook, Outlook Publishing, pp. 65–

A second portion I can read from the book on Google books, on page 348, bears out the remarks about malapropism mentioned in the above review:

Mullum Malarum (Thorns Can Also Blossom) Rajinikanth's all time favourite despite having worked in 150 films. It made a superstar out of him showing his versatility as an actor. He was promoted an actor par finesses. Till then he had only been accepted as a sidekick and a villain, Rajini played a village rustic, uncouth and tough but soft at heart, immensely fond of his sister, Shoba. The climax has the sister ditching him and going with her lover against his wishes. She takes a few steps, with her back turned, leaving the audiences heart beat in their mouths. She stops for a minute, turns back and runs into Rajinikanth's arms. The movie gave a new dimension to brother and sister relations on screen. Rajinikanth received his first best actor award conferred by the Tamilnadu government.

Discussion

[edit]

I too was initially sceptical about it, but I believe it is an RS for the same reason that Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography is, despite having many factual errors. Here are some pages for cross-checking. If you feel the book is worth-removing, tell me. But it will take some time as Rome wasn't built in a day. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I'm sorry but, in my view, the book is not acceptable for independent citations. It has too many errors.
As the review in the Outlook, linked above, says, "It is useful, though, for some confirmations." In fact, all three sources, Sreekanth, Balu Mahendra's Blog, and Mahendra's recollections, are useful for confirmations only, the first because of the extraordinary number of errors, and the last two as a result of being primary sources. In other words, if some statement is reliably cited in a secondary source, then it can be supplemented with a quote from these three, a quote which in some way expands on the statement, gives it a context, a viewpoint, color, etc. As Balu Mahendra's blog and Mahendran's reflections are in Tamil, they can't really be quoted. You will have to render them in indirect speech as best you can.
However, and this goes for all "opinion pieces," if they are reflecting about someone else's work, someone for whom they constitute the "third party," their opinion can be included. For example, for the fact of the box-office picking up during or after the third week, you could cite to this opinion piece of G. Dhananjayan who says, "This has happened several times in the past. Cult classics like Mullum Malarum, Aval Appadithan, Mouna Raagam, Sethu, Azhagi, etc., did not have too many people coming in to watch the film initially. After good word-of-mouth spread around these films in two weeks’ time, they picked up and ran well." This also generalizes the example of Mullum Malarum. (It gives extra knowledge to the reader: MM wasn't the only movie which had a slow start.)
In the Indian context, what about the autobiography par excellence, that of Gandhi? Examine the references in the Mahatma Gandhi page. There are more than 400 of them. The bibliography is divided into Books and Primary Sources. A primary source, such as Gandhi's autobiography, is not only cited only in the quote form but also rarely. See footnote 227, for example.
As for Mullum MalaRome, we are not talking about rebuilding it, only fixing a little patch of cobblestone to bring it up to speed with regulations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rest in Peace Gayathri Sreekanth, for your poorly written and largely factually inaccurate book has been removed from the article. You are better as an opthalmologist, stick to it. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source: G. Dhananjayan, Pride of Tamil Cinema, 1931–2013

[edit]

I'm not sure why you're not using, G Dhananjayan (2014). PRIDE OF TAMIL CINEMA: 1931 TO 2013: Tamil Films that have earned National and International Recognition. Blue Ocean Publishers. pp. 252–254. GGKEY:L1DLZDAEJ47. It has a full three pages on MM. It has quite a bit about the development. It mentions that the winch-operated cable railway was the one in Glenmorgan, Ooty, which now seems to have been abandoned. In other words, the movie wasn't just incidentally also shot in Ooty, it was deliberately shot in Glenmorgan, Ooty, for the employment of the winch-operated trolley, which was presumably still functional then. This fact, without my interpretation, should be mentioned in the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, who came up with the idea of using the winch and the railway as a significant prop? I would imagine that winch operated railways are quite rare in India. Does the Uma Chandran novel have the winch, and does it specifically mention Ooty? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see what happened during the first FAC, read Vensatry's comments. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does it paraphrase from this article, or does from the version of October 2015? To "mirror" typically means to copy verbatim. Paraphrasing is allowed. It does have a few errors, such as the perennial "riding the winch," but has quite a bit of material not in this article. I see that the lead of your version of October 2015 is much better, more encyclopedic, than the current lead. Perhaps, as I had suggested before, you have been too pliable, essentially butchering the article to please reviewers, in turn, to receive their vote. Encyclopedia writing involves a compact between the author (you) and the reader (a layperson), not a reviewer. That compact is more important than FA-hood. I will take a good look at Dhananjayan. If it sounds fine, I'll be happy to add it back to the bibliography section and you can cite it. I notice the version of October 2015 has Glenmorgan already! I can feel your overall frustration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for trying to help, but if I was a bit too cryptic, I'll be clearer. Vensatry opposed the first FAC because it used Pride of Tamil Cinema which he said is a case of WP:CIRCULAR. However, the Mullum Malarum chapter did not copy at all from Wiki, but I still closed the FAC voluntarily since I could not fight back. Does this make the entire book an automatic non-RS? Besides, after I bought Cinemavum Naanum, I realised Danny (my nickname for Dhananjayan) borrowed liberally from this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell whether Dhananjayan borrowed from Wikipedia in general, but he does not appear to have copied verbatim from the version of the article that existed in 2015. That's all that matters. Dhananjayan may have liberally borrowed from Mahendran, but all secondary sources do; also, as he at the very least had to translate into English, he did not copy Mahendran verbatim. For examples of verbatim copying (i.e. that constitutes copyvios) of my India famine articles see this. Nothing like that is happening in Dhananjayan. Dhananjayan's mention of Wikipedia means that he read the Wikipedia page, and may have been influenced by it, may have included some content, or meta-content, from it somewhere, but not in verbatim form. It doesn't outright invalidate the use of the book in a Wikipedia article. I think you are needlessly getting into complications of using primary sources, of translating them, then paraphrasing them. I believe there is plenty in the English language sources here and there, including Dhananjayan, to cite for the same thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The irony in all this is that if Mahendran had been pliable, had let the powers-that-be have their way, the movie would never have been made, or been made with a generic, light-complexioned, fat, hero with a thin mustache. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, I raised this issue here, and the reply I got from Utcursch was, "Irrespective of whether it's plagiarized or not, the book cites Wikipedia articles as references. It's not an acceptable as per WP:CIRCULAR". Do you think I should open another discussion about this and cite your opinion? If you think not, that Utcursch and Vensatry were right, let's forget the book even exists. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are talking through their hat. Ask them to turn up here. The OED, the venerable dictionary of the language, copied verbatim from my definition of the British Raj, in 2009, see my mention of that in the Talk:British Raj archives. That doesn't mean we stop using the OED altogether, or even for that matter for the Raj. The main issue for me is that the more we make this article bareboned, tossing the baby out with the bathwater, the more it begins to look like something for which the critical mass of sources do not exist for FA-hood. We need every source we can find, within reason. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too was once of the opinion that "we need every source we can find" before taking the article to FAC. I've since dropped that because then I realised it means presenting mountains of worthless garbage, distracting the reader from the film's essential details. And the successful FACs of smaller articles like Andha Naal, Kalidas and Keechaka Vadham made me believe the same was possible with MM which is between small and large. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help there. I haven't seen those pages, and obviously not reviewed them. Your interlocutors need to show there was copying, such as for example, of the Wikipedia lead of the British Raj page of early May 2008, which was reproduced, without attribution, in the Oxford English Dictionary in its draft edition of June 2008, or at least significant borrowing from the Wikipedia page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the "Plot" section

[edit]

@Kailash29792: has asked me to look over the article. Below are my comments about the "Plot" section:

  • I do not know what this sentence (Kali seethes at displays of unfeelingness.) means.
  • For this part (In revenge for a rich man's cruelty to a porter, he breaks the headlight of the man's car), I think you can say "his car" and it would be understood from the context rather than repeating "man".
  • For this part (the newly arrived divisional engineer at the powerhouse.), something about "newly arrived" sounds a little odd to me. I would just say "the new divisional engineer at the powerhouse".
  • For this part (They begin to flirt, and Manga on a whim picks up Kali's watch, lying nearby, and begins to run) is the "lying nearby" part really necessary?
  • Instead of "begins to run", shouldn't it be "runs away" since she actually did run away? Something about saying she "beings to run" implies to me that she would be stopped rather immediately, but that is not the case.
  • For this sentence (Waist-deep in water, Kalli extracts the watch from Manga before rushing back to the shed), I would say "takes" instead. Something about "extracts" in this context sounds off to me.
  • I have a question about this sentence (In his absence, a child living in the valley has needed medical attention.). Does the film specify what kind of "medical attention" the child needs? Also, do we ever find out if the child survived/was okay after being taken to the hospital?
  • For this part (joining the tribals there in singing and dancing), I do not believe "there" is necessary.

Apologies to @Fowler&fowler: if I am interrupting any ongoing discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Well, this is the version I wrote. It has been changed by Kailash29792. My version had "unfeeling behavior." It does have the "man's car," because, obsessive as I am, I didn't want anyone to think it was the porter's car! I do have "newly arrived" because he really had just arrived in the town, still had a newcomer's curiosity about the place, i.e. was not some local who had been promoted. He was a new presence for the women as well, including Kaali's sister, Valli, who seemed enamored. Next point: again my obsessiveness/literalness call it what you may. I thought a watch typically belongs on a wrist, so unless I say, he had laid it somewhere, people might think she had peeled it off his wrist! Next point. My version says: "Later, as Kali is repairing some machinery, Manga appears in the shed. They begin to flirt, and Manga on a whim picks up Kali's watch, lying nearby, and begins to run. A chase begins, which takes them through the woods and to the river. Waist-deep in water, Kalli extracts the watch from Manga before rushing back to the shed." She didn't run away, at least not at the outset. She was running around the winch, and it wasn't clear she was going anyplace far. She did run away only when he began to chase her. In the river, the camera showed her soaked, focused on her cleavage and flimsy wet blouse, and then on his face. As he got closer, she dropped the watch down her cleavage. He dunked her and fell into the water himself. After a few seconds, his hand emerged first, clasping the watch triumphantly, (I had to watch this twice to make sure he had the watch), and then he himself etc. "Extract" was my euphemism for this corny sequence. ... Actually, I just realized that for four bucks, I actually bought the movie, and hadn't just rented it. I can go back and check. More anon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. I agree that it is best to be as transparent as possible to avoid any confusion or misinterpretations so I think your observations are correct. I still think the "begins to run" part could be worded better. I understand what you mean in your response, but I do not think it is clear in the prose. When I read the section, I had assumed she took the watch and ran away and Kali had chased after her. I am not sure how to make that part clearer though, and it could just be me so take it with a grain of salt. I am still a little uncertain about "extracts", but I have a better understanding of why it is used. It is a little tricky because the summary should not be weighed down by details so I do not believe more details are necessary. I think "extracts" would be fine, although I would be interested in what editors have to say on it. Thank you again for your message, and let me know if anything I said needs clarification. I am currently typing this in between doing some off-Wiki errands so apologies in advance if I miss anything. Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: You are right. She did run away. And you are right, we don't need to say "lying nearby," as his hands were all greasy, implying he routinely took his watch off at work. The cleavage visual occurred before the chase not in the river, although she did drop the watch down the front of her blouse there. I had remembered an underwater scuffle of sorts, but this was quick, so "takes" is fine. They don't say what was wrong with the child, but a passer-by operates the winch, and the caboose is shown returning with the child in the engineer's arms. He is transferred to a waiting jeep, which speeds off. The engineer stays behind, saying, "it was an emergency and the child needed medical attention." (Exact words in the subtitles) Not sure if they speak about the child again. They probably do, but that will require more watching which I can't do now. Next point: my version has, "In the evening, Kali who is bristling with anger at Kumaran, goes to Mullimalai, to let off steam among the Badaga tribals. After singing, dancing, and drinking, as he staggers home at night, he passes out on an unlit street, whereupon a passing truck mangles his left arm." My version exceeds 700 words. Is that such a big breach? I didn't think so, but then I'm new to movie FACs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I don't have any issues with your changing the text. You can take my version and change it in whatever idiomatic/encyclopedic fashion as you see fit, and reduce it to 700 as well. If you need more clarification: Ask. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I showed it to my wife. She said, "Written like a toddler." I: "What do you mean?" She: "Wrirrwn word for word." So you have carte blanche from me to improve it. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

  • The movie probably only puts importance in the child's injury in terms of Kali's character so I would not be surprised if the child is never addressed after that point. Since it does not appear the child factors in the movie in any major way after this, it is fair to keep it confined to this. I have two comments about this "In the evening, Kali who is bristling with anger at Kumaran, goes to Mullimalai, to let off steam among the Badaga tribals" wording. The "Badaga" wikilink goes to a disambiguation page so that would need to be correct, and I also prefer the current wording in the article: "Kali goes to the nearby village Mullimalai to relieve his anger, joining the tribals there in singing and dancing." I prefer how it condenses "bristling with anger" and "let off steam" to "relieve his anger". It is a little more concise and conveys the same message so that is always a plus in terms of summary. As for your question about the 700 word limit in an FAC, it really depends. It should not go over the limit by a large amount, but it may be acceptable by a few words. Some reviewers are strict about it while others are not. I have gotten varying responses when I have done FACs for television episodes, which also have a similar word limit for plot summaries. I think it is important to first make sure the plot summary highlights all of the important aspects of the film in an understandable manner and then try to condense it down while keeping that same information. I hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I just realized that I have to make the changes. I've rewritten the plot, taking into account your objections. Please take a look and tell me what you think. I've introduced some new things, but it is now 680 words or thereabouts. I'm poor at comma-ing and paragraphing, so please amend. Also, I've deliberately left some sentences simple, eschewing subordinate-clausing for the altered emphasis it introduces, but you are free to change them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I unfortunately will probably not have the time to do extensive edits to the plot summary. I will do a quick look through it now though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a small copy-edit of the article. I focused on improving the prose, and I combined some of the paragraphs for readability and to try and make the summary flow somewhat better. Feel free to revert anything as I have not seen the film. I would also double-check my spelling. I am an American so I may have accidentally introduced some American spellings. Pinging @Kailash29792: so they are aware of this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will take a look-see. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not see why this point "carelessly waving a sugarcane stalk" is necessary. It seems like too much of a detail for a summary since it does not appear that this particular point has any real importance on the plot. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for improving the plot, just one sentence needs rewriting: "This becomes the setting for a Busby Berkeley-inspired musical number, which is one of the film's five musical interludes". I cannot find any source describing it as Berkeley-inspired, and I want the plot to be more in-universe without going into WP:SYNTHESIS or being opinion-based (personally, I feel the number is too rustic to be considered Western-inspired). I feel it is important to simply mention Kali joined the tribals in dancing. Here's what happened. Or I may be wrong, but I wouldn't say anything like, "In a Cuckoo's Nest-inspired manner, he mercifully kills his lobotomised friend". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. How about "becomes the setting for a song and dance extravaganza, one of the film's five musical interludes?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: why is his shirt wet? Is that sweat? Song and dance numbers typically do not show the singers sweating. Does it have any significance? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, I've now written, "That evening, Kali goes to the nearby Mullimalai to assuage his anger at Kumaran among the Badagas, joining them in singing and dancing" because I do not want to get too descriptive or POV-ish. Hope it is not incoherent, since you may have read the earlier plot written by Fowler. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. We mention nothing about the songs, their meaning, their import in the movie, though they occupy a good chunk of the time, some 15 or 20 minutes of the 2 hours. We make a big deal in the lead about the director disavowing the old tradition of singing duets, etc. etc. but are strangely silent about how the songs of the movie are different, even that there are songs until we get to the music section. The music section has a barebones, table-of-content-like list of everyone, their brother, their third cousin sixth removed, involved in the music, but nothing about the content of the songs. As you know I had written a version of the plot, made from my notes. I've added it to a subpage of the talk page for the record: Talk:Mullum Malarum/Fowler&fowler's notes made on watching the film. You will see that it mentions the songs. The songs carry emotional content, a portent of themes developed later. The lack of a mention of the songs in the plot, or of their contents in the music section, makes the article disjointed, and claims about the director's pathbreaking work incoherent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not saying that my sub-page version needs to be incorporated in some way shape or form, only that there needs to be some mention of the songs, however perfunctory, in the plot, and a fuller one somewhere else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues to be explored perhaps: the suicides of the lead actresses

[edit]

Both lead actresses in the film, Fatafat Jayalakshmi, who plays Manga, and Shoba, who plays Valli, killed themselves within two years of making the movie. Jayalakshmi was 22 at the time of her death, and Shoba just 17. Shoba had been married two years earlier, at age 15, to the film's cinematographer, Balu Mahendra. These anomalies could not have gone unnoticed in the media. Should these deaths not be discussed in the article, to the extent they have some connection with the movie?

  • I am not convinced their deaths are relevant to this article. Unless for some reason media outlets have tied their suicides to this film, I do not see the connection. I could maybe understand it if this was either of their last film appearances, but both actresses made a relatively large amount of films after this one so I am not convinced. I know absolutely nothing about this though so it would probably be better to get a more experienced perspective. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::*Thank you. It looks good. I've made some minor changes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Wrong place, but supervened by the discussion above.[reply]

GAR

[edit]

Mullum Malarum

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. After months, there is no one suggesting it should be delisted (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article failed it's fourth and most recent FAC, because of one detractor (Fowler&fowler). While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I will do a thorough read-through of this article later in the week. I did a brief scan through the article, and I did not find anything that would take away its GA status. I would remove the "Accolades" section and incorporate that information in the "Reception" section as I would avoid having a one-paragraph section. I would also rephrase this note, " In the end Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.", to simply, "Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.". I found the "In the end" part to be confusing as when I first read it, I thought you meant at the end of the film. Those are my only notes for now. I hope you are doing well and having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not really see any other issues that would prevent this article from keeping its GA status. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you done with the thorough read-through? Did you read any of Fowler's comments from the FAC and see if they must be addressed, or if he was just being overdemanding? I'll share with you pages of the book Pride of Tamil cinema, you please read them and tell me if I missed anything. The link is available only for 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in my response. I will leave this for another editor. I am currently in the middle of a few other reviews and I plan on taking a break from Wikipedia once my current FAC is completed, and to be completely frank, I do not really want to read through Fowler's comments from the last FAC. Again, I will leave this for another editor. Apologies for that and best of luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DaxServer

[edit]

Comments from Nicholas Michael Halim

[edit]
  • Merge the "Accolades" section with the "Release" section since it is really short or make it a table.
Done. It certainly won't look good in Reception will it though? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just realised it will be better to move it to the "Reception" section. Make the "Release" section only a paragraph, and move the "Awards" section to the second paragraph of the "Reception" section after Balachander's letter. Also, change "the film's commercial performance" to "its commercial performance" and "positive magazine reviews and favourable word of mouth spread" to "positive reviews and word of mouth spread". —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred to Release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)--Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film's remakes can be moved to the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section.
Done. Is it good now? Or does it need rephrasing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the title translations not capitalised?
Such as? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I meant "italicised" —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Beside that, the article is absolutely fine. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just saw that refs 36 and 45 are books. Move both to the "Bibliography" section and use {{Sfn||p=}} to cite them. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • "at people who" --> "whom"
  • Remove the comma in "First serialised in the Tamil magazine,"
  • "It was only after producer Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films", remove "producer"
  • "Ramasamy was signed as art director,[15] and D. Vasu as editor", add "the" before the "art director" and the "editor"
  • Do you find better sources for the film's Telugu-dubbed version's 1979 release? I don't think the iTunes is reliable enough for this.
  • "Mullum Malarum was well received at the time of its initial release"", remove "at the time of its initial release"
  • They? Changed it to "The reviewer also praised the performances of Shoba and Jayalaxmi, called Balu Mahendra's camera work a "feast for the eyes", and Ilaiyaraaja's melodies "delicious". The critic was disappointed of the film's first half for moving at a "leisurely pace", but said the second half was "eventful"."

—Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes to them, except the 1979 release source and removing the "at the time of its initial release". I'll leave it to Kailash. — DaxServer (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Michael Halim, sorry for the long break. I've made changes, would you like to have a look? If you are okay, I'll arrange for the GAR to be closed with the consensus to keep. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a perfect shape, still deserving its GA status! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Details in Cast sec

[edit]

Rajinikanth as Kali Sarath Babu as Kumaran Jayalaxmi as Manga Shoba as Valli Vennira Aadai Moorthy as Murugesan Samikannu as Mayandi Subha as Angayi

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mullum_Malarum&oldid=1227148101"