Talk:Production of Pakeezah/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article shortly. Please ping me if you have any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments:

Lede

"who seeks for grief" what do you mean by this? Perhaps, "who seeks a solution to her grief..."
"The rest of the film follows the romance story between her and a forest ranger (Raaj Kumar) whom she met during a trip by train, and her marriage which meets with rejection from his family owing to her professional background." -> "The rest of the film follows the romance story between her and a forest ranger (Raaj Kumar), whom she met during a trip by train, and her marriage which is rejected by his family because of her professional background." I'm not sure if "whom she met during a trip by train" is needed, but you can decide whether it should stay or not.
"Daaera (1953)." The year of this film is not needed, as someone can go into the wikilink to find this info. The year can be removed.
"When his contemporary K. Asif started the development of Mughal-e-Azam, released in 1960, whose plot is on the same subject, a rivalled Amrohi turned onto write an original story of a nautch girl." Too many commas and expositions. Perhaps, "When his contemporary K. Asif started the development of Mughal-e-Azam, whose plot is on the same subject, Amrohi stared to write an original story of a nautch girl."
"The screenplay was started being written by Amrohi as early as 1956 in" -> "The screenplay was started in 1956," The previous sentence states that Amrohi wrote the screenplay, so it doesn't need to be restated in the subsequent sentence.
"Advertisements for the film were started to publish in 1958" -> "Advertisements for the film were first published in 1958, and the film faced several changes of title."
"Principal photography started in 1956 and was at the time handled by the German cinematographer Josef Wirsching" Delete at the time, it's not needed.

"as he was already died in 1967." -> "as he died in 1967."

Development

"that could beat Asif's." How would his film "beat" Asif's? What would be considered a success? Higher earnings, more awards, etc.
"the author Meghnad Desai suggested it was in mid-1950s" What was suggested? That he began writing in the mid-1950s?
" Amrohi had Kumari in mind while finalising it," In mind for what?
"The writing was ended in 1960." -> "The screenplay was completed in 1960."
"under the title until as early as 1969," Delete "as early as"
"Aromhi's well-wisher recommended" What's a well-wisher? Can this be wikilinked or explained in the article?
"the couple had visited all locations in North India," -> "the couple had visited various locations in North India,"

Casting

"Charging only ₹1 (1.3¢ US)," -> "Taking a salary of ₹1 (1.3¢ US),"
"Amrohi regarded his physical features most appropriate for someone who looks after a jungle." What does it mean for someone to "look after a jungle." What this the character's role? Did the character live in a jungle? Please rephrase.
"to wear dresses not of her own" What does this mean? It is referring to Mehtab's unwillingness to wear dresses that she did not design? Please expand.
"who was paid for ₹15,000 (US$200)," Delete for

Production

"contributions in the aspect." -> contributions in this aspect."
" it was found out the lens' focus was off by 1/1000 millimeter." -> "it was discovered that the lens's focus was off by 1/1000 millimeter."
" to not pay the agreed rentals." -> " to not pay for the agreed rentals."
"Amrohi's perfectionism made him conscientious in every single details and would not hesitate to delay a scene if he felt there was an error." -> "Amrohi's perfectionism made him conscientious about every detail and would delay a scene if he felt there was an error."
"Since then, Kumari started becoming addicted to alcohol," Delete Since then, as unnecessary.
"seen the film's rushes in 1968 also asked Kumari to not leave the film unfinished." Put a comma after 1968
"Pakeezah, with lending Amrohi ₹1 million (US$13,000)." Delete with
"It was only after Amrohi saw his work in Mirza Ghalib (1954),[109] which won the Best Feature Film trophy at the 2nd National Film Awards." What happened after Amrohi saw his work?

Additional comments

I am not concerned with the formatting of the sources.
Earwig does not have any concerns.
Spotchecks will be done after the above are addressed.
Image check will be conducted after the above are addressed.

Please ping me when you are ready for additional feedback. I am going to place this article on hold. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my delay to re-review this. Please see my comments below:

Additional comments

"The film revolves on a dejected prostitute" -> "The film focuses on" to avoid WP:IDIOM
"and he wanted to make a film that would establish him as a filmmaker and be a tribute to Kumari,[6] and reflect his love for her." Delete the "and" after filmmaker.
" and was motivated to make a film better aesthetically than Asif's." -> " and was motivated to make a film that was aesthetically better than Asif's."
"decided to produce it himself under his Mahal Pictures," -> "decided to produce it himself under his Mahal Pictures company,"
"either 17 January 1957, which coincided with Amrohi's birthday, or 18 January 1958." Are those the correct years?
"role of Shahbuddin when filming was resumed." Delete was
" but her unwillingness to wear dresses not she chose herself upset Amrohi." -> " but her unwillingness to wear dresses she did not choose herself upset Amrohi."
"Deep narrated that Nadira," -> "Deep stated that Nadira,"
"while most film sets would use plywood for walls, for those of Pakeezah were made of cloth first" -> "while most film sets used plywood for walls, Pakeezah's sets were made of cloth first"
" Padhye noted even a nail could be seen from outside. " Seen outside of what?
" In appreciation, MGM permitted him to not pay for the agreed rentals." -> " In appreciation, MGM waived the rentals fees for the lenses."
"It was only after Amrohi being impressed by his work in Mirza Ghalib (1954)," -> "Nevertheless, Amrohi was impressed by his work in Mirza Ghalib (1954),"

Source check

Version reviewed: [1]
Sources checked with no concerns: 2, 51, 59a, 68a, 123
Ref 40 is after, "Contemporaneous journalists jokingly regarded Pakeezah as Kumari herself," but I could not verify this in the source. Can you provide the direct quote from the source that this verifies?

Image check

File:Meena Kumari in Baiju Bawra.jpg has a PD-India-URAA licence, which states that an image is public domain in the US if it was also public domain in its home country on January 1, 1996. From what I can tell from the PD-India licence, the image entered public domain in India 60 years after its publication, or on October 5, 2012. Therefore, I think the US pd template needs to be changed to Template:Non-free video screenshot.

Baiju Bawra was released in 1953 and is now more than sixty years, thus entered the public domain. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pakeezah shooting, 1958.jpg requires a US copyright template, which will probably also be Template:Non-free video screenshot. In addition, the link to the image in the summary is not to The Times of India, so where does this image come from?

The image is actually from The Times of India; the link itself mentions toiimg ("toi" is an abbreviation for Times of India). Here is the original link (click). Since the image was taken in 1958 and, if I am not mistaken, is more than 60 years old, thus the picture does not need a "non-free" template. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Real life has been busy.

Regarding images

@Nicholas Michael Halim: The copyright banners currently used in the image's file page says that in order to be public domain in the US, "it was in the public domain in its home country (India) on the URAA date (1 January 1996)." I'm going to ping another editor who is very familiar with image copyright on Wikipedia, buidhe (talk · contribs), and ask them to weight in about if File:Meena Kumari in Baiju Bawra.jpg and File:Pakeezah shooting, 1958.jpg have the correct banners, and if not which ones needs to be put in place. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images need to be freely licensed in the US to use on enwp outside NFCC. Z1720 has the correct understanding of how it works. Unless it was PD in India on 1 January 1996 it needs to be removed or put under NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the images should be removed? I do not get it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicholas Michael Halim and Buidhe: Pinging buidhe again, as I am unsure myself. My opinion is that these might need to be proposed for deletion on commons, then re-uploaded to en.wikipedia with Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free banners. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Z1720 suggests is the correct way to do it but trying to get files deleted on Commons is annoying as they often ignore their own copyright policy. (t · c) buidhe 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: You might want to edit the formatting above when you have a better connection. :P Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er yes. Bug in the reply link on mobile I guess. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hiding these pictures for now. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.