Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2019

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2019 [1].

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): CodexJustin (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the film of Kubrick's titled 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film article has been updated and brought up to date with a new 2018 book about the film and appears to be ready for consideration as a candidate for promotion. The article has been at GA for some time now, and was unsuccessfully twice nominated for FAC previously over 5 years ago (in 2005 and 2013). @Darkwarriorblake: has indicated an interest in participating in order to start this assessment and the top active editors have been pinged if they might like to participate. CodexJustin (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Darkwarriorblake

[edit]

There are a few issues that stand out to me with a cursory glance through.

  • There are too many cited statements in the lead. These should all be sourced in the body so they don't need to be sourced in the lead unless controversial.
  • I don't think the mentions of its ranking by the likes of Sight and Sound, etc is particularly notable in hte lead. I'd maybe look at replacing some of that puffery with mention of the film's cultural impact/legacy
  • Similar to point 1, the budget/gross in the infobox don't need sourcing, these should be sourced in the article.
  • I don't know if there is a particular style-guide against it, but I think the numerous sub-sub headers in the development section are unnecessary. "Meeting of Kubrick and Clarke" for example is a paragraph. I don't need that breaking apart from the next two paragraphs, it's an easily digestible chunk of text as a whole.
  • The sub-subsection about Hal's breakdown for example does not seem to relate to the writing of the film at all, it seems more fitted to the "Interpretation" section
  • The two fairly large quotes in this section could possibly be a WP:COPYVIO. Where possible it might be worth trimming them down to the key points.
  • I'm not sure what is notable about a list of home video releases by year. Are any of these released particularly notable? There's 3 mentions of its release on VHS for instance with the only mentioned difference being the distributors. Information like sales figures, unique presentations, restorations, etc would be of benefit, but generic releases are kind of pointless to mention. IMO.
  • I also prefer to move soundtrack releases into a home media section as it seems chronologically incorrect to talk about them in a Music section well before we even discuss the film's release. But that's a personal style thing not a deal breaker.
  • Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are used in the first section of the Critical Reception section, but these did not exist until decades after this film was released. It's typically frowned upon to do this as it is both over emphasising the importance of these two sites and not providing an accurate contemporary take on how the film was received at the time. The Thing (1982 film) for example was hated on release but it is much more well received today. There seems to be a section later on in the reception area relating to modern reception. I would personally break the RT/MC lines and this off and make it part of the Legacy section, because this is relating to modern receptions and the reception section relates to the film at release.
  • A lot of the references seem to be lacking archives which jeopardizes the longevity of the article being verifiable. There are tools on the left hand side of the website when viewing the article that can do this for you.

Oppose at this point pending citation cleanup - lots of missing page numbers, incomplete and inconsistently formatted citations, areas missing citations, etc. Also noting that there seems to be a lot of quoting going on, which at times interferes with the flow of the prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose − the prose is below FA standard. Here are some examples:

  • Why is "Monolith" written with an upper case em?
  • There are several fused participles, for example "with critics reacting negatively to the aesthetics". I suggest "and critics reacted negatively".
  • Here "Kubrick received one for his direction of visual effects" should be the visual effects.
  • "A number of" means "several".
  • Here "and drive their rivals away from the water hole", there is no need to repeat "from the water hole".
  • "a loud high-pitched radio signal is heard" - humans can't hear radio waves.
  • " led him to seek more realistic and scientifically accurate depiction of space travel" should be "a more accurate" or "depictions".
  • "Two educational films that came out previously" - ??
  • I have no idea what this means, "They spent two years transforming the 6 short stories that would become a novel, along with several newly developed plot lines by Clarke for new short stories required by Kubrick for the film development, and then integrate them all into a single script for 2001."

There are more problems, these are just examples. Graham Beards (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The literature about the film capitalizes "Star Gate", "Star Child", and "Monolith" and presents them as proper nouns. The article is consistent with this usage. The main editors of this article are listed here [2] and have been maintaining the prose quality at the GA-level of the article for some time now. I have added your prose improvements listed above to the article and would be happy to add any more suggestions for further prose improvement. CodexJustin (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in my opinion the article is good enough to qualify. I also did some citation work, with the help of IABot Management Interface. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This appears not to have been sufficiently prepared for nomination, with early opposition on prose and sources. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. I recommend engaging a peer review process to ensure the writing and sourcing meets WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 September 2019 [3].

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE

[edit]
Nominator(s): THeNEMBI (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an RPG that didn't really have much recognition until now when encore is going to be relesed, I hope that it'll be a great fa after I've added so much images.THeNEMBI (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 September 2019 [4].

Hart Island (Bronx)

[edit]
Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an island in the Bronx, NYC, which is used as a potter's field. About a million people are buried there. And in my opinion, it's quite an interesting topic with lots of history. This was made a good article a few months ago, but I never got around to doing anything until now. I welcome any feedback you all may have. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The width given in the infobox doesn't match that given in the lead/text
    • Fixed.
  • As per this RfC, sources for IPC content should not only demonstrate that the reference exists but that it is in some way significant to the topic
    • Removed all except historical sources.
  • NYC Parks is a publisher not a work. Same with NY Correction History Society, Reuters, check for others
    • Fixed all.
  • FN49 link no longer works
    • Added full url.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Fn61: what kind of source is this?
    • Removed.
  • What makes Google Sightseeing a high-quality reliable source?
    • Removed.
  • FN79 appears to be the same as 51
    • Combined.
  • FN83 is missing work
    • Fixed.
  • Compare formatting for FNs 104, 106, and 69
    • Fixed.
  • Why do FNs 108 and 109 give different work titles?
    • Fixed.
  • FN114 is missing work, check for others
    • Fixed.

Oppose pending significant cleanup of citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I will get to these soon, but these should be fairly simple fixes. In the meantime I commented out the popular culture section, and only included historical media. epicgenius (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: As I have mentioned above, I've cleaned up all of the citations. Could you take a second look? I'd appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have done. There are some inconsistencies still, but also refs that are missing information that is provided at the source - particularly authors and dates. I'd suggest sorting that first and then looking at consistency issues. You also want to make sure your info is split into the correct parameters, not combining them (eg. FN95) or swapping work/publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks. I will take a closer look tomorrow, but in the meantime, have checked the article again. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing problems of this type - for example, FN 97 has both author and date at source but neither listed in the citation; FN82 has an author at source but none here; same with FN75. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks again. I thought all of these were fixed, but it appears not. It seems that Huntolfson, who has also contributed greatly to the article in the past, added some stuff in the lead that is more appropriate in the body, including references with bare url's. I have fixed these reference errors now. epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still more, unfortunately - FNs 107, 78, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 September 2019 [5].

2003 Budweiser Shootout

[edit]
Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2003 Budweiser Shootout exhibition stock car race, which was the first edition of the event to be held at night. It was won by Dale Earnhardt, Inc. driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. after he started from the rear of the grid. I created this article in February and it has featured at DYK and recently passed a GA nomination. After a series of edits to tighten the prose and to make clarifications to the causal reader, I believe this article worthy of being awarded the bronze star. MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Lee Vilenski

[edit]
  • Full disclosure, I did the GA review for this article. I think it's not too far off passing, but I'll add a few of the finer points at a second look:
    • Source reviews gives some anomalies that will need a look before it should pass, such as:
      • NASCAR as a work - some of these have Time Warner as the publisher, and others don't. Needs to be consistent. Potentially, I'd prefer it down as the website (Nascar.com), with the publisher, but that's personal taste I think
      • ESPN Sports isn't an author, even if credited for the article.
      • Are the citations in the infobox needed? Do they fail WP:INFOBOXCITE?
        • I would not say having citations in the infobox in this instance fails the guideline that is mentioned above as one instance where it is needed is the final Nielsen rating, which is not mentioned in the prose and cannot see the usage without including any details of the final viewing figures. MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

We're coming up on the one-month mark without much review. This will be archived soon if it does not receive substantially more attention in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 September 2019 [6].

Bank War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This article was nominated in May 2019. The nomination was closed because it did not receive enough feedback. The article has already passed both image and source reviews, and underwent a full review and received support from Orser67. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Suggest citing the dates in the infobox, simply because it's not obvious from the article text why a cutoff of 1836 is used
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges (and for that matter ranges throughout the article) should use endashes not hyphens
I noticed a few cases of references throughout the article which used hyphens, and I replaced them with hyphens. I did not notice any page ranges in Bibliography or Further reading with hyphens. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few references using hyphens (eg FN30), and some other types of ranges throughout (eg the date range in the Biddle title). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I think this is fixed now. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN319 should be cited as a periodical article
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It uses {{cite web}}; however, because the source is a periodical article, it should use {{cite journal}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed number of columns for {{reflist}}
I don't see why not. I tried how it looked with the fixed column number removed, and the article ended up with just two columns that were overly long and didn't look very good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because that syntax is deprecated - see the documentation for {{reflist}}. You can set an em size for columns instead if desired. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Em used. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN280 is missing a publication date
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austin: the GBooks link provided is for a different edition than the one cited. Same with Hammond 1957, Hofstadter, Niven, Sumner, Smith
I fixed this for Hammond, Hofstadter, Niven, and Smith. I used a physical version of Sumner. However, that version is not available online, which accounts for the discrepancy. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case suggest removing the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link is there so that people can access the book online. I don't agree that we should remove it simply because the one that was used to write the article was a different edition. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not then use and cite the one available online? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, the reason why I did not cite the edition available online was because the physical copy of the book that I used was a different edition. Still, if you'd rather have me cite the one online, I can do that. Display name 99 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with either removing the link and leaving things otherwise untouched, or changing the citation and any relevant article content to the linked version, as you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the delay, but I've chosen to keep the link and changed the citation to refer to the edition in the link. Display name 99 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Also, when you have more than one work by the same author, how are you ordering them?
I detected one error in alphabetization and corrected it. My method of ordering works by multiple authors is to list them by the earliest publication date to the latest. I noticed one case in this article in which that was reversed and fixed it.
  • Biddle ref has multiple typos
I'm sorry, but I didn't see any. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source I'm looking at disagree on the correct spelling of the editor's surname, but "Boson" and "Houghlon" are definitely incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that now. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For journal sources in Bibliography, be consistent in whether page ranges are included
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammond 1957: OCLC link goes to an entirely different book. Same with Hofstadter, James, Van Deusen, Wellman
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kim and Wallis" needs author names fixed
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • McPherson: given ISBN appears to be for a different edition. Same with Niven
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wellman: check publisher name
I did. It appears to be same. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source link suggests it should be "Doubleday"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Typo. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I have now responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Sorry to be so slow.

  • Can the back and forth allegations in the second paragraph of the lede be summarized?
I have shortened it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Its headquarters were established in Philadelphia," "was" may be more common.
This has been changed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson’s associates never offered a platform on banking and finance reform," Did parties issue platforms then?
No. Jackson's supporters in the 1820s were very well organized for the standards of the times, but there were still no official party platforms or conventions. The first convention did not take place until 1831, and that was for the Anti-Masons. Whatever existed of the Democratic "Party" leadership in that election is covered by saying "Jackson's associates." Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "So as to conceal the incompatibility ... " I wonder if the reader really understands this paragraph. Is it really helpful? I think a much simpler explanation is needed.
I have altered the first sentence and added a sentence about why people who wanted paper money sometimes disliked the Bank. The paragraph itself is critical. Most of Jackson's followers could agree that the Bank was unsatisfactory. There was a general consensus that it was corrupt and possibly unconstitutional, but other than that, they disagreed on critical reasons as to why they were against it. Some of them, including Jackson himself, disliked it in part because it printed paper money. Others thought that it didn't print enough paper money. The question of hard money v. soft money and easy credit was an important one in the 1830s with presages the economic boom in the southwest (caused by Jackson's dismantling of the Bank and the increased lending and printing of paper money that resulted), the specie circular, and the Panic of 1837 which was caused in part by the situation in the southwest. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All that is good, but some language contrasting the desire of regulators for large reserves of specie to prevent bank failures vs. the desire of banks especially on the frontier to lend out as much as they could might be welcome. Tight credit on the frontier made development difficult.
The article says in the next paragraph that the Bank forced state-chartered banks to keep specie on hand. The banks were all under the authority of the BUS at this point, so they weren't able to engage in uncontrolled lending like they were later. It's sufficient for now to simply say that it was the BUS's role to restrain them. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for the review. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Smaller banks lent less money, but their notes were more reliable.[63] " More reliable than what? The BUS?
Their own notes were more reliable because the BUS forced them to lend less money. I recognize this was unclear and have tweaked it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson would not publicly air his grievances with the B.U.S. until December 1829.[64]" But in the next sentence you say that it wasn't part of his agenda to deal with the BUS.
Originally it wasn't. He probably did not want it to survive his second term but was advised that it would be politically inexpedient to attack it right away. The article talks about how soon after he took office, Jackson received reports that the Bank had interfered against him in the 1828 election. That may have been what changed his mind. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The claim regarding the Bank’s currency was factually untrue," Is this accurate? There were certainly enough private issues, not all of which were from solid banks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is accurate. There were issues, yes, with corruption and arguably in other areas, but alleging that the Bank's currency was unstable is simply not true. The Bank prevented runaway inflation by controlling small banks, which made notes more reliable. Remini, a historian more favorably inclined towards Jackson than many, writes, "On the contrary it had developed into a powerful central banking institution in full control of the credit and currency facilities of the nation and adding to their strength and soundness." (Remini 1981 p. 229) Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These struggles led to Vice President Calhoun's estrangement from Jackson and eventual resignation," I thought Calhoun resigned because he was more useful as senator from South Carolina with the nullification debates pending?
He did, but if his relationship with Jackson had not deteriorated, it's likely that he would not have resigned and maybe even stayed on to serve another term as vp, firmly positioning himself as Jackson's successor. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done up to the start of "Failure of compromise"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, Amos Kendall, and Globe editor, Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy.[109]" I don't think the commas before the names are needed. Alternatively, you can consider putting a "the" before "Fourth" and before Globe.
Done except no "the" before Globe. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The liquidation of government stock would necessitate strong changes to the Bank's charter, which Jackson supported." this seems a bit vague.
  • "Jackson conceded to McLane's pleas for the upcoming annual address to Congress in December," I'm not certain you mean "conceded". Maybe "acceded".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annual Treasury Secretaries report" pretty clear grammar problem here. Also, the link seems a bit EASTEREGG-like.
I resolved the grammatical issues and removed the link. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Globe refrained from openly attacking Secretary McLane, but in lieu of this, carried hostile essays from anti-Bank periodicals." I might change "carried" to "reprinted".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done through 1831 address.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within days of Jackson's address, party members gathered at a convention on December 16, 1831," we have a link for that convention.
Link added. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "what appeared to be a perfect platform to defeat Jackson.[128][133]" I might phrase it as "what appeared to be the perfect issue on which to defeat Jackson."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In addition, Biddle had to consider the wishes of the Bank's major stockholders, who wanted to avoid the uncertainty of waging a recharter fight in the increasingly likely event that an anti-B.U.S. president like Jackson occupied the White House after the 1836 election." Do you mean 1832 election? It would be too late by the time a president elected in 1836 took office, the charter would have expired.
I agree it doesn't make much sense. I don't have access to the source, so I replaced the problematic portion with "closer to the expiration of the charter." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jacksonian Representative Augustin Smith Clayton of Georgia called a motion to investigate allegations that the Bank had violated its charter." Do you call a motion or introduce it, or what?
Replaced with "introduced a resolution." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many legislators also benefited from the largesse supplied by Bank administrators.[143][145][121]" Not in numerical order.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't explain why the prohibition on notes under $20 was a reform.
This part was edited in by a different editor and cited a book that the editor wrote. I don't have access to the book. I've left a note on that editor's talk page asking if he could elaborate, but he edits infrequently so it might be a while. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He responded and I was able to add an explanation to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because states were only allowed to tax the stock of Bank owned by their own citizens," some textual problem here I imagine. Also in "He pitting the idealized "plain republican" and the "real people" — virtuous, industrious and free[171][172] — against a powerful financial institution — the "monster" Bank,[173] whose wealth was purportedly derived from privileges bestowed by corrupt political and business elites.[67][174]"
I've tweaked the first part. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the second. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It strikes me that if Jackson's Bank veto message is such an important thing, you might want to have some quotations from it.
I've added two quotes. One is the most famous part of the message in which Jackson accuses the Bank of propping up the wealthy over ordinary people. The other is a much shorter one given later on in which Jackson criticizes the Bank on states' rights principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daniel Webster charged Jackson with promoting class warfare.[166][176][177] Webster was at around this time annually pocketing a small salary for his "services" in defending the Bank.[178]" Immediate inline contradiction or claiming bias always feels a bit POV, especially as you've spent the last three paragraph in prose that is highly favorable to Jackson. As I recall, Webster was not the only one to take money. Must the latter sentence be here?
I think that the information itself is important enough to be included, but I checked the source (Remini), and he notes that Webster was certainly not the only person to engage in this practice. Therefore, I added "although it was not uncommon at the time for legislators to accept monetary payment from corporations in exchange for promoting their interests." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson's message provided no concrete proposals for a single alternate institution" ... "

In presenting his economic program ..." there seems a bit of a contradiction here.

Replaced program with "vision." I think that this makes it more clear that Jackson did not propose anything like a true policy in his veto. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Jackson cloaked his own hard-money predilections, which, if adopted, would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be.[183]" This seems a bit extreme. It wouldn't actually kill them.
I disagree. I'll quote this from the article: "When banks lend money, new money is actually created, which is called 'credit'. This money has to be paper; otherwise, a bank can only lend as much as it takes in and hence new currency cannot be created out of nothing. Paper money was therefore necessary to grow the economy." It might not be "fatal" to the people themselves, but it would certainly put an end to the credit and bank paper that they were demanding. Without paper money, there can be no economic growth let alone inflation. Banks make paper; they can't make gold or silver. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite some misleading or intentionally vague statements on Jackson's part in his attacks against the Bank, some of his criticisms are considered justifiable by certain historians." It's unclear if what follows is criticism by Jackson or by the certain historians. And this really feels like inadequate space given to criticism of Jackson. If there are none, I'll accept that, but half a sentence immediately contradicted by most of a paragraph justifying Jackson seems a bit one-sided.
You have to consider the paragraph before that, where the incompatibility of advocates for hard money and paper money is considered. I've tried to do my best to point out the flaws that most historians have recognized with the different sides of the Bank War. For Jackson, this means showing the inconsistency between Jackson's belief in hard money and his supporters' demand for easy credit. Also, it means pointing out that he didn't really have a firm initial plan for what to do with the economy after the BUS, or at least not one that he publicly articulated. I think I've done this pretty well. But it is well established that there was serious corruption in the BUS that Jackson was to some extent correct to point out. It's really for the sake of not being biased AGAINST Jackson that I have to show that such corruption existed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As Jackson travelled, he was swarmed by enthusiastic mobs." Were these intended as political trips?
He tried to avoid openly campaigning for office in keeping with the custom of the day. The sentence has been changed to "Nevertheless, he often found himself swarmed by enthusiastic mobs." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson, incensed at this "cool" dismissal, decided to proceed with his Kitchen Cabinet to remove the B.U.S. funds by executive action alone." Well, you might want to say "as advised" by the KC or similar.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vice President Martin Van Buren tacitly approved the maneuver, " You might want to state how it was that Van Buren is now VP.
I added that he was nominated for vp in the last paragraph of the section on the 1832 election. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duane was appointed? Was this a recess appointment? Also, did the 1832-33 congressional election cycle result in any shifts in Congress?
I don't know. He accepted the office in January but wasn't sworn in until June 1. I imagine he had to wait to be confirmed, but none of the sources that I've found indicate a reason for the delay. I added information about the timeline. The 1832-1833 election cycle resulted in a greater majority for Democrats. I couldn't find any reliable source that talks about the shift in Congress. I had to settle for one saying that the House ended up after the elections with 140 Jacksonians and 100 anti-Jacksonians. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Buren had cautiously supported delaying the matter until Congress could reconvene on January 1, 1834." This reads as if Congress would have reconvened on 1/1/1834, which was not the case. Of course, nothing stopped Jackson from calling a special session.
I removed any mention of Congress reconvening. Jackson would not have called a special session because he wanted to remove the funds without Congressional interference. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent his nephew and aide Andrew Jackson Donelson" As you mentioned him in connection with the veto message, he does not have to be introduced as if never before mentioned.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that he would announce his intention in Blair's Globe to summarily remove the deposits the next day, with or without Duane's consent." I might rearrange as "and that he would announce his intention to summarily remove the deposits the next day in Blair's Globe, with or without Duane's consent."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done to the start of "Removal of the deposits".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I've responded to some of your points so far. It may take a few more days for me to get to everything. These suggestions are helpful and I think that the article will be improved afterwards. Thank you for your time and attention. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. I will keep plugging away at it but my work may be interrupted because I have to schedule September TFA next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I've addressed all of your concerns so far. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'll be back as soon as I'm done scheduling (not later than Wednesday).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Calhoun, now a senator," You might want to weave that update on Calhoun into the language about him supporting a six-year charter renewal.
Done. I added the bit about him supporting renewal within the last few days, and forgot that I hadn't introduced him as a senator until later. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "petitions in favor of Biddle's cause" Why not say "petitions in favor of rechartering the bank"?
Changed to "positions in favor of recharter." Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to clarify, when you talk about Whigs complaining that Taney and the others had not been nominated or confirmed, whether these were recess nominees, who could serve until the end of the session of Congress.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The first Coinage Act was passed in 1792 and established a 15 to 1 ratio for silver to silver coins." I think you mean gold to silver. You might want to link to the 1792 act and mention that because of this imbalance, gold flowed overseas for melting, rather than simply not circulating.
First part done. For the second, I consulted the source (Remini), who writes that gold circulated less but says nothing about it flowing overseas. I consulted some of the other main sources for the article, and they don't seem to mention it either. If you have a source that has information about gold flowing overseas, please share it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think my numismatic sources, especially Taxay discuss it (it is why they struck no eagles ($10 pieces) from 1804 until 1834, it made it too convenient to export overseas). I'll get back to you on this, not necessarily during the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Including when taking into account the Biddle-engineered recession, " This could be better phrased.
Changed to "recession engineered by Biddle." Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Woodbury ensured that banks' specie ratios remained consistent with those of the early 1830s.[301]" When you say "specie ratios", do you mean "reserve ratio" or "specie reserves" or something different?
It's the ratio of specie that the Banks held in reserve to paper money. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the American Southwest.[307][308] " You might make clearer what this consisted of at the time.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(if food imports created a trade deficit, this could lead to specie exports)" I don't know why this is only "could" given international settlements at the time would have been in specie, it seems more like "would".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remini believes". You haven't introduced the person (who is deceased btw).
Fixed. However, when summarizing what a person says, I always use the present tense regardless of whether they are deceased or not. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wildcatters" you might want to pipe to Wildcat banking although it is a poor article.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I've responded to everything. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list but, having been open for a month, it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Laser brain. The article was nominated a few months ago and received a review from one editor which ended in a vote of support. So far this summer, it has received two reviews, both of which resulted in the reviewers' concerns being addressed and ended in reviewers giving the article their support. I'm hopeful that no more than one or two more such reviews will be needed to pass the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Orser67: Since you reviewed the article last time, would you be inclined to review it in its current state? Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think up for doing a second full review, but I skimmed the article and took a look at the changes that have been made since my last review and have no objections, so I'm still willing to Support the nomination. Orser67 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orser67, thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Despite the addition of support from a previous reviewer, this just doesn't have the legs and hasn't attracted any additional commentary in 10 days. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 September 2019 [7].

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the album that scrapped the country-pop girl-next-door image of Taylor Swift and transformed her to a fully-fledged pop megastar. Buoyed by chart-topping singles, strong sales, and critical plaudits, the album was definitely a landmark in Swift's career as well as the contemporary music scene. Having passed GAN and gone through a PR, I believe this article is now qualified for the bronze star. It'd be much more precious if the article gets promoted in time to be featured in TFA on 27 Oct., to commemorate the album's fifth birthday. Looking forward to comments and suggestions, HĐ (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part (Contemporary critics noticed Red's emerging departure from) in the lead, I do not believe that “contemporary” is needed as you do no distinguish between two groups of critics (like contemporary and retrospective reviewers) so the qualifier does not seem necessary here.
  • When you first mention Ryan Tedder in the “Production” section, should there be a short descriptive phrase to introduce him? A majority of the names have this when you first mention them, like “Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback” and “English producer Imogen Heap”, so I am wondering if the same should be done with Tedder for consistency’s sake? This is up to you, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
  • For this sentence (She acknowledged that her previous album Red blended country and pop elements, thus envisioned a "blatant pop" production for 1989 because "if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both”.), shouldn’t “envisioned” be “envisioning”?
  • For this part (Swift's familiar themes), I would use “recurring” rather than “familiar”.
  • I do not think that “thereform” is really necessary for this sentence (It therefrom expresses self-discovery, a difference from her previous releases.).
  • I have a question about this sentence ("Bad Blood" is about betrayal by an unnamed female peer.). Shouldn’t the article briefly mention how critics believed the song was about Katy Perry. This received a lot of attention from the media during the song’s release, and it is a little odd that it is not mentioned at all here. I think that it warrants mentioning in a brief sentence.
  • As Swift did not explicitly state whom the song is about, I think this kind of information is best reserved for the song's article itself (I also think it's kind of gossipy to include this). HĐ (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is understandable; the only reason I brought this up is because I found the "unnamed female peer" part to be extremely vague. But I do not have strong feelings either way about it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is up to you. I would revise the current wording though because it reads somewhat awkwardly to me, specifically due to the repetition of the "whom" clauses. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • During my past FACs, I have always been told to only use audio samples if they are representative of the album as a whole. I would revise the “Out of the Words” caption to focus more on how Swift said it best represents the album as I think that would be a stronger justification for its use. I am not entirely certain about the use of the “I Wish You Would” sample as it does not appear to represent the album as a whole. The sample seems to be more focused on the individual song rather than the album. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
  • The two songs whose samples I included certainly have significant features of the album itself; caption needs to be succinct, and I think at this point, the captions for the two samples are enough for readers to figure out the 1980s influences on the album. I could put more info into the captions, but I don't think that's advisable... HĐ (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not suggesting that you add more to the captions. I was suggesting that you revised to better reflect how the song represents the album as a whole, like for the "Out of the Woods caption, I do not think it is necessary to repeat this part "was inspired by one of her relationships which she felt fragile" because an audio sample is usually used to illustrate a song's instrumental/genre rather than lyrical content (at least to me). A caption like ("Out of the Woods" incorporates heavy 1980s-styled synthesizers and percussion; Swift said it "best represents" the album) would be a stronger fit. I am still not entirely convinced about the “I Wish You Would” sample, but I will leave that to whoever runs the media review. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (On August 18, via a Yahoo!), I would add a wikilink to Yahoo!.
  • The song ”We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” is wikilinked twice in the article.
  • The word “guitar” is wikilinked in this part (features guitar in its instrumentation), but the word was used in this earlier sentence (the "standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever" generic song structure) so it should be wikilinked there instead.
  • For this part (where she explained to Tedder her desired artistic direction that had already been formed in her mind), I am not sure if (that had already been formed in her mind) really adds much to the sentence. It could be removed in my opinion with losing any information.
  • For this part (Swift finalized the record upon completing the Asian leg of the Red Tour by mid-2014), I would use “in” instead of “by”. Something about the “by” word choice sounds awkward to me.
  • Portions of the "Media data and non-free use rationale" box for the "Out of the Woods" sample is incomplete (i.e. has n.a.).
  • I have a question for this sentence (Its music video received widespread media attention for featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends including Karlie Kloss, Lena Dunham, and Selena Gomez). Neither of the sources provided at the end of the sentence support this part (featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends including Karlie Kloss, Lena Dunham, and Selena Gomez).
  • I believe Drowned in Sound should in italics.
  • I would be more consistent on whether or not you use the Oxford comma. You seem to use it in a majority of the article, but there are some instances were it is absent, such as (Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds and Diet Coke) and (She re-added her entire catalog to Spotify, Amazon Music and Google Play).

Great work with the article, and once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, thanks for your detailed comments as always. I have addressed all of your concerns, apart from those where I left a reply. HĐ (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I suggested a possible revision to the "Out of the Woods" audio sample and a suggestion for the "guitar" wikilink, but these are not enough to hold back my support for the article's promotion. Again, you have done awesome work with the article. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05

[edit]

Going to give this a look. Taylor Swift is decidedly not one of my favorite singers, but album reviewers are getting thinner these days so I’ll see what I can offer here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Really good lede! Only suggestion: I would merge the last two sentences of the second paragraph together.
Commercial performance
  • Its sales performance therefore was subject to considerable media speculation > Its sales performance was therefore subject to considerable media speculation
  • Change uses of "fold" (currently ninefold, sixfold, fourfold, and threefold) to "x times platinum" or something like "9× platinum".
References and footnotes

I've personally gone ahead and added archive links via IABot so that's out of the way.

  • Note A has a period at the end of the sentence but notes B-E do not. I would add periods to B-E as well.
  • Note A is a full sentence while notes B-E are not, so I wouldn't add full stops to the mentioned notes
  • I would change source 51 to be Taylorswift.com since Official Website is a description on our end, not theirs.
  • Add International Federation of the Phonographic Industry to the website or publisher column of the two individual sources in 163. The third source in 163 also needs a website or publisher.
  • As indicated "... compiled by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" I don't think it's needed to recite the publisher in every single source, HĐ (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove website parameter from source 187.

Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all except where noted. Thanks so much for your comments, HĐ (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations are reasonable. Article looks great - great job, HĐ! This would make a fantastic addition to our featured articles and impressively would be a Half-Million Award article. Thanks for taking on this high-profile page and hopefully this gets approved after it gets another look or two here! Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

Background

  • Contemporary critics noted the album's emerging departure from Swift's signature country styles of previous releases. -- a bit awkwardly worded. Reading the sources, I'd personally rephrase this as "Contemporary critics noted that album's departure from the signature country style of Swift's previous releases."
  • Also, there are 11 instances of the use of "Swift" in this section alone, and quite an abundance of the surname throughout the article. Don't be afraid to use "her" or "she" whenever appropriate, to break up any overuse.
  • She confessed that she had been "intimidated" by the city, but ultimately found her way to enjoy it. - I think you could expand on this, as it's a bit too unexplanatory as it currently is. The source says [In New York as opposed to California], "She can walk down the street to get dinner, or go furniture shopping with friends in Brooklyn. Even the paparazzi are better." But I'm unsure of whether that's an actual quote for Taylor Swift or the journalist's editorializing, so I wouldn't feel comfortable quoting that. I'd suggest paraphrasing to "She confessed that she had previously been "intimidated" by the city, but explained she could live a normal life there, citing her interactions with paparazzi: "They don't provoke me [in New York], or ask weird questions. And a lot of them are long-lensing it—which, if you have to have paparazzi in your life, is such a better way."

Production

  • they would take her ideas with a different direction that challenged her as a songwriter → they would take her ideas in a different direction which would challenge her as a songwriter?
  • her signature country styles - unnecessary plural; "signature country style" would be better here.
  • Borchetta ultimately accepted Swift's artistic decision and that her new songs would not impact country radio. - could probably do with a comma after 'decision', and changing "her" to "the".
  • Heap helped completing the track → Heap helped complete the track
  • +1 for linking Göteborg instead of Gothenburg. ;)

That's all I have for now. Will continue tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • Swift described the 1980s as an experimental period when artists forsook the "standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever" - I know "forsook" is the simple past tense of forsake, but I think "abandoned" would be the more appropriate word here.

'Pre-release promotion

  • Following the live stream, Swift announced that she would handle out a total of 1989 → announced that she would distribute a total of 1989.
  • Footage videos of the sessions → Video footage of the sessions

Distrubition

  • would not affect sales nonetheless - double negative; "nonetheless" should be removed

Singles

  • On February 17, Swift announced that she would release the three deluxe edition-included tracks to iTunes Stores in the US as promotional singles one at a time, releasing then the first, "Wonderland". - awkwardly worded; suggest re-writing to "On February 17, Swift announced the release of the three deluxe edition bonus tracks as promotional singles exclusively on the US iTunes Store, beginning on that date with "Wonderland"."

Critical reception

  • while noticed the album's "treated hooks and doctored vocals" that had been a trademark of Swift's music, applauded her departure... → while noticing the album's "treated hooks and doctored vocals" had been a trademark of Swift's music, applauded her departure...
  • By contrast, Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz was critical of the heavy synthesizers that undermines Swift's conventionally vivid lyrics, → By contrast, Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz was critical of the heavy synthesizers, which they said undermined Swift's conventionally vivid lyrics,

Accolades

That's all I have for now. Will continue tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the length of time it has taken for me to complete this review. I can't edit Wikipedia like I used to a decade ago. =(

Commercial performance and subsequent sections:

  • Nothing I'd change here, although I was initially going to suggest retitling 'Ryan Adams's cover'->'Ryan Adams' cover album', because s's is not something I'd write myself. But apparently it's perfectly acceptable nowadays, so I don't mind if you keep it the way it is. Nothing to complain about formatting-wise in 'Track listing' and 'Personnel', and every link in 'Charts', 'Certifications and sales' and 'release history' is archived. So happy to support this once the above is fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (passed)

[edit]
  • All the sources appear to be working according to the external links checker tool. They are reliable and appropriate given the subject of the article.
  • I have one small format questions: Any particular reason why iTunes Store is not wikilinked in the references?
  • An editor from the first FAC raised concerns about the lack of scholarly sources in the article. I do not have an issue with this; I looked through Google Scholar for scholarly sources, and I did not find anything new/substantial to add here.
  • I have done a brief spotcheck, and I found only one thing: I cannot find the "overproduction" quote in Ref 102.
  • I tried to rephrase the bit but I don't think it's worth mentioning anymore. I probably made up the term "overproduction" when trying to interpret Sheffield's review, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is outside the scope of a source review, but I am curious if the article should include information about Scooter Braun or Taylor's apparent plans to re-record her music? It may not fit this article as this is more about Taylor's first six albums as a unit, but I thought this point was worth raising.
  • @Nick-D: Swift has not started re-recording, she just announced the plan once on a live television performance that will take place next year. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I don't deem it necessary to include this bit of information for the time being, HĐ (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just have two small recommendations (the iTunes Store and Rolling Stone parts). Other than that the sources are comprehensive and well presented. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't express how grateful I am to have your input on both prose and sources! Much appreciated, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@Nick-D: As you opposed the previous nomination and it doesn't appear you were pinged at the subsequent Peer Review or this nomination, would you mind taking a look to assess the progress against your previous concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Not weighing in as a reviewer, but just stressing that I consider Nick-D's commentary to be valid and actionable before I would consider promotion. I did a light library search this afternoon and came up with lots of stuff, many of which seems to cover themes, feedback, and production that you haven't covered. I think the article could be expanded considerably with sources available through the library. --Laser brain (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I searched for articles published from 2015 on this album and found most of the sources to be either kind of off-topic (Swift's career as a whole, Swift's public image amidst the Kanye West controversy etc.) or written by non-professionals (some papers are written by undergraduate students seeking to complete their degree). That said, I'd try to dig into this more, and if there's barely anything I find substantially useful, I want to have reconsideration on whether the lack of scholarly sources really impact the comprehensiveness of this article, HĐ (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may have to use an actual library search or enlist the help of a librarian. Google Scholar is not always the best tool for performing library searches. --Laser brain (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not equipped with such tools at the moment. I have a Wikipedia Library Card access to Foreign Affairs, which does not have pop music coverage... I also think it's questionable if a five-year-old pop album is notable enough for scholarly publications found in a public library. HĐ (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: You have some misunderstandings about the nature and usefulness of a library search and the help a librarian can provide. Google Scholar is useful if you know exactly what you're looking for. However, a library (public or academic; most of them have subscriptions to the same databases) can provide a curated search and help you focus on particular databases or individual journals. These searches extend to more than peer-reviewed academic journals and include many other publications and books. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I did reach out for help from my university's library as well as the city's public library to no avail (they have a few books covering pop music but very generic information i.e. names of pop stars through each decade). It's not that I disregard the necessity of academic sources, it's that I've done my best within my capability and found that at the moment I find scholarly sources unsubstantial to this article. HĐ (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

[edit]

Thanks for the ping. Based on a fairly quick look at what sources have been used and some spot checks, I'm afraid that while the article is much improved I don't think that the FA criteria are met. In particular, I continue to have concerns regarding prose quality and the use of sources. Some examples

  • I'm not seeing any use of the various academic papers which cover Taylor Swift and this album I noted in the previous FAC. This could be particularly useful in lifting the 'Critical reception' section from being a collection of reviews into something thematic. Is there a reason for this? (for instance, that the papers aren't actually useful? If so, why not?)
  • The album is relatively 'young' and thus I don't find the 'scholarly' sources from Google Scholar substantially useful -- the album's production, songs, and reviews are widely covered by contemporary media, which is easily accessible through online platforms. I don't want to add a few academic papers only to make this article appear well-researched (which I find pretentious), when most, if not all of the information can be easily accessed through online news and reviews. A small update, as most of the papers I found are not that credible for the article (as I responded to Laser brain above), I have hardly found any reviews that are actually beneficial to this article, HĐ (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing a reason to favour news stories over journal articles, which are generally considered gold standard sources, or academic papers given that academic-style work can be assumed to be of a higher standard than something a journalist has written (often in a hurry to meet a deadline). Works written after a period of time has elapsed or which take a broad picture can also be very helpful in putting a longer-term perspective on a topic. From a quick check of some of the sources which show on Google Scholar this scholarly work on Swift's songwriting looks rather handy, this has a useful snippet on what the album meant for her long-term career and this provides interesting analysis of some of the songs. I'm not sure why they aren't useful. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, Pitchfork has also recently published a retrospective review of the album which could be combined with other references to discuss the extent to which it's stood the test of time - as I understand it, it's often regarded as a classic of its genre (it's actually one of my favourite albums!) Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I get it right, I guess you might want the Music and Lyrics section to be more elaborate by, say, explaining the details of each and every song on the album. That's fine for me to do, but I'm reluctant to do so because the album has a rather cohesive composition (synth-pop songs about love, nothing experimental or groundbreaking imho), and because Swift personally didn't reveal much behind-the-scene inspirations (she usually wants listeners to interpret songs themselves). The book may come in handy to include details of each song. I'm not sure if she is praised for being at the cutting edge of postmillennial pop with her most recent album 1989 adds that much substance (this should need more analysis on how and why the album does so). The songs mentioned in the third source -- Shake It Off, Blank Space, Bad Blood are massive singles and have standalone articles detailing their respective themes; that's not to say the comments (Shake It Off is about self-awareness, irony; Blank Space is about portrayal of Swift being involved in endless relationships, Bad Blood disdains a friendship turned sour) are identical to what is already in the article. (That said, I'd keep finding for academic sources, and will find a way to include the recent Pitchfork review) HĐ (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any fixed expectations of what can be gained from consulting these sources, as I haven't read them in detail. Something which jumps out at me from them though is that they provide a useful thematic analysis of the album's songs. I imagine that they can also contribute to the article in other ways. Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can say so far is that the sources I've gathered don't seem to contribute to this article in a very significant way. I wouldn't expect much scholarly attention on a five-year-old pop album anyways... HĐ (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On behalf of NME, Matthew Horton considered Swift's transition to pop "a success"" - but he only gave it 7/10, which is hardly a ringing endorsement - it's lower than the Metacritic average
  • Apologies for interrupting this discussion. Horton does raise one point of criticism in this sentence (Barring a late collapse into soft-rock mush on the drifting ‘This Love’ and weepy ‘Clean’, Swift’s plunge into pop is a success.) so he seems to dislike the album's final two songs which he referred to as "a late collapse into soft-rock mush". Just wanted to point that out. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shane Kimberlin writing for musicOMH was skeptical about whether Swift's transition to pop on 1989 was successful, but praised the album for showcasing Swift as an artist who was not conformed to boundaries and the lyrics for embracing more positive themes" - this sentence is very complex, and doesn't read well
    • "which he found outstanding from the mainstream pop scene." in the edit here also reads awkwardly. Just to stress, I'm noting examples here. The article unfortunately still has too many constructions like this. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In a less favorable review, AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine accused Swift of being aloof in celebrating temporal pop subjects" - I'm not sure what a "temporal pop subject" is
  • " Its sales performance was therefore subject to considerable media speculation" - where is this stated in either of the sources cited? The Billboard story doesn't discuss media coverage at all, and I can't see this in the NYT (which discusses industry expectations).
  • The closest quote that indicates this is ... has been the subject of nervous speculation in the industry for months from the NYT article. My rephrasing might have blemished the meaning a bit, HĐ (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She confessed that she had been "intimidated" by the city, but ultimately found her way to enjoy it" and "conveying her transition from initial intimidation to courage to indulge in the city" - the grammar is a bit off here
  • For the first, something like "She initially found living in the city to be intimidating, but came to enjoy her new surrounds" might work. For the second, something like "and recalls her experiences settling into the city" given that the article has already summarised what these were. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marking the official departure from Swift's signature country sound" - what does official mean in this context? The use of "signature" here is also confusing - if this smash hit album used a very different style, was her style at the time really country?
  • "On August 18, via a Yahoo! / ABC News live stream at the Empire State Building, Swift ultimately revealed the then-anticipated album's details" - what's meant by "ultimately revealed" isn't clear. Could this be replaced with something like "gradually"?
  • "and the release date was expected to be October 27" - expected by whom?
  • "Its music video received widespread media attention for featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends " - passive voice, and over-complex as a result.
  • The 'Live performances' section is rather uneven - it focuses on listing multiple routine promotional performances (do they all, and all the songs Swift played in them, need to be mentioned?), and barely mentions the massive world tour. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tour has its own standalone article, so I don't want to discuss much about it here -- a quick glance at it (the highest-grossing tour of the year) would be enough in my honest opinion. And the performances included are part of the album's promotion schedule, so I wouldn't remove them in the least, HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. It also seems odd to list Swift's set list on multiple promotional appearances, which is basically trivia, but exclude her recent statement that she's going to re-record the album which is highly unusual and significant. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you find it sensible to just list appearances on talk shows/awards and omit the specific songs performed? The recording masters dispute is not unique to this album, it's significant to Swift's career as a whole. That's not to say the plan has not even started yet... HĐ (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D, I have quickly addressed some of your comments above. HĐ (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - With open opposition regarding the thoroughness of research and no progress on that front, this does not have consensus for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please get help as necessary with researching and employing a more thorough survey of the available literature. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [8].

Deactivators

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making a second attempt at nominating Deactivators, a short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum. As the last review came and went without much fanfare, I am hoping this time around there will be enough discussion on whether this is clear to become a Featured Article or if there are any concerns to be raised. GamerPro64 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I reviewed this during the first FAC, and I am glad to see it back for a second nomination. Hopefully, it will attract more views this time around. My suggestions are below:

  • I have a comment for the first sentence of the lead's first paragraph. It is rather short. I have looked through video game featured articles, and they often have more information in the first sentence. There is not a set pattern, but you can look at Panzer Dragoon Saga, Oxenfree, and Phantasmagoria (video game) to see what I am referring to. I am not saying you have to change it if this is your personal preference, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
  • The second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph start with "It was...". If you keep the current structure of that paragraph (see my above comment), I would suggest saying something like "The game was..." for the second instance for additional variation. It is not a major sticking point, but I think it would help with keeping the prose engaging.
  • I have a comment for this sentence (The concept for the game came from a brainstorming session between Bishop and Palmer, with its design and development taking five to six month to complete.). In the past, I have received several notes to avoid using the "with..." sentence structure. To be honest, I do not have a personal problem with it, and I do not see the big issue with it, but I thought it was worth bringing to your attention.
  • I was wondering if this sentence (and it was later ranked as one of the best games for the ZX Spectrum by Your Sinclair.) could be revised to something like (and Your Sinclair later ranked it as one of the ZX Spectrum's best games.) to avoid the passive tense and condense the prose somewhat.
  • For this part (the game was not commercially successful and Tigress Marketing closed shortly after its release.), I am wondering if there should be a comma after "successful".
  • I have a comment about this sentence (If a bomb goes off in a room then everything inside of it gets destroyed.). The source mentions that once a bomb explodes, then "the game becomes impossible to complete". I think that is worth clarifying in the article.
  • I would wikilink "brainstorming' in the lead since it is wikilinked in the body of the article.
  • For this part (created to focus on arcade and action games for Ariolasof), I do not think the "for Ariolasof" is necessary. I think it is clear from the context of the overall sentence since it was already described as being an imprint of the company.
  • Why is the release date (6 October 1986) specific in the body of the article and the infobox, but it is left more vague in the lead (It was released for the Amstrad CPC 464, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum in October 1986.)?
  • For this part (A reviewer for Computer and Video Games opined that the game was destined to become a cult game.), I would say "that it was" instead to avoid the repetition of "game" twice (or three times if count the magazine title) in the same sentence.
  • I think it is important to note that this game was the first one published under the Reaktor imprint (which is supported in the Amstrad Action source.
  • For this part (describing it as "excellent,"), I am uncertain if the comma should be in the quotation marks.
  • I am uncertain about the use of "while" in this part (while Gwyn from Your Sinclair described the graphics as "clean") because it is normally used to show a contrast between two ideas and I do not see a contrast between this point and that shown in the previous part of the sentence.
  • Would it be better to revise this sentence (Andrew Wilton marked it as the most disappointing part of the game for not using the most of Amstrad's colour limitations) to something like (Andrew Wilton was disappointed that the game did not make the most of Amstrad's colour limitations.)? Something about the current phrasing reads awkwardly to me.
  • For this part (In an interview with Retro Gamer about the game,), I do not believe "about the game" is necessary as it is clear from the context.
  • For this part (developer Tigress Marketing closed,), I am not sure the comma is necessary. I am not an expert about comma placement though so I could be wrong here.
  • This part (later working for Virgin Interactive, Mindscape and PopCap Games) is missing the Oxford comma, although it is used throughout the rest of the article and it is important to be consistent.

You have done a wonderful job with the article. Apologies for the amount of comments; I am trying to go through the article carefully to help improve it as much as possible. I love seeing a smaller article on a more obscure subject matter in the FAC space. It certainly does inspire me a lot. Plus it has bomb disposal robots! lol. In all seriousness, I hope my comments are helpful; once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of them. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I am leaning oppose at the moment on 1a. There are a number of copy edit or grammar issues, but the biggy is Gameplay. IMO this needs all but rewriting to make the prose "engaging and of a professional standard", or even to render it comprehensible to someone who has not played the game. To pick a few points almost at random:

  • "Deactivators" Why the upper case D?
  • "A time limit is set based on the fuses of the bombs." What does this mean?
  • "The player controls bomb disposal robots, known as Deactivators, to deactivate bombs"; "until they can be thrown out the exit". One gains the impression from the second section quoted, that the bombs will explode harmlessly once "thrown out the exit", and that to cause this to happen is the object of the game; from the first that the bombs are deactivated and so prevented from exploding, and that this is the object of the game. This appears to be a contradiction.
  • "making it impossible to beat the level" The words form a grammatical sentence, but I really have no idea what it is communicating in terms of gameplay.
  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives, with some rooms being sideways or upside-down" Even leaving aside a room processing multiple perspectives, what is this trying to convey about how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it?
  • "There are also circuit boards that must be inserted into a computer to activate functions such as opening a door or window, deactivating force fields, or turning on teleporters" No doubt if one is familiar with the terminology, eg by being an aficionado of action puzzle video games, it makes perfect sense; if one is not, it does not. IMO, to meet 1a it needs to.

This is not an exhaustive list of criterion 1a issues with the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be requesting a copy edit from the Video Game project. If I get no takers I'll ask the Guild of Copy Editors next. GamerPro64 02:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GamerPro64. It all seems very sortable to me. Apologies for being the bearer of bad tidings, although a feeling that the prose was poor may, or may not, have contributed to the lack of previous reviewers. Hopefully if that can be upgraded other editors will be more prepared to look at it. I am switching to a formal "Oppose" for now on 1a: if that can be improved, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be, I will review the other criteria more thoroughly, but a skim does not indicate that there will be any problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Since this has dropped into the "Older" section with open opposition, I think it's best to archive so the prose issues can be sorted outside of the FAC process. It may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [9].

1957 NCAA University Division Basketball Championship Game

[edit]
Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (T + C) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the 1957 NCAA national championship game where an undefeated North Carolina played the Kansas Jayhawks led by Wilt Chamberlain in a Triple Overtime affair. The game was one of the first to be broadcast in NC too. Pretty cool stuff, might I say. Disc Wheel (T + C) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

I support the promotion of this article, having seen only minor issues that I took the liberty of correcting myself. I do wonder why File:Frank McGuire.jpg is commented out, however. Given that it appears to be appropriately licensed, it should either be in the article or not. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help, I don't know who commented that out, but I have replaced the photo a little later in the article. Disc Wheel (T + C) 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I added the Library of Congress link to the original photo from which this was Photoshopped into color from. Is that what you were referring to? Please forgive me, images and their copyrights are quite confusing for me Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image currently has a Creative Commons tag, but that licensing applies to the colorization, not the original - a tag should be added on Commons that reflects the copyright status of the source image. Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, now I think added the appropriate tag. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN3: while this date is mentioned in the text, the publication date appears to be much more recent
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Don't duplicate work and publisher fields
  • FN19 is missing page number
  • FN21 should be formatted as a range
  • FN23 has the wrong agency and is missing page number
  • NCAA is not a work
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers

Stopping here and oppose pending significant cleanup of citation format. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to these later today or tomorrow. Disc Wheel (T + C) 12:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got em all done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you take a look through the documentation for some of the templates you're using though - for example {{cite news}} specifically mentions omitting publisher for the NYT. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Believe I have cleaned up based on your comments as well as changing the cite template for a couple. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • FN17 and 41 appear to be the same, same with 8 and 39, check for others
I ran out of time on my little stint now, but 17 and 41 are for different pages of the NYT article, its split on pages 1 and 2, what do you recommend? While the Sports illustrated (8 and 39) have the same issue as its an online publishing of the article and each page is technically a different link. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a great topic for an FA in the college basketball space, but unfortunately I think it still needs some copy-editing work by a third party, as I'm seeing little glitches at various places in the article that add up when the article is taken as a whole. Here are some examples of problems I've encountered:

  • In the lead, the spaced em dashes don't conform to the Manual of Style, so I'd definitely make them unspaced.
  • "led by Sophomore phenom and First-team All-American Wilt Chamberlain". Not sure why either "Sophomore" or "First" are capitalized here.
  • "due to poor offensive execution on both teams parts." The second-to-last word should surely be "teams'", with the apostrophe included, or it could just be "due to poor offensive execution by both teams."
  • Kansas Jayhawks: Sophomore is again capitalized here for some reason.
  • There is a wikilink for shot clock; the hyphen needs to be removed to turn it from a red link to a blue link.
  • The lead says there were 70 reporters covering the game, while the Broadcasting section says 63. Which is it?
  • First half: More dashes need fixing, as in the lead.
  • Aftermath: One thing I'm seeing throughout the article is that first names are repeated when they really don't need to be. For example, Chamberlain's first name is given twice here. Out of everyone, he was the most famous player involved in this game, so I doubt his first name has to be presented again and again.
  • Not sure if this was covered in the discussion on source cleanup above, but the titles of refs 17, 43, and 87 have all caps that should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments and I fixed all the outlined issues. Disc Wheel (T + C) 14:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that you fixed the issues specified above, but you really need to seek out a third-party copy-edit here. The listed issues are examples of problems, not a full listing of everything that needs work throughout the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got you, I've asked for a copy edit from the Copy Editors Guild. Hopefully the process can get started soon. Disc Wheel (T + C) 17:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for almost a month, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [10].

God of War (2018 video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 video game, God of War, the most recent installment in this popular PlayStation franchise. A lot of work has been put into this article since it was first announced about three years ago. The game ended up revitalizing the series, becoming one of the best PlayStation 4 games, and one of the best games of 2018 (regardless of platform), winning numerous Game of the Year awards. It was promoted to GA this past November and just received a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I was going to nominate this sooner, but have been busy with my graduate school work (which I am now done with), and also had to wait for someone to accept the copy-edit request. JDC808 ♫ 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't used fixed px size
I have never heard that before. There a reason for this? Not using the fixed size makes that image (gif) very tiny. --JDC808 ♫ 09:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:IMAGESIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced fixed px size with the preferred |upright=scaling factor. --JDC808 ♫ 19:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text should not duplicate captions so extensively - see WP:ALT for guidance
Copy-editor added the alt text. I've edited it to shorten down the text. --JDC808 ♫ 09:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 09:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

This has dropped into the "Older" section without any substantial prose review. It will be archived soon if it does not begin to receive some attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on posting a review tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • Is the word "console" really necessary for this part (Released on April 20, 2018, for the PlayStation 4 (PS4) console)? If it is to help an unfamiliar reader, then a wikilink to the home video game console article would probably be helpful.
    • Just standard practice. Removed.
  • I do not understand this part (the player may passively control him). The previous part of that sentence makes it clear that Kratos is the only playable character so this makes me even more confused on what "passively control" means.
    • You only play as Kratos, but if you press a button (explained in gameplay section), Atreus will shoot an arrow at where the camera is pointed.
      • I understand that point in the gameplay section, but I am not sure if that point is clear in the lead; however, it is nothing major, and I will leave it up to other reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the wikilinks to A Call from the Wilds and the prequel comic series in the lead since it goes to sections in this article.
  • For this sentence (The game is open, but it is not open world.), does the source provide any further information on this distinction?
    • No. All this is saying is that although it has an element of being open world, it is not a full-fledged open world game.
  • I have a comment for this part (Due to its openness, a fast travel feature is unlocked later in the game). If read literally, then the dependent clause "due to its openness" is describing the subject, "a fast travel feature", and that is not correct.
    • This comes off of the previous sentence; "its" is referring to the game. Together, its "The game is open, but it is not open world. Due to its openness, a fast travel feature is unlocked later in the game."
      • It still do not believe it is grammatically correct as the "its openness" can be still be read as referring to the "a fast travel feature" part, but I will not press it further. I believe a majority of readers will understand it from the context, but this is a note I have received in the past during FACs and GANs so I thought it was something worth raising. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (The gameplay is vastly different from previous games, as it was completely rebuilt). I do not think of "gameplay" as being "rebuilt". I more often see "rebuilt" attached to sentences about game engines than actual gameplay. I could be mistaken, but I thought it was something worth bringing up.
  • I have a question about this part (Just like Kratos, Atreus acquires new skills, armor, special arrows, such as lightning arrows, and runic attacks for his Talon Bow, which has only one slot instead of two.). I do not see anything about Kratos using a bow so I do not believe the "Just like Kratos" part applies to Atreus acquiring special arrows.
    • This was meant to say that Atreus also acquires new stuff. Reworded.
  • For this part (and his young son Atreus), I am not sure "young" is really needed. It is a little vague as "young" could refer to quite a wide range of different ages.
    • I feel it is important to note that he is young as the game does not explicitly state his age.
      • Understood. Just thought it was somewhat vague, but I think a reader can understand what is meant by looking at the game's cover art and the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • God of War (franchise) is wikilinked twice in the body of the article. Same for Norway and camera cuts.
    • Fixed.
  • For this part (The end of the demo showed the title God of War and confirmed it was in development for the PlayStation 4.), the references should be in numeric order. There are a few other instances of this so I would double-check the article to fix it.
    • Is this actually a standard? I have never come across this if so. Seems like a non-issue as references get placed and moved around as the article is developed and thus results in some numerical misordering.
  • PlayStation 4 should be wikilinked in the body of the article. I would also be consistent with either using PlayStation 4 or PS4 in the body of the article. It alternates between both. The same comment applies for PlayStation 4 Pro and PS4 Pro.
    • Fixed.
  • For this part (During E3 2016, GameSpot mistakenly reported that), GameSpot should be in italics.
    • Fixed.
  • For this part (and negatively criticized), I do not believe "negatively" is needed as it is already clear from the word "criticized".
    • I removed, but criticism can also be positive.
      • Criticism can be positive, but I have not seen the verb criticized used in a positive context. Whenever I read that something is criticized, it is normally meaning that a flaw is being pointed out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for this part (noting the seamless nature of the game shifting from cinematic back to the gameplay). Both cinematic and gameplay have been referenced in earlier parts of the article so the link should be moved up to their first instances.

Great work with the article. I hope that it gets more attention in the near future. I have never played this game, or any installment in this franchise, so apologies for missing anything obvious. I hope my comments are helpful; once they are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheAwesomeHwyh

[edit]

I took a look at the article and heres some of my thoughts, a caveat being I've never even played the game or watched a let's play. (Also, this is my first ever time reviewing a FAC so don't kill me!):

  • The gif of Kratos throwing his axe doesn't have alt text.
  • The article mentions that some of the creatures were corrupted by Seiðr, however the article isn't clear on what that even means. It links to the article on Seiðr but that's not much help either. Maybe it would be better if it just said dark magic?
    • That's the only mention in the article (which is sourced). The article on Seiðr says it's "a type of sorcery" and "a form of magic". Dark magic might work, but I don't feel that would be appropriate or correct.
  • Since Hacksilver is a currency, shouldn't the sentence "players find chests containing random items, like Hacksilver and enchantments [...]" be "players find chests containing random items and currency, like Hacksilver and enchantments [...]"?
    • Reworded as "Throughout the game world, players find chests containing random items, such as enchantments for improving armor and weapons, as well as the Hacksilver currency."
  • Unless I misunderstand the text or the game's lore, shouldn't "each realm is a different world, they exist simultaneously in the same space" be "each realm is a different world, they exist simultaneously in the same universe"? "Same space" implies to me that they take place in the exact same physical position, which doesn't make much sense.
  • I might've missed it, but I don't think the article ever mentions how you get access to the secret ending.
    • It doesn't, and it's not going to. That's not something we should really explain (but if you really want to know, after returning to Midgard, you just go back to their house. There's no quest or anything, only a brief mention by either Kratos or Atreus saying something like "let's go home").
  • Perhaps a low-rez version of one of the peices of concept art would be a good idea for the development section.
    • Perhaps, but there's already two non-free images on the article.
  • The "deliberately" in "Barlog said the game was deliberately titled God of War [...]" isn't needed. How would one accidentaly title a video game?
    • I disagree. Deliberately means intentionally. He specifically wanted the title to just be "God of War".
  • The sentence "carvings of the Huldra Brothers, a horse, and a troll [...]" should probably just be "carvings of the Huldra Brothers, a horse, a troll [...]" since the list countinues further. I'm not actualy sure if thats grammaticly correct, though.
    • It would be incorrect to what follows, because "carvings" (2-inch carvings to be exact) is only referring to those three (the Huldra Brothers, horse, and troll), not the stuff that follows "troll".
  • Only some company names are italicized in the "accolades" section. Is there any reason for that?
    • Some are magazines, some are award shows, some are websites; however, in you bringing this up, I noticed that there were a couple that needed to be italicized that weren't. --JDC808 ♫ 05:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article looks good and I suppport the article for promotion. I have not looked at the sources. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I mean I would support it once these concerns are fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I support this article for promotion. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JDC808 ♫ 05:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial oppose by David Fuchs

[edit]

This is a pretty long article, so I want to give it a proper read, but some initial thoughts follow, and I'm opposing for now. I wanted to do a full prose and ref review this weekend, but life and travel intruded, so I'll get that up this week. Sorry for the delay.

  • General:
    • Some of this is just personal preference, but from an accessibility standpoint I'm generally wary of game articles that frame things in terms of previous games with words like "Unlike previous games" and "for the first time in the series", "Although the previous main installment", etc. The end result is there's a lot of language that impedes the flow and is distracting from the subject of the article, which isn't those other games but this one. I would look to critically evaluating all these sorts of statements and consider where they're relevant to include.
    • I'm not really seeing the justification for the novelization section being more than a paragraph or even a line or two; it mostly exists to detail differences between it and the game, and these are almost all cited to a primary source.
      • Don't see the primary source being an issue. It's much like the plot section (which doesn't even require sourcing). The detail here was actually something that was suggested back when doing God of War II's FAC as at the time of its review, it was only what you're suggesting here. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • God of War also uses an over-the-shoulder free camera, with the game in one shot, as opposed to the fixed cinematic camera of the previous entries. I think this is a bit confusing, as I have no idea what the "fixed cinematic camera" of the previous entries means in contrast to an over-the-shoulder one, and "the game in one shot" seems like a really bad way of expressing (what I think given the link, and later in prose) should be described as continuous gameplay and cinematics without cuts.
    • I think my major issue with the article as it stands is that it's creeping over the threshold from "comprehensive" into hitting length issues with summary style (crit. 4). There's a lot of material, particularly in the development section, that feels like it was added when the game was in development and never refactored for importance after it came out; why are there three sentences about an untrue rumor about the kid's name? Why is it important that we know exactly when players heard about his name first?
        • I completely disagree on this point as I have been meticulous on this. I'm going to rework this though as there is some information that I have forgotten to add that gives some justification for the inclusion of the rumored name. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Issues with taking three sentences to say what one could feels like an endemic issue; for example, He was also chosen because of the chemistry with his then-10-year-old co-star, Sunny Suljic, who plays Kratos' son Atreus; Suljic's opinion was also sought in making the decision, and out of all the auditions, he liked Judge the most. The two bonded well, and Judge described his time with Suljic as time he had missed with his own children. We've already been told who Suljic is and who he plays, and we spend two sentences stuck awkwardly with a semicolon to another sentence talking about how he liked Judge. We could say say Suljic, whose opinion was sought in the casting decision, liked Judge the most out of all the auditions. or similar.
      • The reception section feels overstuffed, relying too much on quotes rather than summarizing critic reactions. In a sample paragraph, there's no less than six direct quotes in five sentences, and this is all for one reviewer's thoughts about the combat system. I'm not sure why Plessas from EGM specifically is so heavily used in the article; he literally is the lead critic referenced in every paragraph save one in the whole of the section.
        • There was no intention to make Plessas the "lead critic". When working on developing this section, his was just the first one up that I was pulling from. Will work on quotes issue. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The plot section alone is nearly 800 words, and I'm not sure it justifies that length. There's also details in the setting and characters section that are literally not necessary to understand the plot (Týr, for example, is only mentioned in the setting), so you're just throwing more proper names at readers. Likewise you repeat details from one section to another (the characters section tells us Freya is the Witch of the Woods, but the plot section has it explained that they are one and the same again.) I'd recommend stripping out as many minor characters if at all possible, and if they're necessary but not repeated often, only introducing them in the plot section where they're useful.
        • Disagree on this. Each point is meticulously put there and connects to the article in some way. For example, the mention of Tyr. In the Development section, Barlog states that game alludes to other mythologies coexisting. The mention of Tyr is exactly that. In regard to Freya, you're overlooking or just not reading clearly what's going on. Yes, the Characters section explains who she is (the goddess and the witch). The plot section is stating when Kratos and Atreus find out that the Witch of the Woods is Freya. Reworded this some. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images:
    • While I'm not opposed to moving images, either from a pragmatic standpoint or NFCC concerns (I'm pretty sure I pioneered non-free video in FAs back in the day), I'm not sold on File:God of War (2018) Leviathan Axe gameplay.gif from said pragmatic or NFCC standpoints. The jerky frame rate does not give a good indication of what the hell is going on, and the badly compressed GIF (with an unnecessary, large black border around it) results in a very muddy, hard to read image sequence that's not really using the extra frames much better than a single, quality image. Reading through the reception section, it seems like details like the camera, NPC interplay, and use of the axe for puzzle-solving are better targets for a non-free image.
      • Unless you have even slower internet than myself, it's pretty easy to see that Kratos is throwing his axe at an enemy and freezing it. Higher quality would make the file too large to upload. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other images appropriately licensed and tagged.
  • Sources:
    • There's a few sources that are missing publisher info, archive URLs, or some other conspicuous field, currently refs such as 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 117, etc.
      • Fixed those that it would apply to (for a few, the work and publisher are the same). Working on archiving those that aren't. Many of these sources for the awards were added by other editors and I admittedly didn't double check their formatting. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Hardcore Gamer is prominent enough to be included in the list of GOTY awards; for that matter, NeoGAF's awards (which are user-generated) definitely shouldn't be, even if the forum itself is notable.
    • Otherwise, references used all look like reliable and generally high-quality industry press or mainstream press sources.
    • Spot check forthcoming.
    • Spot check of sources::
      • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19 in the gameplay section only.
        • I'm not going to bother trying to thoroughly check statements attributed to entire 30-something minute videos. These really need temporal citations, either in the template or using {{rp}}.
        • Ref 6 doesn't cite It features an over-the-shoulder free camera, a departure from the previous installments, which featured a fixed cinematic camera (with the exception of 2007's two-dimensional side-scroller Betrayal).
        • Unlike previous games, which allowed players to jump freely at anytime, jumping can now only be done at designated areas, such as at a rockface or ledge. is uncited.
        • Ref 11 does not cite Throughout the game, players battle Norse mythological foes, like dark elves, wulvers, and is using a video to cite the existence of an enemy type when the video is basically a wordless hype trailer. The same follows for ref 12.
        • Valkyries appear as optional boss battles. Apparently uncited.
        • Refs 9 and 13 don't seem to adequately cite Among the many side quests, players can free the imprisoned dragons Fáfnir, Otr, and Reginn—dwarfs who were turned into dragons—in addition to battling one called Hræzlyr, a story-based boss battle.
        • Ref 8 doesn't cite The player controls the character Kratos in combo-based combat and puzzle game elements.
        • Ref 14 doesn't give the dual chain blades' name.
        • Ref 19 doesn't adequately source There are crafting resources for the player to find that allows them to create new or upgrade existing armor with better perks.
        • There's a lot of citations to Ref 20 here, which is an offline source I don't have access to, but given the apparent problems with just the gameplay section above,I'm concerned similar liberties are being taken with the sourcing there. I'm opposing on 1c grounds. The entire article should be rechecked to make sure things are matching up with their citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 03:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are covered by the citations. It may be true that a couple of small things slipped through the cracks, but I would not be so careless for this many things (my track record with the previous articles on this series would prove that). Just to make sure, I will double check. --JDC808 ♫ 03:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will start looking through this tomorrow, but I have disagreements. --JDC808 ♫ 05:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, real life has been stressful the past couple of days and this was gonna make me more stressed. I will have these addressed over the next couple of days. --JDC808 ♫ 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month and doesn't seem anywhere near consensus for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [11].

Mullum Malarum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC), Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After three disappointing FACs in a row (and an intense PR), I massacred chunks of content I no longer deemed helpful (taking inspiration from the Mad Queen, not that I liked what she did) to ensure that the article is now more concise and FA-worthy. Unlike earlier FACs, this one is a co-nomination and that should help. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will most definitely help Kailash for this article's promotion to FA. Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part (clashes with his boss, Kumaran, when the latter falls in love with Valli), I am wondering if there is a way to avoid “the latter”. Maybe something like (clashes with his boss, Kumaran, who falls in love with Valli).
The basic premise at both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes reads, "A boorish villager butts heads with a newly appointed engineer from the city". Can I simply remove the last sentence about Kumaran loving Valli since it is spoilery and not the original cause of enmity between him and Kali? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment. I think that the part could be removed without any issue. The current wording does imply the Kumaran/Valli relationship was the original cause of the conflict, and that appears to be only true for later in the film. I do not personally have an issue with putting a spoiler in the lead, but I think that just saying (Mullum Malarum tells the story of Kali, a winch operator at a power plant who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with his boss, Kumaran) would cover the basics of the storyline and should be enough. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done as suggested, Aoba47.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be helpful to wikilink “Tamil cinema” since here is a separate article for it?
Done by Ssven2. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word “lorry” is wikilinked twice in the article.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that the references are in numeric order. For instance, the first part of the “Legacy” section’s first paragraph has reference 59 after reference 88.
Re-arranged. Now can you read [59][88]89]? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, everything looks great. I will support this for promotion once my relatively minor comments are addressed. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are doing a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher

[edit]
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Fowler&fowler

[edit]
F&f comments of July 2019
[edit]
    • Lead: Here are some sentences in the lead:

*** 1. Fourth sentence >>> "Mullum Malarum tells the story of Kali, a winch operator at a power plant who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with his boss, Kumaran."

****a) Why is an average reader expected to know what a winch operator does in a power plant? The link provides no clue.

I've only retained the part mentioning he is a winch operator. Removed the power plant. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • b) Why is the sister's name, or his boss's, needed at this stage in the lead, when it appears again nowhere else in the lead, and when neither name is accompanied by the name of the actor who plays the part?
        • c) Why is a man's doting on his sister (i.e. lavishing uncritical affection on her) notable enough for a mention in the lead but without further explanation of how this ties in with the story?
Because they were orphaned. Should I mention this in the lead? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • d) The same goes for the protagonist's "clashing" (coming into constant conflict) with his boss; why is that, without further explication, notable for mention?
They clash because of differing ideologies; Kumaran dislikes Kali's unruliness and Kali's nickname for Kumaran ("Law Point") is caustic. Should I mention this? I'm trying to keep the premise in the lead faithful to what RT shows, though I've already added more than what it shows. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2. Fifth sentence >>>"Production on the film was complicated by its producer Chettiar's opposition to cast Rajinikanth as the protagonist because of his dark skin and typecasting as a villain at the time, but Mahendran refused to direct the film without the actor."
        • a) There are too many syntactical and semantic errors here ... I am guessing you mean: "In casting for the hero, the producer opposed choosing Rajinikanth whose complexion he judged too dark for such a role, and whose successful roles as a villain he judged to have already typecast him. " But so what if I have rewritten it? The bigger problem here is that the text has little coherence. What you want to say first is that the movie broke new ground in Tamil cinema by casting as its hero an actor with physical characteristics which the conventions of the cinema had hitherto considered unbecoming. Instead, you go off on the complications of the producer's opposition, etc. The reader is left perplexed.
Ssven seems to have taken care of this. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 3 Sixth sentence. >>>> "Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra, who was already an established director, assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing."
He had cinematic experience; he was a screenwriter, but did not serve as an AD. In India, most men serve as ADs before making their directorial debut. What should I do? Remove the sentence completely or what? But I feel it is important to mention Balu Mahendra as DOP in the lead. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • a) The 800-pound gorilla here is the absence of any directing experience in the director. Instead of telling us how he managed to wangle the role, how the producer was on board, what the director's potential handicaps were, you are matter-of-factly telling us that in such an unsurprising happenstance, cinematographers who are established directors just happen to be around for rendering help. Again, the reader is left perplexed.
      • At a glance I can tell there are similar problems with all too many sentences throughout the article. Have you put yourself in the shoes of an unfamiliar reader who comes to this article? Where are the hooks of elegance to sustain the pleasure of reading, hooks of emphasis to sustain coherence in meaning, hooks of connection to sustain cohesion of narrative? Receiving perfunctory supports after superficial copy edits won't help here. The article has serious issues. You need to double down and think about them. It doesn't help the article, nor is respectful to the reviewers, that a nominator has submitted an article for the fourth time at FAC in such state, and accompanied by such an opaque nomination note. PS Please also don't tell me that this is not actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have solved one issue, I hope Ssven2 can solve the rest. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, is this all the comments you have got? Can you please strike them out if they have been addressed? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead reads better than before. I'll try to find time to read the rest of the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Four days later, any update? Can you please reply to my questions which go "Should I mention this"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
F&f comments of August 2019
[edit]
Fowler&fowler, I've solved all your comments. Is that all? Or are you planning on giving more comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not sure what to say. You have been very earnest and prompt in your responses. I have been unresponsive after my initial comments. I attribute this to my not wanting to offer detailed sentence-by-sentence critiques. I'm not familiar with the material, and there are not enough details in the text for me to learn. The plot, for example, is still written in the style of a bare-bone Aesop's fable. Please read the first few sentences of the plot, and put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary reader: "Kali is a winch operator at a village power plant. Although notorious for his escapades and self-aggrandizing ways, he also does good deeds for the local community. ... The power plant's new supervising engineer is Kumaran, an austere but fair boss. His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules. ..." Winches have different designs, forms, and functions. There are winches that lower things into the ocean. How will anyone ride that winch? You still haven't given us enough details about your winch to make the sentence comprehensible. There are "opposites" set up in the text that are confusing or distracting: "escapades" and "good deeds," or "austere" and "fair." There are surprises: "The power plant's new boss." That is the first time we learn that the old boss, who was presumably more accepting of winch riding, had left. Anyway, all I can see is that the plot remains too sketchy, too uneven, and too anonymous. It is not at FA level, in my limited experience. I know you have worked hard. I haven't read the rest of the article. I don't have specific things for you, but after you're done with this article, howsoever its candidacy ends, you might want to take some time aside and practice writing plots. I know this sounds presumptuous or paternalistic, but I mean it sincerely. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a winch that can be ridden. What to call it? There is no mention of who Kumaran's predecessor was. If you are confused with the plot, you can read the essential plot details from 252 of this book, and pages 80 to 81 of this book, then tell me what to rewrite. However, the former book cannot be used as a source as it has copied from Wiki in large parts, even though the highlighted chapter is blameless. And I removed the "austere but fair" sentence since it sounds POVish. As for your comment that there are "opposites" that are "confusing" or "distracting", I guess that's what the film's title, meaning "thorn and flower", reflects. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You posted on my talk page, so I'm changing my comment into a vote. Sorry, but I don't see any improvements. It's been two weeks since 11 August when I last made my comment. If you haven't found time in two weeks to pick up a dictionary and figure out that a winch involves a drum and a cable or rope which the drum pulls in or lets out by rotating, I afraid I can't help you. In my view, the article remains poorly written, a combination of haphazard narration and the liberal use of jargon. Fixes there are many, but I don't see any within the ambit of an FAC review. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS As I had feared, I see the same issues today, August 30, though the phrasing has changed here and there. Here is the plot again:
>>"Kali is a winch operator at a village power plant."
  • We still don't know what a winch operator does in a power plant, despite the link. What is a village power plant in any case?" Most power plants serve an area larger than a village.
>>"Though notorious locally for his self-aggrandizing, hell-raising ways, he also does good deeds for the local community."
  • The subordinate clause ("Though notorious ..."), in such abstraction, is a strange thing to saddle a reader with this early. You have given us no example of his behavior. He must have talked himself up or promoted himself in some action (self-aggrandizing behavior) or created chaos ("hell raising"). You have to start with examples of these. Why is "local(ly)" needed in either position. It is a small village after all.
>>"Kali and his younger sister Valli, to whom he is devoted, were orphaned during childhood and have no close family."
  • An orphan is a parentless child. After all, the deaths of the parents must have unfolded with some detail, shock, and drama in the movie for the viewer. Where is that in the narration? How did they survive after being orphaned? Did they go to school? How did the neighbors, relatives, ..., the village react to the parents' deaths? They must have helped out in some way for children to survive. How did Kalli go from point A (death of parents) to point B (self-aggrandizing winch operator)? That is too much of a gap. If there indeed is such a gap in the movie's storyline, then we need to be told that.
>>"When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home."
  • In a socially stratified society such as India's how does a wandering rural woman just arrive with her (presumably also wandering) mother at the home of two people she doesn't know? Where is the background? What happens then that wants to set up home? Wanderers, after all, are not attracted to the settled life, let alone being ill-equipped for it.
>>"Kumaran is the power plant's new supervising engineer. His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees his unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules."
  • How big is the village that its power plant has a "supervising engineer?" What is a supervising engineer? Why isn't "boss" enough for a plot which otherwise eschews details? How does anyone ride a winch (you still haven't explained)? How is the relationship difficult? There must be some specific behavior that causes friction. You need vignettes in between the abstractions to carry the reader with you. I could go on, but ... it is ultimately not a question of whether this article meets the FA prerequisites. It is more whether you want to write an article that communicates something about the movie to the reader. That is a question only you can answer. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
F&f comments of September 2019
[edit]
Note I have rewritten the plot in 700 words, which, I've been given to understand, is the upper limit of plot length. As my earlier oppose was based entirely on my reading of the plot, I can't very well continue to oppose the nomination. For that reason alone, I am withdrawing my oppose. Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 I have reinstated my oppose I have examined some other sections. I will post something here before the end of the day. (I have already rewritten the Plot section, so it won't be about that.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Development: (first paragraph)

>>>Sentence 1: Mullum Malarum, a novel written by Uma Chandran, was serialised in the mid-1960s in the Tamil magazine, Kalki.[1]

Comment: Mid-1960s is not precise enough. Whether it is Dickens or Uma Chandran, we need to know the range of serialization (from beginning month or week to end month or week).
Went with 1966 cause that's what Chakravarthy says. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Sentence 2: The novel, about the love between a brother and sister, (cite to "balu mahendra blog") won the first prize in Kalki's novel competition for the magazine's silver jubilee in 1966.[2][3]

Comment (a) A claim cannot be cited to a blog. (b) "Love between a brother and sister" is not complex enough description for an FA. More information is being supplied about the first prize than the content of the novel. (c) When so much is being cited to Tamil magazines (in an English language encyclopedia) we need the Tamil script and the English translation. Rather than my requesting it in each instance.
Removed the "love between a brother and sister" sentence altogether, though it was DOP Balu Mahendra's blog. But won't someone ask "what was the novel's premise"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>>Sentence 3: After screenwriter J. Mahendran had been pressured fruitlessly by many film producers to write for them, he solicited for novels to adapt, one of which was Mullum Malarum.[4]

Comment (a) "fruitlessly" can mean "uselessly, idly, vainly;" it can also mean "unsuccessfully.' Which sense is meant? (b) We are citing "fruitlessly," a charged word, to the director's memoirs. That is not WP:RS, especially not for "pressured fruitlessly." (c) Minor: you probably don't want "solicited for." Solicited is enough.
Went with unsuccessfully. Blofeld wrote this. He knows better English than me (not that mine is bad, I think in English), yet how is this grammatically wrong? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Sentence 4: Resonating with the egotistical character of the winch operator Kali, he began writing a script starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, without being faithful to the source material or even fully reading it.[5][6]

Comment (a) The first half of the sentence says: he was resonating with (i.e. was filled with) the egotistical character of Kali, but the second part does not allude to anything that springs out of egotism. The sentence becomes meaningless. If on the other hand, you had written, "Resonating with the egotistical character of Kali, he wrote a story of a megalomaniac who wanted to win at all costs, even if it meant selling his sister," it would have been a coherent sentence. (b) "Without being faithful" is incorrect because "egotism" is very much a part of Kali's character. (c) The sentence implies that Kali, or the character Kali is modeled on in the novel, was also a winch operator. Is this correct? If so, how is he not being faithful? You can, however, claim that he was not entirely faithful (d) "without being faithful to the source material or even fully reading it." Did he fully read it or not? Is there some doubt about that? If there is, it should not be mentioned in an encyclopedia. If there isn't, then the sentence should read, "without being entirely faithful to the source material and without even fully reading it." (e) The sentence is sourced to a directors reminiscences or memoir. That is not a secondary source. It can be used for some factual data, but not for sentences about the history of the writing. You need another text to quote him saying that, and to make some claim about that with evidence of the claim.
All this is the rewriting of Dr. Blofeld, a far better writer than me. I still don't understand what is confusing about this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say that the screenwriter (Mahendran) set about writing a screenplay filled with a striking aspect of the personality of the novel's hero, then you should be saying, "Resonating with the portrayal of the egotistical winch operator in the novel, he set about writing a script about two siblings, an analogous winch operator, and his sister, starting with their childhood as orphans." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>Sentence 5: Mahendran decided to make a minimalist, visually-focused film without formulaic Tamil cinema conventions such as melodrama, overacting, excessive dialogue or duets, claiming he wrote the screenplay as if it was a "personal diary" of his thoughts.[7]

Comment: (a) Again, the sentence is cited to a memoir. It is a primary source. Unless someone else quotes him saying that we cannot write that sentence in an encyclopedia. (b) We have no idea what the actual text says in translation, let alone whether the paraphrase is accurate. (c) I believe in an FAC the burden is on the nominator to provide both the script and the translation so that we can judge if the paraphrasing is correct. (d) Why is only the "personal diary" a claim? The whole sentence is a claim.

>>>>Sentence 6: Unlike the novel where Kali loses his arm to a tiger, in Mahendran's screenplay he loses it when it is mangled by a truck.[8]

Comment:' (a) What connection does this have with minimalist, visually-focused film, etc that was written as of it were a personal diary? (b) the sentence seems to be telling us that the novel and the screen-play are different. It properly belongs in the paragraph with the earlier claim about not being entirely faithful etc.

>>>>Sentence 7: The novel also ends with the deaths of Kali and his wife Manga, which Mahendran did not include in his screenplay.[9]

Comment: (a) Again, this belongs to the earlier bit about not being faithful etc. (b) You probably want, "In addition, the novel ends ..."
Wrote, "In addition, the novel ends". It does have a connect showing how "faithful" the script was to the novel. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>Sentence 8: One producer rejected the script because it lacked formula, and instead adapted Mahendran's play Rishi Moolam into a film.[7]

Comment: (a) What does it mean that it "lacked formula?" (b) What is the connection between lacking formula and Mahendran not including the deaths of Kali and his wife in the screenplay? Are deaths formulaic? (c) If you are referring to the formulaic elements referred to earlier, this sentence should be grouped with that? (d) Why is Rishi Moolam mentioned? Why is it notable for mention in the "Development" section?
"Lacked formula" means it lacked formula! Melodrama, overacting, excessive dialogue, duets, fight scenes, etc. It's clear he completed the script and a producer rejected it, instead preferring to play safe. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General comments: These are not ordinary issues of grammar. They are issues of coherence of the text, of using primary sources, of using sources in another language without giving us either the script or the translation. It would be best if you gave us both. These are not problems that can be easily fixed by an FAC reviewer unless they know the Tamil language, and unless they have access to the sources, and unless they are willing essentially to rewrite the article. To expect that, in my view, is to place too much burden on the reviewer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, if you have issues with me not giving you translated pages, here they are. If the text is illegible, I'll type it out for you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792 The Tamil language sources are the least of the problems in the sentences above. The bigger problem is the lack of coherence in the paragraph. This may be happening because you have been too pliable to the suggestions of reviewers who are themselves making errors or are not keeping tabs on the changes that are being wrought in the wake of their comments—and this can be one of the drawbacks of the FAC process. I see one complex sentence after another, each with a main clause and a subordinate one, one containing an independent action, the other a dependent one, carrying an air of inevitability, but the overall sequence not fitting logically. Let me demonstrate below with the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Development: (second paragraph)

>>>Sentence 1:When Mahendran considered quitting cinema and returning to journalism, Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films visited and offered him to direct his next venture.

Comment: (a) By putting "quitting cinema and returning to journalism" in a dependent clause, you have given it an air of inevitability. There is nothing inevitable about quitting cinema and returning to journalism. It is not like reaching middle age, which most people do. Rather, it is more like deciding to climb Mount Everest, which very few do. (b) At this point, we don't know that he ever had been a journalist, so "returning to journalism" comes as a surprise. (c) to "consider" is to contemplate. It is a private process, its deliberations or conclusions inaccessible to others. So, how did Venu Chettiar hear about this? (d) You could attempt to fix this by writing: When Mahendran let it be known (that) he was contemplating quitting cinema and returning to journalism, his former profession, ..." This would take care of objections (b) and (c) above, but not always (a). You may still need something to change it from a general action to a specific one, such as: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema and returning to his old profession of journalism, a producer, Venu Chettiar, visited him ...." (e) "offered him to direct" The verb "offer" can either take a direct object (him) or a verb complement with infinitive (to direct) but not both. So, we will need something like: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema and returning to his old profession of journalism, a producer, Venu Chettiar, of Ananthi Films, visited him and offered him a shot at directing his next venture." (f) This is almost OK; however, a new reader might puzzle over whose venture this will be, Mahendran's or Chettiar's. The sentence is ambiguous. So, in order to be truly encyclopedic you will need something like: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema and returning to his old profession of journalism, a producer, Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, visited him and offered him a shot at directing Ananthi Films' next venture." (g) Finally, you could ask, "Does the reader need to know about M's old profession?" "Does the reader need to know that Chettiar visited him? If you think s/he does not, then you could shorten the sentence to: "When in 1976, Mahendran let it be known he was considering quitting cinema, a producer, Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, offered him a shot at directing Ananthi Film's next venture." The sentence now is fine, but you still need to worry about whether it fits with the rest of the paragraph, and sometimes that requires many readings. So, you see, in one sentence alone, such, and such variety of, issues can turn up. So I hope you understand my dilemma. The errors are there, and they are not being fixed, or are being reintroduced in the light of disparate reviewers' comments. Unless the errors are fixed, how can I certify that this is FA material? The only solution, in the end, is for you to learn to do this yourself, confidently. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, now I've removed journalism and wrote, "Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films, a family friend of Mahendran, wanted to produce a film and offered Mahendran to direct it". Better? Since the translated pages I shared with you seem illegible for you to read (someone else wrote them when I asked), here is a version typed by me. Typing still going on, but I got the development details. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not OK. You seem to be doing this again and again. I point out errors in your text and point to a solution. Instead of fixing the errors, you rephrase the sentence radically, introducing new errors. (a) This is not a timeless tale you are telling. Things happened in space and time. When did the producer visit Mahendran and where? (b) What does it mean to say, "wanted to produce a film" about a producer? A producer, by definition, is always wanting to produce films. It is his livelihood. (c) Now we have a new unknown, "family friend." Why is that relevant? (d) I just told you above that the verb "observe" can take a direct object or a verb complement with an infinitive, but not both, but you are repeating the error (e.g. offered Mahendran to direct it.), (e) Also, I'm afraid the Mehendran reminiscences are not WP:RS. Please use only the Frontline article of Chakravarthy (Icon of Change), for this section, it has a good description in the "Formative Years," and "The Making of Mullum Mularam sections and it is a secondary source) (f) In any case, you can't present a typewritten translation at a non-Wikipedia web site. You have to present the Tamil script, and the English translation, on a subpage of the article's talk page. The Tamil script has to be in a form in which I can send it to a linguist to verify that the rendering is accurate or input short fragments into Google Translate. I'm not at all confident that the text cited to Mahendran's memoirs is reliably paraphrased, if for no reason other than your seeming to change it constantly. This is not looking good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was gonna use MY TYPEWRITING as a source! I shared it with you so you could PROOFREAD and tell me what was wrong! Sorry if it looked like yelling though. It's just that me, Ssven and Mr rnddude became quite annoyed with your behaviour (seems even Blofeld did), and while they have vented out their frustration (see what Ssven said), I haven't done it to the full extent. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My job here is not to be nice to people, only to ensure that WP guidelines are being followed. (For your information, and theirs, I have not read the links you have supplied, nor intend to. I also ignore your edit summaries about your state of mind, downbeat vs upbeat, in the wake of my comments.) You have to understand the problem. You have a good source, Chakravarthy, which has more information about "development" than the Tamil source you are using, whose paraphrasing besides keeps changing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "கல்கி இதழுக்கு வயது, 75!" [The Kalki magazine's age is 75!]. Dinamalar (in Tamil). 30 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 August 2018. Retrieved 30 August 2018.
  2. ^ Sadasivam, T. (28 August 1966). "Twenty-five Years of Kalki". Bhavan's Journal. Vol. 13. pp. 53–57. OCLC 500022666.
  3. ^ Selvaraj, N. (12 January 2015). "நாவல் – விருதுகளும் பரிசுகளும்" [Novel – Awards and prizes]. Thinnai (in Tamil). Archived from the original on 11 February 2015. Retrieved 30 August 2018.
  4. ^ Mahendran 2013, pp. 107–108.
  5. ^ Mahendran 2013, p. 106.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference flashbacks was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Mahendran 2013, p. 108.
  8. ^ Mahendran 2013, p. 106; Ramachandran 2014, p. 81.
  9. ^ Mahendran 2013, p. 121.

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all appear to be working
  • Formats
  • Ref 15 requires pp. not p.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42 requires p. not pp.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 60 does not provide sufficient information to identify or access the source. Is this DVD, CD or what? Can you provide the identifying code number?
Do you know what liner notes are? Alright, here is the link to the original LP cover (alternate link). But then, Discogs is not RS, is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise ref 68, which has the additional complication of Vaidyanathan
Here is the link to Mullu Puvvu's soundtrack. But then using Photobucket to display copyrighted content is not legal is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 82 is missing archive and retrieval dates.
The archiving never works correctly for subscription-only articles on this site. But I added the accessdate. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography includes "Rajinikanth 12.12.12..." etc – can you identify where this source is cited?
I've converted it into a proper ref. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in use of publisher location in the bibliography
It doesn't matter much, does it? I've removed all locations in the section as I feel it doesn't add much. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Veera Narayana

[edit]

Okay, the article has been really expanded when compared to the previous review, and I have the following issues with it.

Firstly, the plot:

  • "Although notorious for his escapades and self-aggrandising ways, he also does good deeds for the local community." -- Pleasee see if we can rephrase this into something more clear. IIRC, Kali is shown to have a good relationship with the villagers but we are not shown the good deeds he has done (or at least the version I saw did not contain them).
Ramachandran's plot says, "He has a reputation as a local hell-raiser, what with his regular escapades and self-aggrandizing ways. But he also does good deeds for the community from time to time". Anything confusing? Any better wording? But I think this shows Kali is both the mull and malar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-watched the film and understood one thing for sure. Kali (or Kaali for that matter) isn't a man doing good deeds, but is actually playing god. IMHO what all good deeds he does, he thinks it is a "favour" he has done to the community he lives in. However, i am not objecting your POV here because Mahendran shows a sequence where Kali is shown to be very friendly to everyone around and helping them in their errands. Hence, discounted. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules." -- Kali repeats twice in the same sentence.
Done, wrote "His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees his unruly side in a series of incidents, including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules." --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kali hated Manga right? The winch scene where he runs after her, was it a trigger to their future romance, even if it was one-sided?
Ramachandran's plot says, "Manga takes a shine to Kaali [this is how to pronounce his name] but he is disgusted with her gluttonous ways as her main focus in life is food". The next mention of Manga comes in "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." Any suggestion? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like, "Manga developed a liking for Kali, but he is particularly unimpressed with her obsession over food. As time passes, he begins to reciprocate her feelings."
  • "Although Manga opposes Kali's decision, he stubbornly refuses her plea to let his sister marry Kumaran." -- "Although" isn't necessary here IMO. Manga opposed and Kali denied. "Although" gives an impressions as if Manga isn't okay with the alliance but is going forward with Kali's plans.
Rewritten as "Manga opposes Kali's decision, but he stubbornly refuses her plea to let his sister marry Kumaran". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, off to the Production section. Much expanded compared to the previous review period :)

  • "He then developed a screenplay based on the novel, starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, according to his own wishes." -- own wishes? some rephrasing needs to be done in this aspect.
Yep. This source says, "But he wrote the screenplay the way he visualised it". I don't want to get into WP:QUOTEFARM. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, he's a screenwriter. He has the liberty to start the way he wishes to. What clarity needed here is that, is it deviating from the novel? If it was just the way he visualised it, the very mention of "own wishes" is sheer useless. Give it a thought. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously he deviated from the novel since he did not read it fully. How about this? He then developed a screenplay based on the novel, starting with the childhood of Kali and his sister Valli, without being faithful to the source material. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Veera Narayana 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mahendran believed Chettiar accepted because of the latter's belief that Mahendran would make a successful brother-sister film like the melodramatic Pasamalar (1961)." -- Mahendran repeats twice. If I understood the context correctly, Chettiar expected a Pasamalar-like film from Mahendran, though the latter had an approach that was raidcally different. Mahendran didn't want to betray Chettiar's trust in him and decided to be silent. If yes, please go for rephrasing.
This needs to be addressed. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Balu Mahendra said he avoided incorporating the usual hero-heroine dancing into the film because he thought it was like "watching two drunken monkeys dancing"" -- to whom did this man say?
During the audio launch of Angadi Theru, to the attendees. But that's not important is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Kamal Haasan asked Chettiar if he did not mind anyone else financing the scene, Chettiar agreed, and Haasan himself financed the scene" -- Can't we go for something like "Haasan convinced Chettiar, gained his consent, and financed the scene"?
Yes, sounds good. But I don't want people thinking Kamal pacified Chettiar into financing the scene. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten. Hope the current phrasing is good. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect to Chettiar, somehow the Production section has portrayed him as an eternal villain cynical of the film's success. I know this is unintentional, but don't you think it teases the neutrality aspect?
I believed this does, so I'll leave it to Ssven2. Let him read Mahendran's book (yes, I shared the pages with him) and see if any correction/addition needs to be made. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will get around to it tomorrow as I am a little more freer then.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait. No worries. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to the themes, I don't know from when Rajinikanth was politically active, but 1978 was too early to make assumptions. He wasn't even a proper lead actor with a noticeable stardom then. Why should we see it as Rajinikanth's resentment on AIADMK? If there is no proper justification to this, it is better you bid goodbye to this point.

The source reads, "J Ramki in his book Rajni: Sapthama? Sagaapthama? writes that Rajnikanth had ruffled a few feathers in the ruling AIADMK since his Mullum Malarum (1978), where he sings ‘raman aandaalum raavanan aadaalum enakkoru kavalai illai [I don’t care if Raman rules the state or Raavanan]'." I believe it was (and still is) allegorical, like Padayappa vs Neelambari reflected Rajini vs Jaya. So can it be rephrased or simply removed? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. MM was his breakthrough. If he hurt AIADMK's feelings, it is the film's issue, not the actor's. Place any actor there, and the result is still the same. Because the man on screen wasn't a star even then. Rajinikanth vs Jayalalitha is a different issue, as he openly took a stand against her and the references were clear in Muthu, Arunachalam and Padayappa. So, i believe this should be either removed, or needs to be mentioned as an impact of the song's lyrics on the then-existing political scenario. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as it is not helpful any longer, and also reduces clutter in the section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going further, i am unable to understand what would the guys at Ananda Vikatan compare the film with Kurinji flowers. I mean why? is it the rarity? uniqueness? visual beauty? subtle colour? Why?

Most probably rarity. This once glorious icon translated the last line of Vikatan's review in his now-unusable book as "This flower is one of those rarest Kurinchi flowers in Tamil Cinema". Can I write the reviewer likened it to Kurinchi flowers because of its rarity? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Legacy, don't you think we can mention the usage of "Raman Aandalum" in Petta's climax? BR says in his review of Petta, "My favourite nod, though, has to be Anirudh’s number, ‘Marana Mass’. It isn’t till the end of the film that you realise the song is a tribute to (and an extension of) a famous Rajini number that was equally percussion-heavy and also sung by SP Balasubrahmanyam."

Sounds good, I'll added this additional source since BR's review doesn't say "mullum" or "raman". --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Veera Narayana 21:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a Prime account, you can watch it with subs and clarify any plot details. The annual subscription pack isn't so expensive. Since I plan on watching the film again from scratch (the last time was a pirated copy on YT, this time will be Prime), I do not want to ruin it by watching bits and pieces. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recommendation. As i said earlier, the playing god aspect was the only thing i could highlight in this viewing. Let me know once you are done with the above comments of mine. Veera Narayana 11:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Veera Narayana, I've tried to down the negativity regarding Chettiar. Please check now. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the timely responses. Given that my concerns are met, i support this article's promotion to FA. Regards, Veera Narayana 11:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude

[edit]
Point taken

I'll preface this by stating that I have absolutely zero knowledge whatsoever on the topic of cinema. Moreover, when I copy-edit or review prose, I read the article from bottom to top (a copy-editing trick I learned from Tony1). My comments are strictly related to FA1a (i.e. a prose review) So much for that, my comments are not just 1a related after all.

Legacy
[edit]
In 2006, director S. Shankar said - I have two questions here. Which variation of Eng are you writing the article in (BrEng/AmEng/other)? and "director" of what? (I suspect "film director" or similar). There's other instances of "director" with no explanation of "director of what".
... but never got to make any - Is his career over? If no, then past is the wrong tense to use.
No, he says, "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects." Or is this sentence best removed? Your call. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the sentence, but it needs a modification in tense. Unfortunately this is a tough one to modify, but perhaps change "never got" to "has not had the opportunity to". Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
resolved
"Raman Aandalum" was later featured in the climax of Petta - What? I haven't the foggiest what this means.
One source reads, "My favourite nod, though, has to be Anirudh’s number, ‘Marana Mass’. It isn’t till the end of the film that you realise the song is a tribute to (and an extension of) a famous Rajini number that was equally percussion-heavy and also sung by SP Balasubrahmanyam". The other reads, "Things, in fact, get pretty literal in the climax with Rajini dancing to 'Raman aandalum Ravana aandalum' from Mullum Malarum, clearly taking us all back to the year his stardom began." Whether this is best rewritten or removed is your call. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the musical piece, not the line from the film. Ok. Perhaps note that in prose, e.g. "The musical piece "Raman aandalum" features in the climax of Petta (Date?). This brings up a new question for me regarding spelling. Under music you write "Raman Aandaalum", but in Legacy and Themes you write "Raman aandalum". Are they both correct, or is one a typo, or something else? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I write the song name, I begin both words in caps. When writing the lyric, I begin only proper nouns in caps. Now should I capitalise each word in the lyrics for consistency? I don't mind either way, but we should stick to the rules. Since the song has been introduced under "Themes" and "Music", I don't feel the need to re-introduce it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to capitalisation. I'll bold the difference "Raman aandalum" vs "Raman aandaalum". Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph, as a whole, is messy. It opens with a comment about "Rajinikath's on-screen name", pivots to a "director"'s opinion on Rajinikanth's performance, pivots to Rajinikanth's favourite films for two sentences, and then pivots round to a piece of dialogue that "attained popularity". There's no rhyme or reason here. For one, shouldn't Ratnam's comments about the performance be in the third paragraph, alongside Shankar's, Kathir's and Rajinth's, or; in the first paragraph directly after the sentence "became a breakthrough for Rajinikanth"? For two, what is the central theme of the paragraph: a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering?
Gayathri Sreekanth - Who? Don't assume the reader knows why a person's opinion is significant.
... "from youngsters to the families and the women." - MOS prefers quotation marks to come before periods.
Having read through "Legacy" I have a broad comment. You need to think about what you want to discuss in each paragraph. An example of a structure: First, a paragraph on the effect of the film on Tamil cinematography, then a paragraph on Rajinikanth's role and future career, and finally a paragraph on other industry specialists opinions of the film.
Now I've decided the Legacy section should be more like an "Impact" section. So please re-assess and tell me what can be removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
[edit]
resolved
He also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor - Who's he? (I assume Rajinikanth, but this doesn't gel with the preceding sentence that talks about awards Mullum Malarum (the film) had received)
Yes, Rajinikanth only. But I did not want to repeat his name in close-paraphrasing. So what to do? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: Mullum Malarum won the Filmfare Award for Best Film – Tamil,[83] and two awards at the Tamil Nadu State Film Awards: Best Film, and Special Prize for Rajinikanth,[84][32] who also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor.[85]? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... as part of the Indian Panorama - What is the Indian Panorama? (Google says it's a tour operator and a restaurant in Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia). Explain the significance of things.
I'm not an expert on film festivals, so anyone may check the source and rewrite. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Myself even less so. I'll assume western bias on my end. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that I could be affected by a western bias here. If this was the Cannes Film Festival, for example, I wouldn't have bat an eye. So, if you'd expect that any Indian readers to know what you're talking about, then perhaps disregard this comment.
I've added a footnote saying what Indian Panorama is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... saying that "With this film, the talented actor dispelled whatever doubts remained about his acting ability" - When you incorporate a quote into a sentence starting with a capital letter, you can modify it to remove that capital letter like so: ... saying that "[w]ith his film, the talented actor ...". Always note a modification with square brackets. There are multiple places you can do this.
I've transferred this to Legacy section. But please check the current phrasing. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
[edit]
resolved
Critical response? I read it as "Critical reception" at first because that's what I'd expect the section to be entitled.
Rewritten that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ramachandran claimed Mahendran achieved a milestone, which even if Ramachandran had desired, could not have achieved - This is poor English not to mention illogical.
Rewrote as "Ramachandran stated that Mahendran had reached a milestone beyond expectations". --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He added that Mahendran demonstrated clearly that cinema is a "visual medium" and had succeeded in that also - Here I was thinking that cinema was all about the smells and tastes. Moreover, succeeded in what? "demonstrat[ing] ... that cinema is a 'visual medium'"? Because you already said that in the first half of the sentence. Again, poor English.
Ramachandran said the films which came till this point on brother-sister relationships were full of dramatics, including his own, but Mullum Malarum stood apart and stood tall in realism - Not the cleanest bit of prose. Propose: "Ramachandran [said/commented that] the depiction of brother-sister relationships in film up to this point were full of [dramatics/melodrama], even in his own, but [that] Mullum Malarum stood apart in its [realism/realistic representation]". I'm not sure how "that" is used in AmEng, but it'd be necessary here in BrEng.
Rewritten as per this proposition. I went with dramatics as that is more accurate. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He said the last scene was new not only to Tamil cinema but also to Indian cinema - Maybe this is elucidated upon earlier in the article, but, if not, then explain what scene is being referred to. You might also replace "last" with "closing" or "final" scene.
Went with final scene. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mullum Malarum was well received at the times of its initial release ... - times? how many times could it have received an "initial release"?
Blame it on the GOCE. I've changed it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... with commentators applauding it for establishing cinema as a "visual medium" ... - This is the second time I see this. Prior to Mallum Malarum, what kind of medium was cinema? Because afaik cinema has been "established" as a "visual medium" (and later as an audio-visual medium) since its inception.
Apparently, Tamil films before this were mostly merely photographed plays, with excessive and loud dialogue which only a few filmmakers like Ellis R. Dungan and C. V. Sridhar avoided. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The writer of a 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu stated that the film reflected the trend of making films ... - Nitpicky, but if there's a trend then maybe you could briefly mention other significant contributors to it.
The reviewer further noted that Rajinikanth "shows his mature ... ." - I'd modify the quote to fit the past tense of the rest of the sentence: show[ed]. You have another instance of ." instead of ". here.
Done, wrote The reviewer further noted that Rajinikanth showed "his mature artistry in a portrayal of a turbulent illiterate worker with a blind passion for his sister." --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer also praised Mahendran's filmmaking skills ... and rating it 61 out of 100 - This seems rather a low score for a film receiveing high praise. 61/100 is a failing grade (D-) in the U.S, and it rather indicates mediocrity to me (note, I'm not saying the film is mediocre, just that I'd expect a higher score coupled with the praise).
Ironically, the magazine's highest score for a film was 62.5 out of 100. And it is seen as acclaim. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well that would Mullum Mallarum in the 97% percentile, which would be an A+ by an grading system. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Release and receptions
[edit]
resolved
It was also dubbed in Telugu as Mullu Puvvu, and was released in 1979 - you don't need the second "was" in this sentence.
Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... let to a delay in the film's release - Led, not let.
Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
[edit]
resolved
... the film's theme is "that people change—and they must" - main theme, central theme? it's clearly not the only theme as implied in this sentence.
How about "According to XYZ, the film stresses "that people change—and they must"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, yes. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He plays God, allowing the villagers to ride the winch (saving them the exertion of walking), and is jolted when supervising engineer Kumaran arrives - First issue, that's the wrong conjuction to use. Second issue, there is no explanation of why Kali "is jolted" by Kumaran's arrival. Moreover, regarding [a]s a subordinate, Kali cannot oppose Kumara, what is Kali desiring to oppose? [H]is frustration - what frustration, why is he frustrated? I legitimately have no idea what is happening in this paragraph. It jumps too quickly without enough depth. I get that this has to do with "allowing the villages to ride the winch", but it's not clear what the friction between Kali and Kumaran is. Is Kumaran a stickler for procedure? If so, does he order Kali to do/not do something. E.g. "don't let the villagers ride the winch". Thereby annoying Kali who doesn't like being told what to do? Basically, what is happening between these two characters that I need to know, because I have insufficient data here.
Now I've removed the third paragraph (except for the first line) because the ref count won't decline. Has this solved/averted any confusion? Please see. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Averted it? yes. Solved it? a bit brute forced, but sure. I've found the pages in question in Ramachandran's book and read them for myself. I can see why you've written it the way you have. Ramachandran is being tight on words and expects the reader to know what is being discussed (presumably by watching the movie). The material may have some value in demonstration. I made an attempt at rewriting: "Ramachandran regards egotism as one of Mullum Malarum's central themes, identifying Kali as the alpha male of his community, surrounded by sycophants who [compliment/praise/adulate] him. Kali wields [clout/power] as winch operator at the power plant, [using/abusing] it to give villagers a free ride on the trolley, thus saving them the exertion of walking. The arrival of Kumaran, a rule-enforcing supervising engineer, generates friction with Kali, who as a subordinate, cannot [effectually/truly] reject the engineer's authority. His frustration escalates, boiling over after he is suspended for abandoning his post. His feelings can be summarised in the line: "Raman aandaalum, Ravanan aandaalum, enakku oru kavalai illai, naan thaan da en manasukku raaja" (It doesn't matter whether Rama or Ravana is reigning, I am king of my conscience)".{{sfn|Ramachandran|2014|pp=79–82}} Honestly, I don't think I did any better with the material available than you did. I'm fine with just removing the third paragraph if that's easier. I'll come back to the matter of the "winch", discussed above by Fowler&Fowler, later. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In their 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan ... - How do I know these aren't a couple of Joe Bloggs from down the street? introduce them. Same with S. Rajanayagam in paragraph 1.
P. C. Balasubramanian is an entrepreneur, author and speaker. Ram N. Ramakrishnan is an accountant. Do I say, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan, authors of the 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini? Because their occupation seems irrelevant. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The change wouldn't make a difference, and I agree, their occupations are irrelevant. I tend to work in an academic area of the encyclopedia (ancient history), and for me, the opinions of an accountant or unqualified author would be too insubstantial to include. There's an expectation that opinions will be cited to experts or qualified academics. However, film isn't academia, and so the same expectation may not be held. Dr. Blofeld, could I request your opinion on this point, since film is more your area than it is mine. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... the Oedipal [sic] possessiveness ... - Why is [sic] here? Oedipal is correct afaik.
Oedipus complex means "the complex of emotions aroused in a child by an unconscious sexual desire for the parent of the opposite sex". That is why I put the sic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, because Valli is Kali's sibling not parent, hence the reference to the Oedipus complex is out of place. Got it. I thought you were referring to the spelling. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... he puts henna on her feet at night while she sleeps - I'm afraid the link didn't help, all I got was that it's a paint and is used in body art. Is there some cultural/religious/customary significance to this act?
The actual term is mehndi, but Ramachandran got it wrong. Kali basically applied it on Valli's feet at night as an act of kindness, in contrast to an earlier scene where he berated her during the day. But it doesn't help much so I've removed it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that works too. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Themes section is another confused one. In the first paragraph the last sentence is tacked on and doesn't relate with anything preceding it, nor is it built upon. Here at least I can see a flow, but it's disjointed. I can see that most of the themes revolve around Kali and Valli's relationship first, and then between Kali and Kumaran, as it relates to Valli, secondarily. There's other bits randomly strewn about. All the pieces are there, I think, but they don't flow.
I have thoroughly exhausted myself right now; I'll see about coming back to this tomorrow. I can see that a lot of work has gone into the article, but I can also see that there's a fair amount of work to do. Prose here isn't just correcting typos, punctuation and grammar. It's about getting the reader to go from sentence to sentence and be able to follow what's happening and understand why. There are places where I'm just left wondering "wait, what? why is this here?" I'll refrain from !voting at this time. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anything just doesn't seem to add up or help at all, it is best removed. Here is the link to Naman Ramachandran's book Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography for you to do fact-checking. The film is covered from page 80 onwards. I once felt an article needs to have as many refs as possible to stay afloat, but that's no longer the case. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and hidden the resolved matters, and left a couple of comments. I've still got to go through production, plot and the lede. I'll post those comments when I am done. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Filming
[edit]
resolved
... but Mahendran's friend Pazhaniappan convinced Chettiar and agreed to pay for the Sringeri shooting schedule - I can read this two ways. Pazhaniappan agreed to pay the cost, or Chettiar agreed to pay the cost. If the latter then "convinced Chettiar, who agreed to pay for the Sringeri shooting schedule". If the former, did he convince him "by agreeing to pay the cost"? I.e. "convinced Chettiar by agreeing to pay for the Sringeri shooting schedule".
Pazhaniappan agreed to pay for the shooting there. Hope that solves it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once while passing through Pondicherry, Mahendran saw an Uriyadi game. Inspired, he decided to include two Uriyadi scenes in the film which were not originally in the script. - Mmm... weak prose and two short sentences that should be tied together. "Whilst passing through Pondicherry, Mahendran witnessed a game of Uriyadi, which inspired him to include two Uriyadi scenes in the film which were not originally [part of the/in the] script".
Merged into one sentence. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uriyadi is a South Indian game in which the blindfolded participant must smash an earthen pot with a long stick, while being spun around by others disorienting them from the pot's location - "the blindfolded participant", you say this as if it had already been previously established. It ought be "in which a blindfolded participant".
There is only one person trying to hit the pot, that's why I said the participant. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess this is just me. It seems off to me to use "the" at first instance. For example, if I was describing what a football team (European) was I'd say: "A team of eleven players composed of strikers, midfielders, defenders, and a goalkeeper". I wouldn't say: "... of strikers, midfielders, defenders, and the goalkeeper". But, apparently both forms are acceptable. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mahendran, Chettiar never arrived at the shooting spot - What shooting spot? any shooting spot? There's multiple shooting spots, and it's not at all clear which spot wasn't visited.
Basically, anywhere the film was being shot. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but that's not clear in text. You have "the shooting spot", which indicates that you're commenting about "a specific shooting spot", not about all or any of them. It needs a rewrite. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mahendran, Chettiar was discontent with the budget escalating, refusing to finance a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil". Haasan won Chettiar over and financed the scene. - This should be a single sentence: "According to Mahendran, Chettiar was discontent with the budget escalating, [initially/at first] refusing to finance a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but he was won over by Haasan and ultimately financed the scene". I assume Chettiar financed this scene. If Haasan financed the scene then change "and ultimately" to "who".
It was Haasan who financed the scene after getting permission from Chettiar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I still think it ought be one sentence. In this case: "According to Mahendran, Chettiar was discontent with the budget escalating, [initially/at first] refusing to finance a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but he was won over by Haasan who [ultimately] financed the scene". Ultimately is entirely optional, and probably unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done exactly as suggested, without ultimately. Since it was the veteran Dr. Blofeld (not that Blofeld) who rewrote large parts of the article, including this sentence, I'm still surprised why it is considered confusing and bad grammar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
resolved
Mullum Malarum's final length was 3,915.46 metres (12,846.0 ft) - Usually a film's length is given in time. Presumably you mean the length of the film reel.
Yep. Amended to "Mullum Malarum's final reel length was 3,915.46 metres (12,846.0 ft)". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Casting
[edit]
resolved
She was eventually cast as Valli, Sarath Babu as the engineer Kumaran and Fatafat Jayalaxmi as Manga - "alongside Sarath Babu ...".
Done as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Latha said that she had to refuse a part in the film due to scheduling conflicts - Significance?
Agreed, she didn't mention which role (though most likely heroine), and removed. I recall Mahi once saying this was not true, but I wrote from her perspective. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Male supporting roles were played by S. A. Kannan, Pazhaniyappan, Dasaradan, Rangamani, Sarathi, Santhanam, Kumarimuthu, Jothi Shanmugham, Chellappa, Amalraj, Poondigiri and Vairam Krishnamoorthy. Female supporting roles were played by Santhamma, Jayakumari, Vijaya, Jaya, Pushpa, Radha, Prema, Vasanthi, Leela and Kala. - Is it typical to rattle off a list of names of actors like this? Cause it looks weird and unnecessary to me.
Yep, because otherwise someone would keep adding all actor names with unsourced character names (in the credits only the actor's names appear, character names don't). If I remember what was the name of Kumarimuthu's character, I'd add it here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Development
[edit]
resolved
Mullum Malarum was a novel written by Uma Chandran - It is a novel written by Uma Chandran. Change the tense.
Done this way. But how about, "Mullum Malarum, a novel written by Uma Chandran, was serialised in the mid-1960s in the Tamil magazine, Kalki"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, even better. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
[edit]
resolved
Relieved that Valli still respects him, Kali then tells Kumaran - remove "then" here as it's unnecessary.
Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and asks Kali for permission to marry her - more typically "asks for Kali's permission".
Done, but I hope it doesn't suggest there's incest. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She decides to arrange Valli's marriage with Kumaran without Kali's consent - "Valli's marriage to Kumaran". You get married "to" someone. E.g. I am married to my wife, or, I am married to my husband. See above where you write "to marry her".
Done this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unemployed, Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran, and Manga feels responsible for Kali's plight - "while Manga feels responsible ...".
Done this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On Valli's request, she marries Kali and takes care of him - "At Valli's request ..."
Done this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One day, when Kali is on duty, Manga teases him; he abandons the winch and chases her - "One day, while Kali is on duty, he is teased by Manga into abandoning the winch and chasing [after] her". In any case "when" should be "while".
The following day, Kumaran suspends Kali from his job for negligence of duty, ignoring his protests and threats - You used a thesaurus for "negligence of duty", didn't you? It's "dereliction of duty" for a reason, being that it's a legal term. Moreover, I'd propose: "The following day, Kali is suspended from his job for dereliction of duty by Kumaran, who ignores his protests and threats".
Done this way, but you read the plot in Ramachandran's book and understood the situation right? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong: Kali, enticed by Manga, abandoned his station to go "frolick" in the water with her (p. 79). While he is gone, there's an emergency at the power plant (don't know what it is), and because of his absence during this emergency he receives a temporary suspension from Kumaran for "dereliction of duty" (pp. 79–80). Kali protests the suspension, to no avail, and so he goes off, gets drunk and ends up passing out on the street, where a truck rolls over his arm. He is taken to the hospital where his arm is amputated, at Kumaran's expense (financially). Because of the amputation, Kali can't keep working at the power plant and is laid off, with Kumaran bringing him the bad news. This leads Kali to develop a bitter resentment of Kumaran. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have another broad comment about the plot section: It focuses too heavily on short sentences, and lacks certain flow. I'll address that a bit later, I must leave now. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Fowler&fowler: @Mr rnddude: Sorry to butt in. I managed to find the movie with the English subtitles. Have watched about half an hour. After Kalli and his sister are orphaned, they become street performers (acrobats) managed by an older boy who exploits them. They are homeless, take to begging, and to sleeping on the street. What Kalli has are anger issues, unresolved anger towards authority figures, especially unsympathetic ones. He's neither self-aggrandizing nor hell raising, mostly just unable to control his anger when he sees injustice. There are several early examples of his behaviour in which he either beats up people or damages their property. For his job, he operates an inclined elevator, a box car on tracks, which is winched down a hill many miles to a power house, and then winched back up again, carrying the employees. Manga and her mother are not wanderers, but residents of a drought-stricken nearby town, who have arrived in Kalli's village looking for work. The problem between Kumaran, the new divisional engineer at the power house, and Kalli have little to do with differing "work ethics." Kumaran is on the whole sympathetic to Kalli's erratic behaviour, cutting him slack, ignoring the gossip mongers, attempting to independently verify the events. ... And so it goes. ... Writing is a compact between an author and the reader. We expect the author to be faithful to the version of reality they have encountered. What we have here is a plot that is not quite the plot of the movie. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, Fowler&fowler. What Kalli has are anger issues, unresolved anger towards authority figures .... I had interpolated that the friction between Kali and Kumaran related to "issues with authority", but there was little explanation why. For his job, he operates an inclined elevator - Yes, I managed to catch onto that detail: ... he gets to play god when he gives villagers a free ride ... on the power plant's trolley of which he is the suzerain. Manga and her mother are not wanderers ... - To be fair to Kailash, Ramachandran does say they are "poor itinerant"s. Thanks for taking the time to share. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes in the plot as per Fowler's suggestions, and removed the "work ethics" part in the lead. Replaced "Though notorious locally for his self-aggrandising, hell-raising ways" with "Though notoriously ill-tempered". This better? Did he watch the reminder of the movie and find changes needing to be made? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now watched the movie with English subtitles, and rewritten the plot in 700 words, which I believe is the upper limit of plot lenghth. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Fowler&fowler, your help will never be forgotten. Mr rnddude, just pinging you to check the rewritten plot. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will revisit this again in the next 24 hours. That will be to conclude the review. Oh, while I'm here, I don't know what's happened, because I don't recall seeing it before, but there's about 40 instances of "Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)" in the references now. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy revisited
[edit]
Rajinikanth's dialogue "Ketta paiyan sir avan" (He is a bad boy) attained popularity. - Without additional explanation this comes across as trivia, which should be removed.
Removed, since although popular, hardly as much as "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Themes revisited
[edit]
He noted that films like Mullum Malarum stereotype the poor as representing "all that is pristine and traditional", adding that the "overall socio-economic system, which has made them poor, is unchallenged. Within the system, however, the hero will be 'richer' in terms of his moral uprightness" - As I said previously, this has no relationship with the preceding material. It sticks out like a sore thumb. At bare minimum, change the start of the sentence to read "[Additionally/In addition], he noted ..." or "He additionally noted".
Went with additionally. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the French film historian Yves Thoraval - You don't include anybody else's ethnicity when introducing them, so why is it necessary for Yves Thoraval?
Alright, removed. Maybe because he was the only foreign being mentioned in the article. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, the second paragraph still has no rhyme or reason. What is the subject being discussed? It pivots from idea to idea with no flow or link. The last paragraph, for example, barring the first sentence, is quite good. It sticks to a single theme "that people change—and they must". Which is explained by referring to significant plot moments, culminating in Kali's "change". That does not exist in the paragraph preceding it.
... describe Kali as "the loving brother, the angry worker and despondent physically challenged person rolled into one" - These are character traits, not a theme.
Nixed. I fear I'm becoming like her because of what she did over here. But never mind, because no-one dies here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... differentiated the film from Pasamalar because "the sister is allowed to register her rebellion against her brother" - This needs more detail. Why does her being "allowed to" rebel matter? Also, on concise prose, why "allowed to register her rebellion" instead of "allowed to rebel"? What's the difference?
Nixed the sentence altogether. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He also noted that the film ends with Kali relenting to Valli's desire to marry the man she wishes but not before he tells Kumaran that he still dislikes him, "which makes the film open-ended with a feel that life goes on" - This seems more relevant to the third paragraph.
Shifted, now rewriting needed? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ramachandran notes that Kali, like Rajinikanth's character in Bairavi (1978), is responsible for his sister's welfare - What's the theme here? Duty to family? As written, it just refers to a state of affairs, not a theme.
How about, Ramachandran compared Kali to Rajinikanth's character in Bairavi (1978) as both are responsible for their sisters' welfare? But Ramachandran made an error, saying that both films have the brother being responsible for his sisters' welfare due to abusive parent(s), which was true only in Bairavi. In MM, it's because they're orphans. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Bairavi, the siblings in Mullum Malarum are not separated; this leads Kali's protectiveness of Valli to the brink of obsession - More closely related to Thoraval's assessment, then it is to the above sentence.
Maybe both statements about Bairavi vs MM should come after Thoraval. That a good idea? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
[edit]
A general comment first: there's a lot of 1-2 line paragraphs in that section, and an even greater preponderence of short sentences. Now I've never written a plot summary for an article before, but it looks unprofessional to me.
Paragraph two is a particular offender: The film fast forwards to the present time. Kali and Valli are living in Athipatti village. Kali is an employee of a nearby powerhouse. I think sentence 1 would fit better as a close to paragraph 1. Sentence 2 and 3 should be a single opening sentence: "Kali and Valli live in Athipatti village, where Kali is a worker employed at a nearby powerhouse". Do Kali and Valli live together? or in separate homes?
... and talks to Kali about letting them use of the vacant house next door - Either remove "of" or change "use of" to "make use of". Whichever was intended.
Kali meanwhile has been assaulting fellow employees ... - Either "Kali, meanwhile, has been ..." or "Meanwhile, Kali has been ...".
... whom he suspects of snitching on him to Kumaran. Kali is given a last warning. - What? Who gave the last warning, what is the last warning, what's the consequence of failing to follow through? Suspension, termination, etc.
In his absence, a child has needed medical attention ... - Why split paragraphs here? You also didn't need to split Elsewhere, on the Chinnamanur canal's bank ....
The next day Kali is suspended for 10 days - "Kali receives a 10 day suspension for ..." (presumably dereliction of duty). "The next day ..." doesn't seem all that significant, so you can cut it to save words.
... known for his roving eye ... - Meaning?
An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli. Valli is crushed but remains silent - This should be one sentence: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, but remains silent".
At the ceremony, Manga knocks a platter of betel leaves—whose acceptance affirms the engagement—out of Kali's hand. Kali is furious at his wife and batters her head against the wall – Propose slight change of the second sentence to: "Furious with his wife, Kali batters her head against the wall". Batters or bashes? Which fits better?
Manga remains unrepentant - Hang on, hang on, what the fuck? Manga is unrepetant? That comes off very poorly, particularly given the beating she's just received.
Kali triumphantly reminds the onlookers that he remains the most important man in his sister's life. Although his dislike of Kumaran lingers, his ego assuaged, he offers his blessings for the wedding - So did he actually change, or is his ego just sufficiently massaged? (I ask because this scene is the basis for the third paragraph of themes)
I appreciate that there's a limit of 700 words, but the writing is too terse, un(der-)refined, and lacking in detail in several places.
Pinging Fowler&fowler since you primarily conducted the rewrite for the plot section. That's all I have, but I am compelled to borrow F&F's words, [t]hese are not ordinary issues of grammar[—t]hey are issues of coherence of text, with regard to themes. As a final note, the unhatted comments from my initial review have not been adequately addressed (imo). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations @Mr rnddude: on writing such a relevant critique. Congratulations also on the lame sarcasm. Did you view the movie? The clear answer is: no. Did the nominator view the movie? The clear answer is: not any time recently. Can you read what the edit summary says for the quick notes I made when I finished watching the movie? It says, "(stopping; authors can decide what to keep and what to not, in keeping with lit-crit & film-crit guidelines Best regards)" What does that tell you? It means I was giving you the factual events as they unfolded in the movie. Can I refresh your memory with doozies you were lobbing back and forth before I appeared? Doozy1: "a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home" (Not a wanderer, just mother and daughter escaping the drought. Was the mother "aged?" Not any more aged than any 22 year old woman's mother is. I listened to movie carefully enough to figure out the name of the town they had come from and to give you the WP link (Ilaiyangudi) for it. It turns out really is a drought-prone area. (Here was my original version: "On the Chinnamanur canal's bank, where she is cleaning a fish she has just caught, Valli meets a young woman, Manga, and her mother, who have arrived from Ilaiyangudi, a drought-stricken town. Both strangers are hungry, and the mother is looking for work. Valli feeds them, gives them shelter in the balcony of the thatched cottage she shares with Kali, talks to Kali about allowing them the use of the vacant house next door, and hints at the mother's suitability for a job that has opened up. Kali at first feigns impatience with his sister at taking in strangers, but soon relents.") That was before I was told I had to reduce it by 300 words. Doozy2: "including allowing people to ride the winch" (How were they doing that? Spinning around on the drum? And when I told you what they were riding after watching the first half hour, you responded by playing wiseguy with me. At least the others thanked me. Really you knew everything all along? Well, why didn't you change it in over a week? Why did I have to find all the links: first inclined elevator, then after wondering if it might not be rack rail—I had to examine the wheels carefully in the movie to figure out that it was a converted brake van which was being used as a cable railway. I even went on the internet to find the site in Ooty (perhaps) where such a system might exist. And, you can't google "roving eye," which means "a tendency to flirt or be constantly looking to start a new sexual relationship" and change it to something encyclopedic? Roving eye might not be encyclopedic but it is more accurate than "philandering grocer" which was in place earlier, (to philander means to engage in casual sexual or romantic encounters) It is not clear that Murgesa, the grocer, did anything beyond making attempts. And I did not mean"bash" I meant "batter," because he did it repeatedly. And what the heck is your next remark about? She is unrepentent. Not in the sense of not repenting for her sins, but in the sense of unapologetic. What do you think I meant? Here is Webster's: "unrepentent: 2. feeling or showing no inclination to change : UNAPOLOGETIC" Unlike Valli, that is, who was sobbing, and saying sorry between sobs, Manga was resolutely unrepentent. "Last warning" were words spoken in English in the movie. Clearly, they meant "final warning," "very last warning." It is not like the expression is not used. Check Google. If you don't like it, change it. And really "suspended for ten days?" You think it ever means hang for ten days? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I forgot. In your "resolved" Filming section, you must have divined that a participant in the sport of Uriyadi is not really blindfolded. For, in the movie, none were. Also "earthen pot" is the same as a "bag of rice," for what they were striking in the sport (not game) of Uriyadi in the movie did not look anything like a pot. You must have also divined that "marine" environment in that same section ("Mahendran also decided to characterise Manga as a "meen paithiyam" (meaning a "foodie who loves fish") after being inspired by Sringeri's marine environment.") is the same as "riverine" because that town is nowhere near the ocean. Not to mention divining that Mahendran is talking through his hat because Manga just loved to eat fish she could catch in the Chinnamanur canal, in her humble village of Athipatti, whereas "foodie" means "a person having an avid interest in the latest food fads," not to mention also divining that the word "foodie" was first used in 1980 and the movie was made in 1978. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I re-watched the film, I saw that the "Uriyadi" participant was neither blindfolded nor smashing a pot. However, in his memoir, Mahi still called those two scenes in the film as Uriyadi scenes. Or maybe with time the rules have changed. What do I do?! Remove the footnote or rewrite? But Uriyadi sadly does not have its own article (Nope, this ain't it). In this 2013 interview Mahi said, "I always observe things happening around at the shooting location and try to incorporate them in my film. For the Rajnikanth starrer Mullum Malarum, which we shot at Sringeri in Karnataka, I decided on the characterisation of Fatapat Jayalakshmi( she plays Manga, Rajnikanth’s wife in the film). She is a foodie who loves fish. This came to me after I observed how there were water bodies and fish everywhere on the location! The song ‘Nitham Nitham Nellu Choru’ enhanced her character." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler - What is your problem? Congratulations also on the lame sarcasm - I havent employed sarcasm. What are you referring to? Did you view the movie? The clear answer is: no - That's right, and I'd originally only intended to look at the prose. And when I told you what they were riding after watching the first half hour, you responded by playing wiseguy with me - I had said I'd get back to the matter of the winch, which you'd pointed out in your review: I'll come back to the matter of the "winch", discussed above by Fowler&Fowler, later at 07:09, 31 August 2019. I had just been through the relevant section of Ramachandran's book, and I had a general idea as to what was meant. Your comment affirmed my thoughts. So yes, I knew; sorry for mentioning it? Well, why didn't you change it in over a week - I avoid editing articles I'm reviewing except to address typos or obvious errors "p/pp" or a double period for example. And "I knew" less than a day before you pointed it out. And, you can't google "roving eye," - It was meant to be a gentle prod about using euphemistic language which is discouraged because it's not readily accessible to non-native speakers. In your "resolved" Filming section, you must have divined that a participant in the sport of Uriyadi is not really blindfolded - What? I don't know anything about Uriyadi, besides that it receives a mention in Pinata (Uri adithal) and that it does involve breaking a pot whilst blindfolded. That's the sum of my knowledge on that subject. Did you not deride me for not watching the film earlier in your comment? Why then do you think I know the details of what took place in the film? I have also not divined any of the other things you've mentioned. I've skipped over a bunch of criticisms, some of which have no bearing on what I meant (e.g. And really "suspended for ten days?" You think it ever means hang for ten days?, which, no, I don't think it does?). I don't really know what this anger-filled post is about. Are you trying to "knock me down a peg" for criticizing the rewrite of the plot? It wasn't meant personally, none of my comments were. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude:There was an edit conflict. Actually there were two. Here is what I had written earlier. I tried to respond to your "corrections" line by line. I became frustrated with them last night because many are incorrect. (The "diatribe" refers to the post you have responded to. Apologies: Here they are:
Apologies for my diatribe below. I was tired last night and may have misinterpreted your analysis. I'm not scratching it though because interspersed in the diatribe are answers to your questions and an explanation of what my plot text is. I am now also responding immediately below. Where I haven't responded, I have very likely done so in the diatribe. Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph two is a particular offender: The film fast forwards to the present time. Kali and Valli are living in Athipatti village. Kali is an employee of a nearby powerhouse. I think sentence 1 would fit better as a close to paragraph 1. Sentence 2 and 3 should be a single opening sentence: "Kali and Valli live in Athipatti village, where Kali is a worker employed at a nearby powerhouse". Do Kali and Valli live together? or in separate homes?
Where is Kali employed in your putative correction? In the village (worker) or in the nearby powerhouse (employed)? The reality is: "He lives in the village, an employee of the powerhouse in the valley below." Do you see the problem in your version? Compare with: "Kali and Valli live in Philadelphia where Kali is an engineer employed in New York." Secondly, it makes Kali's job an aspect of their living in the village. But what about Valli? Why hasn't her job (homemaker) not been mentioned? In my version the habitation and the employement are disconnected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. In trying to combine the two sentences I introduced an obvious error. I should have identified it immediately, but didn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and talks to Kali about letting them use of the vacant house next door - Either remove "of" or change "use of" to "make use of". Whichever was intended.
Thanks for catching the careless error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kali meanwhile has been assaulting fellow employees ... - Either "Kali, meanwhile, has been ..." or "Meanwhile, Kali has been ...".
Thanks for catching the careless error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... whom he suspects of snitching on him to Kumaran. Kali is given a last warning. - What? Who gave the last warning, what is the last warning, what's the consequence of failing to follow through? Suspension, termination, etc.
See my diatribe below. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In his absence, a child has needed medical attention ... - Why split paragraphs here? You also didn't need to split Elsewhere, on the Chinnamanur canal's bank ....
I haven't looked but it may have happened in the reduction from 1000 words to 700. Will respond later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The next day Kali is suspended for 10 days - "Kali receives a 10 day suspension for ..." (presumably dereliction of duty). "The next day ..." doesn't seem all that significant, so you can cut it to save words.
"suspended for ten days" is fine. No need to prefer the nominalization "suspension." See also the diatribe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to "prefer the nominalization". I was trying to work around The next day ... for 10 days. I could do that with Kali is suspended for 10 days for [insert accurate suspension reason here, if it's not "dereliction of duty" as stated by Ramachandran] which introduces two fors a few words apart. That's why I changed tack in the writing. The intent was not to be a smartass. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... known for his roving eye ... - Meaning?
See my diatribe below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli. Valli is crushed but remains silent - This should be one sentence: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, but remains silent".
No. (I'm assuming you mean, ... and Vallie, who is crushed by the arrangement, remains silent.) You've put "crushed by the arrangement ..." in a subordinate clause, thereby giving greater emphasis to her "silence". It is actually the other way round: "Valli is crushed by hearing the news of the engagement, but remains silent." Silence is subordinate.
Not what I had intended. I was pointing to two sentences that could be merged, particularly to avoid "... Valli. Valli ...". If anything, I have a misplaced comma: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement but remains silent". Spare me the jaron. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be careful with the use of ellipsis. If you are going to merge two sentences, "An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli."and "Valli is crushed but remains silent," and your solution is: "An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house for Murgesa and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement but remains silent." You can't represent it with ellipsis of the form: "... and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, but remains silent," for a reader has no way of knowing you are not incorrectly referring to: "An engagement ceremony is arranged in Kali's house, and Valli, who is crushed by the arrangement, remains silent." It is certainly shorter, and less ambiguous. We already know from an earlier sentence whom Kali has proposed for the engagement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the ceremony, Manga knocks a platter of betel leaves—whose acceptance affirms the engagement—out of Kali's hand. Kali is furious at his wife and batters her head against the wall – Propose slight change of the second sentence to: "Furious with his wife, Kali batters her head against the wall". Batters or bashes? Which fits better?
Same issue here. The appositive, "Furious with his wife," makes the anger subordinate, or incidental (e.g. in the version: "Kali, furious with his wife, batters her head against the wall.") The two clauses are of equal value (or emphasis) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Manga remains unrepentant - Hang on, hang on, what the fuck? Manga is unrepetant? That comes off very poorly, particularly given the beating she's just received.
See my diatribe below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kali triumphantly reminds the onlookers that he remains the most important man in his sister's life. Although his dislike of Kumaran lingers, his ego assuaged, he offers his blessings for the wedding - So did he actually change, or is his ego just sufficiently massaged? (I ask because this scene is the basis for the third paragraph of themes)
Yup. He is still bristling though. The ending was a little unconvincing for me. Forced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that there's a limit of 700 words, but the writing is too terse, un(der-)refined, and lacking in detail in several places.
True, but see my diatribe below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the point. I just hope I haven't contributed to damaging the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Struck: Because I don't think I've done anything remotely destructive.[reply]
Just because I still have a significant issue with the writing of the plot, I'm going to briefly, without offering any solution, point it out. The plot contains (too) many short, choppy sentences:
The film fast forwards to the present time. Kali and Valli are living in Athipatti village. Kali is an employee of a nearby powerhouse. - Three consecutive sentences, each one being eight words long.
Kali is given a last warning. Later, as he is fixing his trolley Manga appears. They flirt by taunting each other. Kali's watch is lying nearby, which Manga on a whim picks up. - Three consecutive sentences, each less than 10 words long, and a fourth sentence at 12 words.
In his absence, a child has needed medical attention. At the winch, the alarm has gone unheeded. Eventually, a passerby steps in to operate the winch. The next day Kali is suspended for 10 days. ... Staggering home, he passes out on an unlit street. A passing truck mangles his left arm. - Four and two consecutive sentences each less than 10 words long.
According to Google, since my ability to use it has been impugned, the average sentence is 15 to 20 words long. In the above cases, the average is 8.3. Overall, across the entire plot, the average is 13.2. If I was feeling generous, I would comment that I understand that part, possibly most, of the cause for this is the requisite cutting done to meet the 700 word limit. I am no longer feeling generous.
I don't care who addresses this, or if it's even addressed. I have expended too much time on this review, and likely taken too much of the nominators' time to address my comments as well. This is the very last half-hour I give. I have left a couple of brief responses in the above hat. Thank you Kailash for addressing the many comments I have left, I wish you good luck with this article. I apologize that I'm leaving without a closing !vote, but I'm done, and I am particularly done given that I could have spent all this time (4-6 hours at least) developing an article for FA. Thank you F&F for the derision, and uncharity (since you struggle with identifying sarcasm correctly, this is sarcasm).

— Mr rnddude 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

That wasn't the plot. Just notes I made while watching a movie with English-language subtitles for two people, you and the nominator, who had not seen the movie, but were nonetheless attempting to whip an article about it into shape. The object of the exercise was to give you something you could wrap your heads around and alter for your needs. Instead, you began to subject my notes to an FAC critique. On the other hand, this is a plot written in a style that meets your needs. The average sentence length is 18 words, the average word length is 4.8 letters. (If any of this really matters; it doesn't to me). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Mr rnddude 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

PS I am only now becoming aware of what has been happening here. As I say above, neither the nominator nor Mr rnddude had seen the movie at the time I first interacted with them (though the nominator did last weekend). When I first read the lead of this article, and glanced at some of the earlier discussion, I was perplexed by the constant references to people riding "the winch" at a power plant, and also the high frequency of expressions such as "self-aggrandizing ways," "doting on his sister," "poor itinerant ... and her aged mother." I asked repeatedly how it was possible for anyone to ride a winch. The nominator eventually replied to me in this post, with an example of a winch on YouTube, which was nothing but a cable-car (i.e. enclosed snow-lift) of the type seen at ski resorts . At first I thought that perhaps in Indian English the word "winch" has that alternative meaning. But an extensive search in the OED and other sources turned up no reference to such usage. (What such a "winch" might be doing at a power plant is another story.) The nominator had also given me links to two sources from which everyone, it seems in retrospect, had been getting their information about the movie. The better of the two sources, though not exactly scholarly, is a biography of a Tamil movie star, Ranjikanth, by N Ramachandran. At that time I didn't bother with looking at those links. This morning I did. Ramachandran erroneously says, "Rajnikanth plays Kaali who is in charge of operating a trolley to a power plant across the hills." This very likely explains how the YouTube link with the ski-resort type cable car turned up in the post. A few days ago, I rented the movie (with English subtitles) on YouTube. It turns out Kaali operates a winch whose cable is connected to a trolley, in reality a makeshift/converted brake van, or caboose, on rails (see cable railway). The winch is on a hilltop. Obviously such a system, exploiting the force of gravity, can only take the trolley down to the bottom of the valley it overlooks and back up again. The trolley can't travel across hills. Ramchandran's book also has "self-aggrandizing" (being used somewhat erroneously), "doting on his sister," (also somewhat erroneously) and "poor itinerant" (quite erroneously). The second source does use the expression "riding the winch," obviously erroneously. The nominator said in the same post that the source was copied from Wikipedia. So who knows where "riding the winch" originated. But, in any case, that explains how people had come to ride winches across the hills at the time I first laid eyes on this article in July. The other, more serious, problem I seem to be realizing this morning, is that the article might not have the critical mass of reliable sources required for an FA. (I am not sure about this yet, but this is my working hypothesis this morning.) Thus far I have seen only one source, an obituary of the director, who died this past April, written by a well-known film critic. I will examine the remaining sources, and post here again, but this is what I have found this morning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Co-ords: The nominators, and particularly Kailash, have put in significant effort in addressing my comments. I will not be !voting, as I am leaving this review. I do want their effort taken into consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

I will review this tomorrow. Mikka nandri! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • " in Sringeri, though some scenes were also filmed in Ooty." -might it be worth adding the state names after them?
Done: I've written in the body, "It was shot primarily in Sringeri, Karnataka, with additional filming in Ooty, Tamil Nadu". Should the lead section also mention the states? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think so.
In that case I've written, "Principal photography lasted for about 30 days, taking place primarily in Sringeri at Karnataka, though some scenes were also filmed in Ooty, Tamil Nadu". --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although notorious for his escapades" - not clear what the nature of his escapades are, is he a bumbling idiot, a sexual predator, a man child throwing tantrums?, can you find a way to reword it to make it clearer without going into detail? " . "Although notorious for his neurotic outbursts and self-aggrandising ways" -is that was you mean? Something like that.
Page 80 of Ramachandran's book says, "He has a bit of a reputation as a local hellraiser, what with his regular escapades and self-aggrandizing ways. But he also does good deeds for the local community from time to time." That's all he says, got any suggestion for this? Besides, I plan on eventually rewatching the film since it is there on Prime Video with subs (last time I saw was pirated) to clarify plot details and enjoy the film as I should have. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: How about "Though notorious locally for his self-aggrandizing, hell-raising ways." ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran" -in what way? Does he throw petrol bombs at his house, put rat droppings in his cereal, slap him in the face, what?
He harbours a grudge. It looks like he scapegoated Kumaran for his misfortune. Ramachandran says in page 81, "Kaali is now unemployed and a deeply frustrated man with misdirected anger towards Kumaran" but no further. What do I do? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With plot, which doesn't need to be sourced, can't you get away with being more specific? That won't be considered OR I don't think as we don't source the plot anyway. I think if anything the plot is a little on the short side and you can afford to add more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mullum Malarum was a novel written by Uma Chandran, and serialised in the Tamil magazine, Kalki" - dates?
This source says 1966. However, it won the award the same year, making me believe the novel began serialisation a year before. To play safe, can I write "in the mid-1960s"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should be OK.
  • "The film adaptation thus marked Mahendran's directorial debut.[14]" - I thought Chettiar agreed to direct it??
Maybe you misread, or my phrasing was bad. Either way, Chettiar agreed to produce. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sorted, yup.
Dr. Blofeld, you removed the sentence (accidentally?) where the novel's Kali loses his arm to a tiger. I've re-added it, saying, "Unlike the novel where Kali loses his arm to a tiger, in Mahendran's screenplay Kali loses it when it is run over by a lorry". Does this require reprhasing? Coincidentally, this is where Mahendran stopped reading, is this line worth mentioning? If so, how? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by accident, sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)
  • ", "Raman aandalum, Ravanan aandalum, enakku oru kavalai illai, naan thaan da en manasukku raaja" (It doesn't matter whether Rama or Ravana is reigning, I am king of my conscience), resisting Kumaran's authoritarian yoke.[58]" shouldn't it be quoted in the translation too?
  • "According to an article published in Cinema Vision India, the film's theme is "that people change—and they must".[59]" -can you elaborate on what they say or not? If not I think that should either be merged into another sentence or remove as it looks out of place and vague currently with what you write next and affects the flow.
  • "Ramachandran claimed Mahendran achieved a milestone, which even if Ramachandran had desired, could not have achieved" - don't like the wording here, can you change it? Just saying something "Ramachandran stated that Mahendran had reached a milestone beyond expectations" or something like that, or whatever the source will permit you to say.
Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Indian Panorama"?
  • "Praised for his performance in what was seen as an experimental film, during the 1990s, he stopped acting in similar films because he had become a "larger-than-life" hero.[92" a bit vague, and negative, doesn't seem to belong here.
If you feel it should be removed, I don't mind. But I do not want to leave the impression that he is still a serious actor of this kind (deep down he is) than the vain star he actually is. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments Blofeld, they are appreciated. The sentence reads in the source, "That people change — and they must — is brought out in Mullum Malarum". That's all. I don't mind removing it since I couldn't identify the article title completely (it can't be "Tamil Nadu"), but if it can stay, do I write this? The film stresses that "people change — and they must"? Besides, the Indian Panorama is "a flagship component of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI) under which best of contemporary Indian films are selected for the promotion of film art." Should it come under "Release and reception" or "Accolades"? Ssven2, I've fixed 90% of Blofeld's comments. Although he has given support despite some lingering comments, my conscience tells me they should all be solved no matter what. Can you please solve the remaining ones? I hope you got the link to Rajinikanth: The Definitive Biography to fix the issues under "Themes". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, will get right on it tomorrow.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been lingering at the bottom of the list and is nearing the two-month mark with open opposition and issues continue to be found. As such, it will be archived shortly. Please open a Peer Review or work out with outstanding issues with reviewers on the article Talk. It may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/September_2019&oldid=918011240"