Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mullum Malarum/archive2

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2018 [1].

Mullum Malarum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an artistic milestone in the career of Rajinikanth, who most people see as a mere star. The last FAC failed because two dominantly used books were found to be a case of WP:MIRROR; in removing them the article was extensively reworked, and I think it is more FAC worthy now. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

[edit]

Welcome back, sir. Good to see you take up this; better late than never.

Lead
  • I don't know Tamil language at all. However, being familiar with its cinema's poster designs, i do believe that the poster being used here isn't a Theatrical release poster. Correct me if i am wrong, or else, change the caption please.
Done: Since it doesn't show the release date, one should not assume it is the theatrical release poster. But it is still an official poster, as it is from the NFAI archives. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title has two translations. But please opt for that one which suits the story really. Agreed Kali is a thorn and his sister is blossoming into a flower i.e. she is coming of age. That is what the film wants to convey. But, the way Kali's character graph changes towards the end, i think the second translation would be optimal.
It is Baradwaj Rangan who pointed out these two translations. But I'll ask anyone else how to include two translations, since I considered the first one accurate for years. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Mr. Rangan had stated was more of a thematic analysis and needs to be mentioned in the Themes section (where it was already written). When you are using the {{lit|}} template, it is better to use the literal translation. So, yes, i take my previous comment back. The first translation is a better choice. Pavanjandhyala 14:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film, starring Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, was Mahendran's directorial debut and is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name." -- In the previous line, you have mentioned that it was Mahendran's directorial debut. Why again?
Done. Maybe it's a mistake by the GOCE editor. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capitulated" sounds too GRE-ish. Why not something like "yielded into" or "reluctantly agreed"?
Done: Put "reluctantly agreed". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra (also a director) assisted Mahendran with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing." -- Mahendran repeated twice in the same line.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rajinikanth's performance as Kali received unanimous praise, and it is widely considered the best performance of his career." -- Correct me if i am wrong (poor English language skills) but, i don't think we use "it" there. And why not simply career best performance?
  • "Mullum Malarum, a breakthrough for Rajinikanth and a milestone of Tamil cinema..." -- breakthrough as? a supporting actor? a lead actor? a supporting actor playing positive roles? Please be clear.
Done. I've written it as a milestone for him as an actor (as opposed to being a star). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dereliction of duty" -- i think negligence alone suffices. i say it because, abandoned the winch is wikilinked to desertion.
  • Murugesa (a philandering grocer) -- Why the brackets?
Done: Replaced with a comma. Blame it on the GOCE editor's penchant for adding brackets. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last line of the plot is somewhat abrupt. There is no hint about Kali's change of heart and why. You wrote it better in the Themes section, but people would not go there to know the plot, will they?
Done: I've written that he is relieved that Valli still respects him before letting her marry Kumaran. Do you find it consistent with the line in "Themes"? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Pavanjandhyala 04:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "novel of the same name by Umachandran" -- "written by" or "authored by"
  • "...for the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee" -- Sounds as if the magazine celebrated its silver jubilee annually. Rephrase it as "silver jubilee in 1966".
Done as asked. The magazine was founded in 1941, and silver jubilee means 25th anniversary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why always mention Kamal Haasan's name fully? Is there any other actor or technician working for the film with the same last name?
Done: I've simply described him as "Haasan" in subsequent mentions. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "typecasting as a villain" -- is that about typecasting in his previous films like Gayathri and Moondru Mudichu?
I guess so; he was primarily known for his villainous roles at that time. Apoorva Raagangal, 16 Vayathinile, Aadu Puli Attam, Katha Sangama, Avargal, Anthuleni Katha... all these came before MM. But I'm not saying Rajinikanth only played villains before this film, just that he was best known for such roles, an exception being Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977). So nothing should be confusing.
  • Reluctant agreement implies still being unhappy. Why mention it again in the next line? Any reason behind it?
The source says, "Ridiculous! Preposterous! You say there is no romantic lead for the hero and you also say a villain plays the main role," mumbled Chettiar audibly whenever he went to the location. This was after Chettiar conceded to Mahendran's wish to cast Rajini. Part of the quote is incorrect (blame it on the editor) since Rajinikanth did have a romantic lead: Jayalakshmi. But I think it answers your question. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Pavanjandhyala 09:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Themes section, up to this point, is perhaps the best written section of this article.
  • Soundtrack is also fine, given there is nothing much to write really there.
  • Is a film passed or cleared for viewing by the censor board?
I think it is the latter, so I've gone with it. Either way, the censor certificate is dated 4 August. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chettiar, who despaired of its success and thought he was "doomed", refused to underwrite any more publicity -- underwrite? i think it is not the right word in the given context.
The source says he refused to "give" more publicity to the film. I've written accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahendran's quote, does it add any real value? All what he said has been detailed above in the appropriate sections. Would you like to explain? If there is a justifiable reason, i shall be very happy.
On second thoughts, yes it adds little value; also, Mahendran says the producer "never turned up on the sets", while the "development" section says he did. I'll try merging tomorrow. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed the quote altogether as it adds nothing new. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander, wrote a letter of appreciation" -- a comma is missing.
Done: Replaced the colon (:) with a comma. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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" -- a comma is missing.
Done: I've put the comma after 1990s. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any real comment on Rajinikanth's performance in the retrospective reviews, like the one this offers. (I personally tried and didn't find much. So i take back my comment.)

Support -- I have no further issues to be answered at the moment and i do support the article's promotion to FA. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 04:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pavan. Nevertheless, I've added the IE article where the writer praises his "vulnerability and rawness". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

[edit]

Reading through. Sorry that it took me a while to get here. VedantTalk 17:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is music an integral part of the film? The mention of the composer in the opening line is a little odd.
Done: transferred to second paragraph. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production was tumultuous" - The problem with such a claim is that it is too vague in itself. Maybe, connect with an "as".
Done: I put an "as". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without context, this: "Chettiar was surprised that the finished film had less dialogue than visuals, which he did not expect from Mahendran." makes little sense in the lead.
Done: Removed as it didn't seem to fit there. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""during India's Independence Day"" - during?
Would this be better? MM was released on 15 August 1978, the same day as India's Independence Day.? The word "co-inciding" is often discouraged as it implies unintentionality. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement.
  • It was also dubbed in...
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with "milestone in Tamil cinema" as I consider that grammatically correct. I don't know why the GOCE editor did that. Are you fine with my suggestion? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i think that should do it.

I apologize again Kailash, I haven't really had any time on wiki whatsoever. I'll jump to the release and reception section as that takes the longest to review (will get to the rest too).

Here are the comments:

  • "there were problems with its release" - do we know what they were?
It appears it was this incident, listed under filming: "Chettiar held up production by not financing a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but Haasan funded the scene". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chettiar, who despaired of its success and thought he was "doomed", refused to give any more publicity" - the entire bit is a little problematic. One and too many; give any more publicity isn't proper either.
  • "Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, which he politely refused." - Interesting, but not really​ encyclopediac. It's a little, idk, melodramatic?
Perhaps it is important to mention that they reconciled, isn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director isn't the best choice.
  • "After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander, wrote in a letter of appreciation: "I'm proud".
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mullum Malarum received positive reviews when it was released. The Name is Rajinikanth (2008) by Gayathri Sreekanth says that critics said, "Finally" - Again, one attribution too many. In fact, why not remove them altogether. and rephrase as "Mullum Malarum was well received at the times of its initial release, with commentators describing it as the coming of age of Tamil cinema."
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu's quote is huge, you might have paraphrase it.
Yes, it has to be paraphrased. But I wasn't the one who added it. I'll find a way to paraphrase it in a day or two. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retrospective reviews could use a little variety, with two sentences beginning in the same manner.
  • "The fact that Mahendran and Balachander entered the world of cinema as writers shows in the strong storylines and dialogues of their films such as Mahendran's Mullum Malarum (1978) and Balachander's Apoorva Raagangal (1975) and Thanneer Thanneer (1981)." - the entire quote can be paraphrased very easily.
  • Is the TOI review only a rating?
Yes it is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the section is focussed on Rajnikanth so why don't give a brief statement at the beginning of the second paragraph, one similar to the one in the lead?
  • Also shift all non-Rajnikanth buts to the first paragraph and all Rajnikanth bits to the second and third.
  • "The actor won the Arima Sangam" - again, The actor.
I've written, "He also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the rest. VedantTalk 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant, please see if your comments have been resolved. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Give me another day or two Kailash. VedantTalk 20:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second look

The reception could still use some reorganising. Here are some comments:

  • Aoba47's comment about the attribution to the review hasn't been fully addressed ("A 25 August 1978 review in The Hindu stated that the film", "The review further noted that " for instance.)
  • There are still some stray reviews about Rajnikanth's performance in the first paragraph of the Retrospective reviews section. It should be moved to the other paragraph which should exclusively talk about Rajnikanth's performance.

Kailash I was in Kerala this past month and it wasn't the most favorable environment. I really haven't been editing wiki at all, but I do plan on finishing this review. Let me know if you have any queries. VedantTalk 11:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you made it back safely. I moved the Rediff review to the third para of "Retrospective reviews", please see if it is fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kailash29792 I'm back home, thanks. VedantTalk 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Continued
  • "Mullum Malarum is based on a novel of the same name written by Umachandran, which was published in the Tamil magazine, Kalki." - was the novel episodic?
No, I don't think it was serialised. Short stories don't appear long enough to be serialised, and the source reads, "He also gave away prizes to winners in the Novel Short Story Competitions held in connection with the Jubilee celebrations." I guess I should get the whole page via WP:RESOURCE REQUESTS. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the information concurs with the source it should be fine, it was just a little odd: an entire novel being published in a magazine. VedantTalk 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won the first prize in Kalki's Novel"
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visually-focused film" - is there a more appropriate term for this?
This was the term I used to replace "visually-rich", which I agreed sounded POV-ish. Would "focused on visuals" sound better? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mohan appeared in the opening credits" - appeared? does that mean his name was mentioned as producer?
Done: Although Chettiar and Mohan were the producers, only Mohan's name is listed in the credits. I have written as such. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also fix the review attribution bit on the music section?
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the article one more time, once the comments are addressed. VedantTalk 16:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kailash29792, I've been through the article again (barring the Themes section) and see considerable improvements. That said, I think that the article can still use some polishing in prose: for instance, the Legacy section might also read as a series of unconnected sentences in parts. At this point, I'm neither against nor for the promotion. Great work on the article, it's not easy to get a 1978 Indian film here! I just think that the prose can still use some polishing, good luck. VedantTalk 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Themes" section had uneven paragraphs. I've somewhat levelled it now. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vedant, now I've discovered sources which state it was a serialised story (not a short story) and that it won in a novel competition, not a short story competition. Both competitions were held at the same ceremony is what I realise. I've rewritten the development section accordingly, please see if the wording is fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • For the ALT text for the infobox image, I would specify the type of musical instrument that the character is holding.
Done: I've written it as a hand drum. Anyone with better knowledge of Indian percussion instruments can write what exactly it is. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the infobox image caption, I would specify what type of poster it is. Is it a theatrical release poster?
Earlier, that is what I wrote. But Pavan (now Veera Narayana) thought it might not be so. Since it lacks the release date and a billing block, I too thought it might not a theatrical release poster, so I played safe and simply wrote "poster". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the dispute costs him his left arm and his job), I am not sure if “dispute” is the right word choice here as it sounds rather tame. After reading through the plot summary, it sounds like he lost his arm after getting drunk so I am not sure about the connection between the dispute and the loss of his left arm.
  • For this part “(also a director) assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing.), I would do think that the “(also a director)” part is necessary.
I think Balu Mahendra assisted J. Mahendran since the former was already an established director. That is why (also a director) was written. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is because I am an American, but I have never heard the word “lorry” before. I would wikilink it in this sentence (a lorry runs over his left arm, which is later amputated.).
I think lorry is British for truck. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Since the term may not be familiar to American readers, I've wikilinked it. Otherwise, I'd have written it as "truck" with no wikilink. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the wording of the sentence (His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's negative side in a series of incidents (including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules).) can be improved, specifically the phrase “Kali’s negative side” to be quite vague. I would revise that part. I have never seen this film, but from my understanding from this article, Kumaran does not like Kali as he does not follow the rules.
Now I have replaced "negative" with "unruly". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part (because of his strict application of the rules.). I think that (because of his strict adherence to the rules) would be better as it sounds like the character is trying to follow the rules that have already been set out rather creating his own rules.
Done: Written exactly as you suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this sentence (Although Manga becomes fond of Kali, he is repelled by her fondness for food.) to avoid the repetition of the word “fond”.
  • I am probably missing something really obvious, but I am not sure what this part (her fondness for food) means? Could you specify this point further?
Page 80 of this book says, "Manga takes a shine to Kaali but he is disgusted with her gluttonous ways as her main focus in life is food." Can I write that, although she develops a liking for Kaali, he is disgusted with her gluttonous nature? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (In his absence, an emergency arises at the plant.), could you clarify what kind of emergency occurred at the power plant as it is pretty vague right now?
Page 81 does not mention what the emergency was. I too don't remember what it was, but the important point is, he took off from duty when he was not supposed to, hence he was suspended. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village with no assets and no one to assist them, Valli helps them set up a home in the village.), I am not sure that the (with no assets and no one to assist them) part is really necessary.
Now I have written "When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home. Although Manga develops a liking for Kali, he is repelled by her fondness for food." Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Unemployed, Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran and Manga feels guilty because she is responsible for Kali's plight.), I would add a comma after “Kumaran” to fully separate the two ideas in the sentence.
Done as suggested. Or would splitting the sentence using a full stop be a better option? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the repetition of the word “impressed” in these two sentences (Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali's affection for his sister and the loss of his arm.[5] He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed.[6]).
  • I would revise this part (and did not expect such a visually-rich film) to (and did not expect a film focused on visuals). Something about “visually-rich” sounds too much like praise for a section that should be objective.
Done. "visually-rich" has long been replaced with a new wording. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers), I am assuming you mean “the siblings’ relationship).
Yes, the relationship between siblings, in that Kali is the thorn and Valli is the flower. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've written, "the relationship between siblings". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of great information in the “Themes” section, but I am confused the overall structure of the section. It seems to bounce around between ideas without a cohesive narrative. For instance, the first paragraph goes from a comparison between the siblings and flowers to a discussion on the film’s treatment of poverty. I would work on the flow/transitions between the ideas within the paragraphs.
All info here is sorted according to writers. I hope that clarifies. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in this part (The 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini by P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan describes), I would avoid saying that a book making an analysis on the film as it is really the author doing that.
Now I've written, In their 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan describe Kali as "the loving brother, the angry worker and despondent physically challenged person rolled into one." Is it fine? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that this is not added to the main FAC page? I would imagine it would get more commentary if put up there.
Am I the only one who can put it there? If so, how? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this article. Hopefully, my comments will help you. I will look through the article again once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for the delay. I thought Ssven2 solved them. Please see if they are solved. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, I'd strike out any comment I consider resolved. But I think only you are at liberty to strike out your own comments (if I'm wrong, I'll strike 'em out myself). Also, do you consider the lit. template to be used properly in the lead section? The second translation must not be removed since it is also literal. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not suggesting that you strike out my comments. Rather, I would appreciate it if you put "done" or something along those lines under each one, as I still some comments that were not fully addressed. And the template in the lead seems to be fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, now I've solved your comments after carefully going through each. Anything else? Meanwhile, at the soundtrack section, I have cited this as the source for the soundtrack. Is it correctly formatted, or am I missing something? I was confused whether to add Columbia (the label), The Gramophone Company Of India (manufacturer and distributor) or EMI (the Record Company) to the publisher field, but went with Columbia. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one small issue before I can support it for promotion. Discogs is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and I would recommend just citing the album directly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather shocked by your comment because I thought Discogs, due to having its own Wiki page and legitimately showing album information straight from the horse's mouth without distorting details, was a RS. Alright, I'll remove the link, but what should be in the publisher field? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

[edit]

I did not try too hard, but you could add photos such as the director File:J Mahendran at Veena S Balachander Felicitation.jpg, or the cast.

Let me know what you think. Kees08 (Talk) 06:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08, thank you for the suggestions, but I don't know what the instrument in the poster is called. It is certainly a hand drum (not sure if it is a kanjira or a damaaram), hence I've rewritten the alt text. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it a teeny bit, but I recommend you add what they are wearing (I see a saree for example). You should also say that the text is written in..Hindi?..in blue and purple. I write alt text as if I am describing the image to a visually impaired individual. That is the point of alt text after all! Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has been open for two months now. Although we are still getting comments, this is approaching the point where we will be archiving shortly. I've added it to the urgent list, but if nothing happens in the next week, this will be archived. Sarastro (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open since the end of June but has only attracted one support. Even if Aoba47 switches to support, I don't think we have a clear consensus to promote and it is better to archive this FAC. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Those who have commented here can be informed when the new FAC starts, and it might be worth asking for a few reviewers to take a look informally before renomination. That might prevent another long wait in the queue next time. Sarastro (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2018 (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/Mullum_Malarum/archive2&oldid=858260018"