Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)/archive1
- 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) 17 January 2020 [1].
- Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the debut film of several personalities who later became legends of Tamil cinema, most notably M. G. Ramachandran. I know it is FA-worthy because it is comprehensive and wide in coverage, with every single statement sourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments from Aoba47
[edit]Resolved comments
|
---|
I hope that my comments are helpful. Great work with the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
|
- Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I normally do not strike out comments; that is just not my approach to doing these types of reviews. I will collapse the above comments though if that helps. The revision to the sentence looks good to me; I did not have an issue with the original wording, but it is always best to try and make things as concise as possible for a featured article. I only asked about the rigorous labour part because it was clarified that way in the pressbook, and it is probably a cultural difference as not all American prison sentences for instance require this type of labour. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the plot summary. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Which file are you referring to? File:Krishnamurthy and family Sathi Leelavathi.jpg or File:M. G. Ramachandran in Sathi Leelavathi (1936).jpg? Or both? What should I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Search for "px" in the edit window of the article, and either remove the value or swap it for
|upright=
. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Search for "px" in the edit window of the article, and either remove the value or swap it for
- File:Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film).jpg: why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please see this, and I believe it leads to the answer. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- The linked page argues against deletion of images with copyright restored by URAA. However, this image has a tag stating it is PD under URAA, and my question is why that is believed to be the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know what to do Nikkimaria. Remove the PD-URAA tags from the images (just keep {{PD-India}}) and they can be used? Or remove the pictures altogether? Because apart from the fact that the picture's copyright has expired in accordance with PD-India guidelines, I don't know how it can still be copyrighted in a country where it wasn't published. But I don't know if an Indian film that released on 28 March 1936 would be considered eligible on 1 January 1996. Does this have the answer? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's clear that the image is in the public domain in India - the problem is US status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, specifically the four-point test:
- Is the source country a WTO member or a party to the Berne Convention? Yes, India is.
- Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Yes, it meets the required standard of originality and is not in one of the exclusion categories.
- Was the work published after January 1, 1923? Yes, in 1936.
- Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration? It appears not. The current PD-India tag indicates en expiration 60 years after publication, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year - which would in this case give us 1997, after the date of restoration. This means that US copyright persists.
- You could potentially upload it locally under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
[edit]- " which was serialised since 1934 in the magazine" Which was serialised in 1934? Or which has been serialised since 1934? It's a bit unclear.
- It is unclear whether the novel ended serialisation in 1935, but saying "serialised in 1934" is not misleading in any way is it? Because that's what I wrote now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I see a lot of actors in the first para who don't have a wiki article, either red link them or remove them.
- Some actors like M. K. Mani, P. Nammalvar and M. R. Gnanambal (the female lead) are too important to omit from the lead because of their characters. But red-linking looks like it will do more damage. I don't think these actors will ever have articles because of lack of sources. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Do we really need to link 'directorial debut' in the lead?
- I agree it isn't useful, de-linked. In fact, the page shouldn't even exist as every man has a first film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- And every woman as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree it isn't useful, de-linked. In fact, the page shouldn't even exist as every man has a first film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Link Madras in the second para.
- Madras is linked in the first para in "a wealthy Madras-based man". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Can't see any other issue. All the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from DBigXray
[edit]- Please fill up the "| runtime =" parameter in the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also see if there are others missing parameter in the infobox, that can be added. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Do we really need to include that the reel was of length XY ? what is the significance ? what makes it special ? looks like trivia to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is needed to signal the film was finished in some way. And since there is no source stating the film's runtime in minutes, we can only state it in reel length. So should I add this value in the infobox? I think so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I forgot, in the olden days, reel was used to measure runtime. If I remember correctly there was a standard that 1 reel = W Mins. So the best way here would be to mention runtime = X reels (Y mins). --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- The runtime parameter is filled, but only in reel length. Can a duration in minutes also be added using the standard durations mentioned at Reel ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, is this calculation acceptable? Do I write 180 minutes? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is actually 200 mins, writing it in bracket looks helpful to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, I've written 200 minutes in the infobox. Should I put the reel length in brackets next to it? Do you have further comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- The infobox is fine now. I would suggest to mention "(equivalent to 200 mins)" at the place where the reel length is mentioned. So that one can make out where this 200 mins is coming from. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, I've solved all your comments so far. Do you have further comments? It seems you do. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- marked as fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, I've solved all your comments so far. Do you have further comments? It seems you do. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- The infobox is fine now. I would suggest to mention "(equivalent to 200 mins)" at the place where the reel length is mentioned. So that one can make out where this 200 mins is coming from. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, I've written 200 minutes in the infobox. Should I put the reel length in brackets next to it? Do you have further comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is actually 200 mins, writing it in bracket looks helpful to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray, is this calculation acceptable? Do I write 180 minutes? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is needed to signal the film was finished in some way. And since there is no source stating the film's runtime in minutes, we can only state it in reel length. So should I add this value in the infobox? I think so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- In the section "Filming" There are 2 refs together that are not arranged in ascending order in pair. Please fix this and review the article if more such examples are there. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I identified it at the sentence "lack of on-screen stage influences" and fixed the ref order. No other set of references arranged this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, marked as done, I will try to find more issues in coming days. If no more comments from me then this should be taken as a support from me. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Any further comments DBigXray? If not, you know what to do... at least for the co-ordinators to understand. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, marked as done, I will try to find more issues in coming days. If no more comments from me then this should be taken as a support from me. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is one more near "Danesbury House;[22][2] "--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I identified it at the sentence "lack of on-screen stage influences" and fixed the ref order. No other set of references arranged this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please wikilink Tamil Cinema, Warrant of payment--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. I read the plot in English again and it says, "A Marvari who had lent a huge sum to Krishnamurthy, issues a warrant..." Is the current wording fine and accurate though? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, marked as done. Looks fine. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. I read the plot in English again and it says, "A Marvari who had lent a huge sum to Krishnamurthy, issues a warrant..." Is the current wording fine and accurate though? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Is it the same magazine Silver_Screen_(magazine) If so please wikilink it.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, the link you put here is an American magazine. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking, marked as done. since the indian one does not have an article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, the link you put here is an American magazine. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wikilink anti-alcohol movement to Temperance movement in India--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- What is "Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru" ? a magazine ? newspaper ? please clarify it since Non Tamil speakers cant decipher what it is from the name. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's a book, written. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's a book, written. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please re read and c/e the entire article for WP:CLOP and WP:COPYVIO issues. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I would still want a full sweep to fix issues that might have escaped. I will review it again once you have done your sweep. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the email, I understand that you cannot reply right now, but there is no hurry. Please ping me from this page, once you are unblocked and have checked the entire page to fix the CLOP issues if any. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I would still want a full sweep to fix issues that might have escaped. I will review it again once you have done your sweep. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
[edit]Overall very well done. Just a few things:
- Maybe link directorial debut in the lead?
- I was advised against this by Yashthepunisher, and his reason was justified. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- My main question is (and I'm sorry if this was already answered above) but is there a reason why the film no longer exists in its entirety? I'd really be interested to know. And how much of it remains? Half? Over half? Or only a small fragment?
- Really I don't know. Maybe lack of care and preservation facilities then. Whatever remains is here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Rest looks good. Great job to you! :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Zmbro, so does this mean you'll say support? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yep happy to support :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose from Laser brain
[edit]I scanned this over this morning and find the prose to be deficient. It needs significant work from a strong copyeditor. A few random examples just from the Music section:
- What is a "music director" in the context of an Indian film from that era? No explanation or context is provided.
- You go on to discuss the lyricist and then presumably a song from the film but, again, no context is provided for what you're discussing.
- Who is the composer?
- There are lots of awkward phrases like "based on Subramania Bharati's poem, 'Karumbu Thottathile', with modified lyrics" The phrasing suggests lyrics were written from the poem and then modified for this version... but it's unclear.
- "and the song explored" The song still exists presumably... you need to review what tense is used for writing about creative works like songs and poems.
- "The song, which was composed in the Carnatic raga" The wording here is quite awkward. How do you compose "in a raga"?
These are just pot-shots from one section but it needs significant work to be FA quality prose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: For the record, it turns out that the nominator will be unable to action any proposed suggestions: they were indefintely blocked just after Christmas. Is that an "enforced withdrawal"... ——SN54129 15:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to say probably... I just opposed so I'll leave it to Ian Rose or Ealdgyth to action. --Laser brain (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- if Ian doesn’t get it by the time we stop at a place where I can type, I’ll do it then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the extent of the copyvio investigation into this nominator, along with Laser brain's oppose, archiving seems appropriate here. Earwig shows no current copyvio, but the history might need investigation nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I will suggest waiting for a month before archiving this. Nom has applied for unblock and talking with him, I feel he is ready to help fix the problems. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then it could come back to FAC in a month, after addressing issues raised by Laserbrain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I will suggest waiting for a month before archiving this. Nom has applied for unblock and talking with him, I feel he is ready to help fix the problems. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Considering the extent of the copyvio investigation into this nominator, along with Laser brain's oppose, archiving seems appropriate here. Earwig shows no current copyvio, but the history might need investigation nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- if Ian doesn’t get it by the time we stop at a place where I can type, I’ll do it then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.